• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
SUCKISSTAPLES said:   The other partners are not going to treat his discount as his downpay ment


Op if this friend of a friend does not give you attractive terms. , let me know. I might know investors who can make you a better deal


But does the $200K need to e considered as a discount?

Technically, the place is being sold as $1.7M, and OP is getting a $200K rebate from the seller.

Hublot said:   After calculation, it seems that the whole deal would be a bit simpler and cheaper if THEY buy the house while giving me a Purchase option lease.
And this scenario would then make my name appear on the title - does someone here confirm that?


Oh, man, if you need confirmation from a anonymous message board, you are in serious trouble.

Hublot said:   
1 - she s selling before being foreclosed
...
4 - a lot of "private investors" are knocking at the door every other day (the rest of the time they put "We buy CASH" flyers in every mailbox)

No wonder they come every other day; they have scoured default notices. Has a trustee sale been scheduled ?

TYH3 said:   If I am reading right, she is already missing payments. How much does she owe? Will $1.5M cover it? If she is close to being foreclosed, she might have stopped paying property tax, utility bills and might have other liens (mechanic's liens etc doesn't show up right away in public records). Definitely don't assume. Given her $$ trouble, why would she leave $200K (discount for you) on the table? Deal seems to be too good to be true.

3 attorneys checked the title and all told me it was clean: one name (hers), one lien (the reverse mortgage, about 500K outstanding).
Foreclosure will start if she doesnt sell soon - she has a deadline already.

I m not sure it s too good to be true: in the end, the $/sqft ratio is pretty much within the local bracket.
Also the discount i got is the result of 3 things:
- me having paid 10 years worth of rent on time and in cash
- me offering to buy her house, pay off her debt, while offering her one year of free rent so that she can pack and move out to Florida.
- me being a good friend of the family (parents, husband and kids) and having my picture on the wall at the parents house.

tolamapS said:   Hublot said:   After calculation, it seems that the whole deal would be a bit simpler and cheaper if THEY buy the house while giving me a Purchase option lease.
And this scenario would then make my name appear on the title - does someone here confirm that?


Oh, man, if you need confirmation from a anonymous message board, you are in serious trouble.



My question is: does anybody confirm the fact that as soon as i exercise my purchase option (and i intend to do it on closing day), my name therefore appears on the title?

Alcibiades said:   Hublot said:   
1 - she s selling before being foreclosed
...
4 - a lot of "private investors" are knocking at the door every other day (the rest of the time they put "We buy CASH" flyers in every mailbox)

No wonder they come every other day; they have scoured default notices. Has a trustee sale been scheduled ?


No trustee sale, she s still ahead of bank s deadline for foreclosure, so technically she s perfectly entitle to sale on regular market.

Hublot said:   tolamapS said:   Hublot said:   After calculation, it seems that the whole deal would be a bit simpler and cheaper if THEY buy the house while giving me a Purchase option lease.
And this scenario would then make my name appear on the title - does someone here confirm that?


Oh, man, if you need confirmation from a anonymous message board, you are in serious trouble.



My question is: does anybody confirm the fact that as soon as i exercise my purchase option (and i intend to do it on closing day), my name therefore appears on the title?
How are you going to exercise this purchase option at closing if you can't buy the property in the first place? Real estate terms can mean different things in different parts of the country; perhaps you are using the "purchase option" term in a different way than customary. Generally, a purchase option gives a renter an option to buy a property at the end of the lease term at a specified price, often with a portion of the rents credited towards the purchase.

BADADVICE said:   

Somebody correct me, but the risk for you is that if only their name is on the title, they own 100% of the building and after the deal is done (or down the road, or after a divorce or whatever the situation) they can just sell the whole thing and you get nothing and are evicted onto the street. This is why you will need a very clearly stated legal agreement.


Indeed, and this is what i m working on obtaining: some sort of legal agreement that clearly states the order of things.
Despite numerous books, how precisely the "closing day" is happening is still quite mysterious to me: is there a way to schedule things in such a way that partner signs that purchase option agreement with me RIGHT AFTER they are officially the new owners. Could my name be added to the title AT ONCE then?

dcwilbur said:   Hublot said:   tolamapS said:   Hublot said:   After calculation, it seems that the whole deal would be a bit simpler and cheaper if THEY buy the house while giving me a Purchase option lease.
And this scenario would then make my name appear on the title - does someone here confirm that?


