Hello everyone,
Luke posted a question below, that has been on my mind also. But I'd like to be a bit more specific.
I'd like to know how "Subject To" transactions occur as a licensee who stumbles onto a prospective, appropriate deal . . . for his own portfolio.
I am located in the suburb of the San Fernando Valley, which is part of Los Angeles, California.
I was recently told that a licensee in California cannot do a "Subject To" transaction for himself, because this type of transaction involves circumventing the "due on sale" clause (also know as an "acceleration clause"). Apparently this is because the lender would no longer have a relationship with the "new owner", and no longer have the ability to invoke the due on sale clause. This is a normal "option" that the lenders normally have, but is pretty much un-exercised these days.
Even though I have been told that this process is not against the law, it apparently is considered to be an "unethical" practice in California, to "circumvent" the due on sale clause.
However, it is my understanding that a "Subject To" transaction is O.K. if you're representing someone else. And that there is a checkbox on the CAR form that indicates this type of transaction is perfectly alright. So what is the difference?
Can anybody shed some light on this issue?
Is this type of transaction only valid in California, if the lender agrees? Would the lender ever agree when it is in their best interest to simply re-write a new mortgage with a higher interest rate? (and maybe kill a deal in the process?)
Thanks in advance,
_________________________
Big Brad
A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.