Archive for November, 2009

Flopping = Mortgage Fraud?

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Does “flopping” truly imply mortgage fraud?  That’s what some are saying, but I’m not sure that I fully agree.  Let me walk you through my thought process and you can let me know if you think I’m on the right track or just a bumbling idiot!  However, if you call me the bumbling idiot, all I ask is that you back it up with highlights to where my logic is wrong.

“Flopping” is a term starting to gain acceptance as indicating the flip of a short sale property.  The idea is that you buy a short sale property for $X from the lender, and then sell it for $Y shortly thereafter.  The spread between $X and $Y is the gain the flopper stands to make.  Put some real numbers to this: maybe you can negotiate with a bank to acquire a short sale for $100k and then turn around and sell it to another buyer for $125k just a few days later … as the flopper in this scenario, you would have just grossed $25k.  Not bad for a couple days work.

Accelerate this idea and have a buyer lined up before you actually acquire the property from the bank.  Now, you’re not waiting a few days to hopefully resell the property, but, instead, you are ensuring yourself of a buyer and able to turn the property over in a matter of hours.  This type of behavior isn’t uncommon – check out the the article “The new flipping: short sales” that highlights it being done in Florida.

The argument by those opposed of this practice is that you are defrauding the bank of the extra money that you just made off the $X/$Y spread.  Let’s say a bank holds a $150k mortgage on a property and sells it to you for $100k.  They just took a $50k hit.  Now, if you turn around and sell that property to someone else for $125k, you just made $25k … that’s $25k the bank could have potentially recouped if they had been able to sell the house to your buyer.  But, my question is, why should this be considered mortgage fraud rather than the natural course of business?

To me, business is all about matching a customer to a product at a price that the customer finds justifiable.  If the bank wasn’t OK with selling the property at $100k, then they shouldn’t have made the deal.  They should have put in the effort to find a buyer that would have paid them $125k.  That’s not the flopper’s fault – it’s the bank’s.

Think of it this way – let’s say you are shopping for a sweater and find one at Nordstrom that you like, but, unbeknown to you, the exact same sweater could be purchased for less from Macy’s.  Now, if the Nordstrom employee knows that the sweater is cheaper at Macy’s, should they be required to disclose this to you?  Of course not!  Were you just a victim of consumer fraud?  Of course not!  You lost money because you didn’t take the time and put in the effort to find the best deal … just like the bank.

Some will probably say this is an unfair comparison because the bank could be in a distressed position while the Macy’s/Nordstrom stores are not.  But, is this not part of doing business?  The bank is smart enough to understand the repercussions of agreeing to the sale of the property, and, if they’re not, they shouldn’t be in business in the first place.

I’m struggling to see how this is mortgage fraud, but would love to get clarification from anyone that has a better understanding…

8 Common Ways To Hold Title

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

As a real estate agent, I make it a point to never advise a client on the appropriate method for them to take title of a property … however, that doesn’t mean I don’t want to help them find relevant information about the subject.  The following was passed along to me by Shelly Sutter from Chicago Title – thanks Shelly!

Title to real property in California may be held by individuals, either in Sole Ownership or in Co-Ownership.  Co-Ownership of real property occurs when the title is held by two or more persons.  There are several variations as to how title may be held in each type of ownership.  The following brief summaries reference eight of the more common examples of Sole Ownership and Co-Ownership.

  1. A Single Man/Woman
    A man or woman who is not legally married.
    Example: John Doe, a single man.
  2. An Unmarried Man/Woman
    A man or woman, who having been married is legally divorced or, a man or woman, having been in a registered domestic partnership that has been legally dissolved.
    Example: John Doe, an unmarried man.
  3. A Married Man, Woman or Registered Domestic Partner, As His/Her Sole and Separate Property
    When a married man, woman or a registered domestic partner wishes to acquire title in his or her name alone, the spouse/partner must consent, by quitclaim deed or otherwise, to transfer thereby relinquishing all right, title and interest in the property.
    Example: John Doe, a domestic partner, as his sole and separate property.
  4. Community Property
    The California Civil code defines community property as property acquired by husband and wife, or by either. Real property conveyed to a married man or woman is presumed to be community property, unless otherwise stated. Under community property, both spouses have the right to dispose of one half of the community property. If a spouse does not exercise his/her right to displose of one-half to someone other than his/her spouse, then the one-half will go to the surviving spouse without administration. If a spouse exercises his/her right to dispose of one-half, that half is subject to administration in the estate.
    Example: John Doe & Mary Doe, husband and wife as community property.
    Example: John Doe & Mary Doe, husband and wife.
    Example: John Doe, a married man.
    Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights and protection.
  5. Joint Tenancy
    A joint tenancy estate is defined in the Civil Code as follows: A joint interest is owned by two or more persons in equal shares, by title created by a single will or transfer, when expressly declared in the will or transfer to be joint tenancy. A chief characteristic of joint tenancy property is the right of survivorship. When a joint tenant dies, title to the property immediately vests in the surviving joint tenant(s). As a consequence, joint tenancy property is not subject to disposition by will.
    Example: John Doe and Joe Smith, registered domestic partners, as joint tenants.
  6. Tenancy In Common
    Under tenancy in common, the co-owners own undivided interests; but unlike joint tenancy, these interests need not be equal in quantity or duration, and may arise at different times. There is no right of survivorship; each tenant owns an interest which, on his or her death, vests in his or her heirs or devisees.
    Example: John Doe, a single man, as to an undivided 3/4ths interest, and George Smith, a single man, as to an undivided 1/4th interest, as tenants in common.
  7. Trust
    Title to real property in California may be held in a title holding trust. The trust holds legal and equitable title to the real estate. The trustee holds title for the trustor/beneficiary who retains all of the management rights and responsibilities.
  8. Community Property With Right of Survivorship
    Community Property of a husband and wife, when expressly declared in the transfer document to be community property with the right of survivorship, and which may be accepted in writing on the face of the document by a statement signed or initialed by the grantees, shall, upon the death of one of the spouses, pass to the survivor, without administration, subject to the same procedures as property held in joint tenancy. Registered domestic partners hsall have the same rights and protections.