Oh, man, if you need confirmation from a anonymous message board, you are in serious trouble.



My question is: does anybody confirm the fact that as soon as i exercise my purchase option (and i intend to do it on closing day), my name therefore appears on the title?
How are you going to exercise this purchase option at closing if you can't buy the property in the first place? Real estate terms can mean different things in different parts of the country; perhaps you are using the "purchase option" term in a different way than customary. Generally, a purchase option gives a renter an option to buy a property at the end of the lease term at a specified price, often with a portion of the rents credited towards the purchase.


I am buying only 40% of the property, and this i can afford right away.
I cannot afford the full 100% by myself, while my partner can.

My question remains: can anyone confirm the fact that my name will appear on the title as soon as i start the purchase option?

I almost never post, but sometimes when you see a train wrecker about to happen, you have to say something.

No one on this Board is going to be able to answer your question of "does my name go on the title if I exercise a purchase-option" because it's really all going to depend on what the purchase option says. All the term "purchase option" means is that the grantor (your investor) is giving up an option (basically, the right to do) purchase the property. The terms, price and effect could be one of a million different things - all depending on what the exact language of the option says. For instance, the terms of your purchase option could put your name on the title because you'd be required to buy the property within 30 days of exercising the option. So, yes your name would be on the title - because you'd have paid your investor and purchased the building.

Furthermore, unless you are getting a deal on a loan - almost all mortgages have a due on sale clause. So, if your investors get a mortgage, and then "sell" you 50% of the property on the day of closing, then you all better be ready to pay off the entire mortgage on that day. How will the bank know? The transfer of title into your name at the local recording office will tell them.

Hublot said:   I am buying only 40% of the property, and this i can afford right away.
I cannot afford the full 100% by myself, while my partner can.

My question remains: can anyone confirm the fact that my name will appear on the title as soon as i start the purchase option?
No, no one can confirm that.

Your sequence of events still isn't making any sense here. So your new friends are buying the place at "your" discounted price. Then what happens? And please don't say, "then I'll exercise the purchase option." What exactly do you expect will happen? They buy it, they own it, they are on the title. How exactly do you expect to be a party to this transaction at all if you aren't the buyer or the seller?

dcwilbur said:   Hublot said:   I am buying only 40% of the property, and this i can afford right away.
I cannot afford the full 100% by myself, while my partner can.

My question remains: can anyone confirm the fact that my name will appear on the title as soon as i start the purchase option?
No, no one can confirm that.

Your sequence of events still isn't making any sense here. So your new friends are buying the place at "your" discounted price. Then what happens? And please don't say, "then I'll exercise the purchase option." What exactly do you expect will happen? They buy it, they own it, they are on the title. How exactly do you expect to be a party to this transaction at all if you aren't the buyer or the seller?


Ok, it seems that i m not being very clear, apologies.

1- the bottom line of the purchase is "2 partners buying a house"

2- Partner purchases the house under his name in order to simplify the process and get a better mortgage rate - takes the entire financing under his wings - mortgage, downpayment, closing fees. He does the second part of the job, while i ve been doing the first part by securing and negotiating the deal - while i sign a purchase option contract.

3- from there, i expect that i become 40% owner right away: i have my name on the title with 40 ownership and pay monthly 40% of the full mortgage for the next 30 years, thanks to renting out my 2nd unit.

4- i live in my unit while renting out my second one. Partner does the same with his 2 units. We live happy neighbors ever after.


This is what i expect from this transaction. The purchase option being just a "trick" to buy the property for the less amount of money.
I carefully read all the comments: if the wording in the agreement with partner is actually stating all this very clearly, then i should be fine.

You still haven't considered that when your partner sells you 40% of the property, the bank making the mortgage to your partner is going to call the entire note due.

First of all, I'd like to say that you should really consult a good real estate attorney, I think you have a lot of misconceptions that might be cleared up by the attorney. Also I'm not familiar with NY laws so not sure how much of the following would apply.

If you're worried about being on title, you can have both your name and your partner on title. As someone else suggested, it's very common where a couple might only have one person taking out the mortgage but both are on title. It happens when one party has better credit than the other, if both were on the mortgage, they would go with the lower credit score and end up paying a higher rate. In this case you could actually also be on the mortgage because you've said your credit is good and that shouldn't affect the rate. Even if you don't have the income, they will use the income of the other party to qualify for it.

