Tuesday, March 30th, 2010 at 10:24am

Webinar Wednesday 3/31: Navigating the Paperwork Maze

Posted by Ron Ballard
On Wednesday March 31, Justin Lee is interviewing me about “Navigating the Maze of Contract Paperwork” in short sale investing.
This will cover general, national issues and use California specific examples to benefit investors in California and across the country.
The California DRE announcement last week makes proper disclosure and compliance even more important.
What starts in California often spreads across the nation.
At this moment, I can’t promise a replay or a permanent link.  
 If there’s time left, we’ll open up to Q & A. Priority will be given to questions from registered members posted in the Comments below and to Justin’s coaching students who contact him.

4 Responses to “Webinar Wednesday 3/31: Navigating the Paperwork Maze”

  1. Susan Rosenstein says:

    In light of this CA DRE paper and given the fact that neither my partner nor I are realtors, are there any ways that we can get paid for negotiating/facilitating the short sale especially when we have to pull out of the middle of the transaction and go A-C?

  2. Juan Escobar says:

    Yes. a few questions:

    Thanks very much for your efforts and diligent work in answering these questions and presenting the information for investors. Excellent work.

    Now, a few questions:

    1. I’m certain you will repeat the obvious as was stated in the DRE announcement — that a person or company negotiating the debt with the lender must in fact be licensed by the DRE as an agent or broker. Of course, for some of us, this means we must alter our business model and adhere to the rule and hire on more licensed agent who not only like this type of work but are are very, very good at working with investors and lenders.

    What else can we do?? If anything at all?

    2. The DRE announcement makes a statement that they believe there is an issue of ” fraud” when a home is apparently described as having two different values to two different lenders ( one the defaulted lender and the other the NEW, lender for the buyer) at the same time and the author’s call it ” distressed” and “non-distressed.” Are the authors of this document completely wrong on this issue ( and why? is this out of their own lack of understanding of “liquidated value” versus “fair market value.” — I find this shocking!) or is there something else?

    Please comment.

    3. If a deal goes A to C, and the investors wants to attempt to capture income, from a cancellation, or recession fee, for the outright cancellation of the A to B contract, in order to create the A to C contract, PRIOR to anything in the A to C transaction — what is the best method of setting this up, and how can the fee be captured PRIOR to the escrow of HUD of the A to C deal, it at all.

    I have heard both sides that it can be done and, on the contrary, that it should not be done since the defaulted lender should be informed of all fees related to the transaction ( inside of that HUD.) I think you can see the difference.

    Please comment. Thank Ron Ballard.

  3. ridgegroup says:

    If we use DC Fawcett’s negotiators or another professional out-of-state company that does short sale negotiations for a fee, then are we still held to the regulation that these negotiators must be realtors or attorneys?

  4. Michael Corradini says:

    Agents are asking from the DRE letter comments “Don’t we have to disclose there are other offers on the property higher than offer by investor” ? Your disclosure does not specifically say there are higher offers, just that the Buyer is doing this for immediate profit. What is the distinction in regards to what is actually required to tell the lender?

© 2010-2010 California Short Sale Lawyer™: Attorney Ron Ballard's blog about California short sale laws and procedures