Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
absolutely. Like, my goal for my clients is to get them off the hook.
If the lender is willing to cancel the debt in association with the deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure. I'm all for it. Just statistically, I've probably had 10 clients,
20 clients that have tried that, mostly pre foreclosure and I would say that 10-15%
have been successful. It's kinda a dismal statistic but it's one more avenue that
you should try and I recommend try everything.
I'll typical do a flat fee kind of deal for pre-foreclosure stuff which would,
deed-in-lieu, would be a part of that. If the paperwork that I get back says we'll
cancel the debt, we're all good. If it says, No you'll still be responsible for the
deficiency. I'll typically cross through that and hand write my own provision and
send that back to the lender and I've had the lender accept that,
and I've had the lender just reject that. If the lender rejects it,
obviously they haven't suffered enough pain yet, to do the right thing.
Back to this analysis, typically the problem with the deed-in-lieu from the lenders
perspective is the lender has an event where the turn their paper loss into an
actual loss. At that time they do the deed-in-lieu.They get a property that comes on
their balance sheet and they have to put it on their balance sheet at today's market
value then they have to mow the grass pay, a real estate broker sometime in the
future to sell it. Typically, and I would say 9 times out of 10 it makes more sense
for a lender to accept a short sale because then they actually get cash in the door
the same day they have the balance sheet event. And So, to me,
my clients their goal is to get off the hook . I say try whatever you want,
but typically a short sale is going to be better for the lender as long as the price
is the right price, than a deed-in-lieu.