You could also take the property as tenants in common which allows each party to have a percentage interest in the property. You can have a separate document that spells out what percentage each person owns. He only wants you to get 40% because if there's any disagreement, he would control the building.

To figure out a fair percentage, I'd say start with the purchase price. So he puts down 300k and you put down nothing. A 1.2m loan on a 1.7 property works out to about 70.5 LTV (Loan to Value). Paying 40% of the mortgage means you're getting a 28.2% share of the equity. Your 200k discount on the 1.7 million works out to about 11.8%. Looks like 40% is a fair number and you're getting pretty much the full benefit of the 200k reduction.

As for the closing, it doesn't matter what order documents are signed, at the end of the closing, if all the documents aren't signed and the parties aren't happy, the attorney could always rip up the documents and no closing took place.

As others have said, who knows what's going to be in the purchase option, sounds like the weakest thing to do and it's not too common so not too many people know what to say.

I think the real way to protect yourself would be to convert the building into condominiums at some point, that way if your partner ever decides to sell and you're not in a position to buy, you at least have your own unit.

DadofPoohs said:   You still haven't considered that when your partner sells you 40% of the property, the bank making the mortgage to your partner is going to call the entire note due.

Indeed i am not sure to understand what this implies?
I thought that i would just keep on paying a "rent", except that by then the money would count as me paying back a portion of the loan.
It isnt that simple?

henry33 said:   First of all, I'd like to say that you should really consult a good real estate attorney, I think you have a lot of misconceptions that might be cleared up by the attorney. Also I'm not familiar with NY laws so not sure how much of the following would apply.

I have a specialized real estate attorney actually. But after i asked him 2 or 3 questions he said: "this is not school, i m just here to proof read the contract your partner will give you and explain it to you". So this is NYC, and this is not always easy to get the proper advice, even when you pay. All my friends are reporting the same pb with their own attorneys..



If you're worried about being on title, you can have both your name and your partner on title. As someone else suggested, it's very common where a couple might only have one person taking out the mortgage but both are on title. It happens when one party has better credit than the other, if both were on the mortgage, they would go with the lower credit score and end up paying a higher rate. In this case you could actually also be on the mortgage because you've said your credit is good and that shouldn't affect the rate. Even if you don't have the income, they will use the income of the other party to qualify for it.

My partner is already entering this deal with her boyfriend (they are not married), and it seems that they prefer to do it that way: they buy it (with both their names on the title??), they give a me a lease purchase option, they convert the building into condos (how long does it take? how much?).
We divide the property accordingly to our shares of ownership, and we re set. It seems like i just have to trust them - or the contract we re going to sign between us..


You could also take the property as tenants in common which allows each party to have a percentage interest in the property. You can have a separate document that spells out what percentage each person owns. He only wants you to get 40% because if there's any disagreement, he would control the building.

They refuse to it otherwise than under the option/purchase lease..

To figure out a fair percentage, I'd say start with the purchase price. So he puts down 300k and you put down nothing. A 1.2m loan on a 1.7 property works out to about 70.5 LTV (Loan to Value). Paying 40% of the mortgage means you're getting a 28.2% share of the equity. Your 200k discount on the 1.7 million works out to about 11.8%. Looks like 40% is a fair number and you're getting pretty much the full benefit of the 200k reduction.

Thank you for clarifying this aspect of the deal: so if you re saying that i m not being obviously abused here, this makes me feel better..


As for the closing, it doesn't matter what order documents are signed, at the end of the closing, if all the documents aren't signed and the parties aren't happy, the attorney could always rip up the documents and no closing took place.

Good to know: i never attended any "closing ceremony" and this is still very mysterious to me..

As others have said, who knows what's going to be in the purchase option, sounds like the weakest thing to do and it's not too common so not too many people know what to say.

I agree. Though i dont have much other choice with this partner. And time is ticking.. I am studying another options too.

I think the real way to protect yourself would be to convert the building into condominiums at some point, that way if your partner ever decides to sell and you're not in a position to buy, you at least have your own unit.

I agree, and we re planning to do that. Is it any long/expensive process?

Thank you so much everybody for asking the right queestions and lighting my case from new angles, much appreciated.

My "potential" partner is going to send me a draft of her suggested agreement, i ll soon know if this is acceptable or not (my attorney will explain it to me)

I have another option actually: what if i just pay off my landlady/seller s due mortgage (about 500K) and offer that we are now 2 on the title?
I stay in the building, her too, we both own it, let s say 50/50, and share income and expenses accordingly. In the meantime we convert the house into condos so that each can sell and leave whenever they want.
Does anyone see any major issue in this scenario?

