Rental property forclosure?

Question

I have a property in California that I was unable to sell when I moved out of state. I currently have renters occupying it, but they only pay about 50% of the monthly expenses on the property. It is killing me financially to support the property. I think selling it for what I owe plus realtor fees in the current market conditions would be unlikely. What could I expect if I contacted the bank and simply said you can have it?

Answer 1

I also have rental property and am upside with payment vs mortgage. I think giving it to the bank is a bad idea. I have got several letter from people trying to buy my property. Companies buy properties cash no realator fees and sometimes the renters can even stay in place.If I were you I would look into this before ruining your credit. The other option may be to get an adjustable loan to lower the house payment. Good luck.

Answer 2

2

Answer 3

You could expect them to determine if you qualify for a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.

Usually, banks want to see the property on the market for at least a few months, as well as a documented hardship on your part, showing that you can no longer afford the property. If you're unable to sell it after a few months, they may allow you to voluntarily give the property back to them.

The tenants will have to move out, however, since the bank is not in the business of managing properties. They will be getting the property ready to list with a Realtor and resell. Maybe you could talk to the tenant about the situation and get their thoughts on paying more rent. Make sure they know the alternative is moving out of the property -- either voluntarily after the deed-in-lieu or by eviction when the bank assumes possession of the property they now own.

The deed-in-lieu of foreclosure will still negatively affect your credit, however. It's not quite as bad as an actual foreclosure, but the deed-in-lieu will appear on your credit. It shows possible creditors that you borrowed money and gave the collateral to the creditor instead of making the payments, which is what they really want.

You may want to try selling the property on your own, either to a buyer or an investor. Investors are usually interested in properties that produce income. The fact that the tenant isn't paying much in terms of rent will hurt, of course.

Good luck. Hopefully you can work out some mutually beneficial solution to the problems.

ForeclosureFish
http://www.foreclosurefish.com/

Answer 4

As long as the owner still has title to the land the contract between them and the third party is valid and you still owe rent, so yes at this point the broker can move for non-payment of rent but the lease is a two way street That said, if the house is foreclosed upon by the bank, by law the agreement the broker has with the owner is terminated, the lease you have with the broker is voided, but the broker will owe you the security deposit and can not deduct any monies since the house is owned by the bank, also a long shot, but the owner did breach the lease by allowing the place to be foreclosed upon now normally when an owner is foreclosed they do not have much assets but the broker does and they technically breached the lease, thus some type of liability for breaching the lease maybe moving cost? At least, So you can sue the broker for security deposit, then for the breach I would try moving cost, as well

Answer 5

You are in situation. I am investor in Colorado and would look at buying your property or pushing it off to an investor in California for you. You must be flexible, it is much better than letting the bank have it and ruining your credit. Please email me or contact a local investor. [e-mail]

Answer 6

Rent-To-Own Homes : http://RentToOwnHome.uzaev.com/?jIIU