My partner is already entering this deal with her boyfriend (they are not married), and it seems that they prefer to do it that way: they buy it (with both their names on the title??), they give a me a lease purchase option, they convert the building into condos (how long does it take? how much?).
We divide the property accordingly to our shares of ownership, and we re set. It seems like i just have to trust them - or the contract we re going to sign between us..


I'm not sure if you mentioned this before, but is it a 3-way partnership now? what happens if they break up? I think you are opening yourself to a lot of headaches and dissapointments down the road....Others have said it, but this does not look like a deal that will end up well.

We would actually need to see what's in the option to purchase. A standard option to purchase is an agreement that gives you the right to purchase the property by a certain time at a certain price. If you can't do it, the option expires and you have nothing. On the other hand, if your name is on the title and you have a mortgage, both of you need to agree in order to sell the property. You having an option is a lot weaker than being on title because if you're not in a position to exercise the option, you get nothing but if you're on title and you sell the property, the mortgage would be paid off and at least you'd get whatever share is left. As other have said, if you're mixing this up with people you don't really know that well, you should have an exit strategy up front. That would spell out what would happen if one party wants to exit. The problem you run into is that if they want out, you don't make enough to qualify for a mortgage on your own.

As for your real estate attorney, maybe you should actually plan on paying him for a couple of hours to educate you on what the best approach would be, in theory he should be looking out for your interest. Maybe he thinks he's just charging you a flat rate and hence don't have the time to go over everything. Or maybe it's just a NY thing. A lease to own/option to purchase is usually pretty weak and favors the seller because if the buyer defaults on the terms, the option expires and the buyer can end up getting nothing. For instance, you want to read what happens if you can't make your 40% portion of the mortgage, if both names are on the mortgage, one party has to make it all up or both credits get ruined. In your option, maybe it voids your whole agreement and you have nothing. If you're on title, at least if both credit gets ruined, you could still sell, pay off the mortgage and get a share of the remainder.

The closing is basically just meeting at the attorney or registry and signing all the legal paperwork, the only real ceremony part of it is at the end when you exchange keys and maybe everyone shakes hands if it's a friendly closing. Or not if both parties are mad at each other, or possibly the other party might not even be there, sometimes they sign all the paperwork in advance and you just meet with the closing attorney to do your share of the documents, may only take half an hour to an hour depending on how fast you can sign and how much you talk.

As for your partner, as you're bringing the deal to him, your only leverage is to tell him you won't do it with the purchase option. He probably thinks he's in the stronger position because he has the money.

As for converting to condos, I'm not sure about the costs in NY, around here, it can vary from about $5k-10k, usually that's for the attorney to draw up the documents, an architect and engineer for the plans and layout. NY might have other laws like rent control which might make it more expensive.

As for your landlady, I suppose it's possible, but why did she fall behind in the first place if the whole place is rented and the income is enough to cover the mortgage? Sounds doable anyway, you get a 500k mortgage and get added to the title. One thing to look into is that when you convert to a condo, make sure the lender allows a partial release as you sell off the units.

henry33 said:   We would actually need to see what's in the option to purchase.

A lease to own/option to purchase is usually pretty weak and favors the seller because if the buyer defaults on the terms, the option expires and the buyer can end up getting nothing. For instance, you want to read what happens if you can't make your 40% portion of the mortgage, if both names are on the mortgage, one party has to make it all up or both credits get ruined. In your option, maybe it voids your whole agreement and you have nothing. If you're on title, at least if both credit gets ruined, you could still sell, pay off the mortgage and get a share of the remainder.

The closing is basically just meeting at the attorney or registry and signing all the legal paperwork, the only real ceremony part of it is at the end when you exchange keys and maybe everyone shakes hands if it's a friendly closing. Or not if both parties are mad at each other, or possibly the other party might not even be there, sometimes they sign all the paperwork in advance and you just meet with the closing attorney to do your share of the documents, may only take half an hour to an hour depending on how fast you can sign and how much you talk.

As for your partner, as you're bringing the deal to him, your only leverage is to tell him you won't do it with the purchase option. He probably thinks he's in the stronger position because he has the money.

As for converting to condos, I'm not sure about the costs in NY, around here, it can vary from about $5k-10k, usually that's for the attorney to draw up the documents, an architect and engineer for the plans and layout. NY might have other laws like rent control which might make it more expensive.

As for your landlady, I suppose it's possible, but why did she fall behind in the first place if the whole place is rented and the income is enough to cover the mortgage? Sounds doable anyway, you get a 500k mortgage and get added to the title. One thing to look into is that when you convert to a condo, make sure the lender allows a partial release as you sell off the units.


Lots of good points here, thanks.

I understand that the lease option is potentially disastrous.

What can happen so that i m not "able" to exercise my purchase options? Especially if i dont have to pay any downpayment, wont i just have to keep on paying my rent as a mortgage? Or am i missing something here?

The building is already naturally divided into 4 units, one on each floor, so turning it into condo shouldnt not be much trouble no?

Thanks for explaining the closing process, doesnt look that mysterious anymore

Landlady defaulted on reversed-mortgage after taking over the building when her last parent (original owners) passed away last year. Within months, she was about to lose the house. So i could save her, save her credit, and stay in the building if i could find a way to pay off her debt and become a co-owner with her. I have to quickly study this option.

sfvera said:   My partner is already entering this deal with her boyfriend (they are not married), and it seems that they prefer to do it that way: they buy it (with both their names on the title??), they give a me a lease purchase option, they convert the building into condos (how long does it take? how much?).
We divide the property accordingly to our shares of ownership, and we re set. It seems like i just have to trust them - or the contract we re going to sign between us..


I'm not sure if you mentioned this before, but is it a 3-way partnership now? what happens if they break up? I think you are opening yourself to a lot of headaches and dissapointments down the road....Others have said it, but this does not look like a deal that will end up well.


Since partner and her husband are not married yet plan to buy together, i guess that yes, this is becoming a 3 way.. bad huh?

Hublot said:   Thank you so much everybody for asking the right queestions and lighting my case from new angles, much appreciated.

My "potential" partner is going to send me a draft of her suggested agreement, i ll soon know if this is acceptable or not (my attorney will explain it to me)

I have another option actually: what if i just pay off my landlady/seller s due mortgage (about 500K) and offer that we are now 2 on the title?
I stay in the building, her too, we both own it, let s say 50/50, and share income and expenses accordingly. In the meantime we convert the house into condos so that each can sell and leave whenever they want.
Does anyone see any major issue in this scenario?


Earlier you said the property is worth 1,700,000 and she's willing to sell it to you for 1,500,000.

Then you want a partner to put down 300k and take a mortgage in THEIR name for the full 1.5 million while you contribute nothing except paying rent and you want them to give you 40% of the company.

Now you have the ability to get 500k to pay the landlord for "half" of the 1.5 million and you want to be 50/50 partners?

This will be amusing, I foresee your "partners" buying it at 1.5 million and cutting you out completely. You have nothing to bring to the table except being family friends, the 200k "discount" is nothing given that no one is going to invest and give you 40% for literally nothing out of your pocket.

/Grabs popcorn.

Hublot said:   I have a specialized real estate attorney actually. But after i asked him 2 or 3 questions he said: "this is not school, i m just here to proof read the contract your partner will give you and explain it to you"If you are paying him by the hour, "this" is whatever you want it to be.

technolich said:   
This will be amusing, I foresee your "partners" buying it at 1.5 million and cutting you out completely. You have nothing to bring to the table except being family friends, the 200k "discount" is nothing given that no one is going to invest and give you 40% for literally nothing out of your pocket.

/Grabs popcorn.

Well, I wouldn't say that he brings nothing to the table. The OP has the opportunity, while the investors have the ability to execute. It's key to ensure that what ever agreement or contract is signed to establish the partnership must adequately protect the interests of the OP. For that the OP needs to have a good real estate attorney represent his own interest and no one else's.

technolich said:   Hublot said:   Thank you so much everybody for asking the right queestions and lighting my case from new angles, much appreciated.

My "potential" partner is going to send me a draft of her suggested agreement, i ll soon know if this is acceptable or not (my attorney will explain it to me)

I have another option actually: what if i just pay off my landlady/seller s due mortgage (about 500K) and offer that we are now 2 on the title?
I stay in the building, her too, we both own it, let s say 50/50, and share income and expenses accordingly. In the meantime we convert the house into condos so that each can sell and leave whenever they want.
Does anyone see any major issue in this scenario?


Earlier you said the property is worth 1,700,000 and she's willing to sell it to you for 1,500,000.

Then you want a partner to put down 300k and take a mortgage in THEIR name for the full 1.5 million while you contribute nothing except paying rent and you want them to give you 40% of the company.

Now you have the ability to get 500k to pay the landlord for "half" of the 1.5 million and you want to be 50/50 partners?

This will be amusing, I foresee your "partners" buying it at 1.5 million and cutting you out completely. You have nothing to bring to the table except being family friends, the 200k "discount" is nothing given that no one is going to invest and give you 40% for literally nothing out of your pocket.

/Grabs popcorn.


Well if it's worth 1.7 million, half would be $850k. If she's giving him 200k off, that's 650k for his half. So if she just wants 500k now, then it's more like giving him 350k off.

It's better for him to be on title and have him on the mortgage. He contributes the deal, it's like his commission in getting the deal done. Without him, there's no deal with the partner unless the partner now goes behind his back, but because the OP has a connection with the landlord this probably wouldn't work and would probably kill any deal.

As for him being cut out, yes, I can see it from the whole mention of the purchase option. Options that expire are worthless if you can't meet the terms of the deal or break one of the rules like a missed mortgage payment.

If you now have 500k, then do this thing yourself. And make your lawyer earn his keep

This is a train wreck. OP seems to think that her "partners" can buy this building and that she can keep paying rent and that somehow that will make her an owner too because she has this magical purchase option for some part ownership even though she isn't making a down payment and isn't providing financing and won't be on the deed and won't be part of the credit application. What exactly are you bringing to the deal again? This discussion of the "closing ceremony" leads me to wonder why you would even be there since you are neither the seller nor the buyer in this transaction. And no, dividing an apartment building into condos is in no way a simple, straightforward, or inexpensive process.

Alcibiades said:   If you now have 500k, then do this thing yourself. And make your lawyer earn his keep

He doesn't have 500k, he's an "artist" and I highly doubt he even has a lawyer on retainer, more likely he tried to get either free advice or paid for an hour and outlived his welcome.

She's underwater on the property yet somehow he's magically going to make it profitable?

He hasn't factored in the cost of actually renovating the properties, he hasn't factored in the loss of income due to low occupancy, and he ignores the white elephant in the room which is the both the fact that he has no money to put down and also that the property IS NOT profitable given she's losing money hands over fist.

I smell a troll, his first post was this thread and everything has smelled funny and he constantly changes his story.

If he's "legit" no wonder the lawyer he hired got irritated with his line of questioning, sounds pretty unprofessional to me on the part of the OP given he's trying to buy a house without putting any money down

OK, so the current owner inherited a property maybe worth $1.7 from her parents. Her parents put a reverse mortgage on the place; paying off the reverse mortgage costs $500k. The current owner, who has $1.2 mil equity in this building, which supposedly cash flows, cannot obtain a $500k mortgage. The company holding the reverse if going to foreclose if they don't get their $500k. Current owner needs a solution and fast. If current owner lets the bank foreclose, even though the bank would owe current owner $1.2m, bank and transaction fees are going to eat up at least $200k of that. Thus, current owner is willing to sell for $1.5, net out $1 mil and not have a foreclosure on her credit. Did I get it right so far?

- Why can't the current owner get a $500k loan to pay off the reverse? If the building is really worth $1.7, it is not for lack of equity/down payment. If the building is rented and cash flows even half as well as the OP's projection, the current rents should more than cover the $500k loan, so it can't be a debt to income problem. So there are three possibilities
1. Building is not worth what OP posted, and there is an equity /down payment problem.
2. Building does not cash flow at even 1/2 of what OP projects, so it's a debt/income ratio problem.
3. Current owner has lousy credit and can't get a loan, which is a good reason to not go into partnership with current owner.

In regards to the partnership with the other couple, sounds like they know what they are doing and OP does not. I would not go into a $1m++ deal if I did not know what I was doing. Plus OP, you really are bringing nothing to the table other than the deal. And truth be told, the deal is there for them without you. Current owner needs to sell. All the "We buy houses" flyers are meaningless - that is marketing, not real interest. They may buy houses, but I'd be willing to bet they offer the current owner $1 mil on the $1.7 mil purported value.

OP - if this is such a great deal, why are you not doing it with your original partner with whom you qualified?

Also, what are you going to do if the boiler breaks down 2 weeks after you purchase it? Do you have enough cash to have a replacement installed?



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014