I attended the Real Estate Association of Puget Sound’s monthly meeting last night. The meeting featured a panel of attorneys who answered questions from the audience. There were a variety of questions that got answered - unfortunately, a lot of the issues around SR 1843 (the redefinition of ‘contractor’ that severely limits flipping) remained unclear (see below).
The attorneys who donated their time were:
- Jeff Wells - Bankruptcy
- Randy Redford - Evictions and landlord defender
- Rick Gregorek- asset protection and host of KVI radio show on legal issues
- Chris Benis - legal counsel for Rental Housing Authority
- Steve Anderson - real estate attorney and long time member of REAPS
Each of the attorneys started by talking about an issue of which they thought we should be informed.
Jeff Wells talked about using bankruptcy in a strategic way and as a solution for the ‘bump in the night’. He gave the example of a mortgage with a balloon payment that comes due just when the market turns down - bankruptcy can allow you to renegotiate the balloon as payments over time. For the first hour of so of the panel, Jeff joined in several answers to questions with praise to bankruptcy as yet another solution to the question at hand.
Randy Redford talked a bit about the importance of using a professional to do your evictions. The eviction process is stringent and if you make a mistake, it can often not expose itself until the end - and the only remedy may be to start over. He performed over 8000 evictions last year.
Chris Benis talked a bit about his experience investing in real estate. His view is that small scale investing (as opposed to large developments) has been a kind of ‘wild west’ frontier. The problem is that various groups and governmental entities have seen it as lawless and dangerous and are moving to ‘correct’ this. This will be hard on us as investors and we will need to educate the groups to keep them from lumping us together with the real outlaws.
Steve Anderson warned us that distressed transactions are getting more litigious. The media and some lawyers are training the people that seller’s remorse can be profitable. So, if you buy from a distressed seller and they later decide that you were greedy, they may sue to get some of those profits. He advocated being very careful about disclosing your profit and using standard escrow processes to prevent charges of collusion.
I did not take complete notes during the question session - several issues turned into discussions and I do not have the note taking skills of a court stenographer! I will describe here the several of the larger issues raised.
SR 1843
You can read some background in one of my earlier posts - Chris talked about testifying against the changes. He was the only person to testifying in opposition, though he later told me that the Realtor’s representative was in the room and had been told to not get involved. Chris said that the panel discussing the law told him bluntly that they ‘were out to get those flippers’ but that he would be allowed to add an exemption for a landlord maintaining their units. Chris felt that he would not have been allowed to add any language that would favor flipping. He did agree that the law as written is unclear.
Sue Schindler (audience member) added some information to the discussion. She is a contractor and learned about the law when she renewed her own license. She has contacted the sponsor of the bill in Olympia and got some additional background. Evidently, the push for this law was a development project in Lacey that resulted in some sinking foundations. The concern was that the new owners could not seek a remedy against the bond of the contractor because the contractor worked for the developer, not the new owners. I don’t know why anybody thought the $12,000 bond of the contractor would be enough to cover sinking foundations, but that was the incentive to change the law. Sue has had several discussions with the Department of Labor and Industry about this law and they have not been clear about when a contractor’s license is required. She has gotten some assurance that they will be able to give a definite answer soon! Sue is collecting ’scenarios’ that she will submit to L&I - they have agreed to give an answer for each as to whether the property owner will need a contractors license.
Sue and I had a discussion after the meeting which highlighted another issue with this law and prudent investing. To mitigate risking all of our investments, most investors will use different entities (LLCs, corporations, etc) to hold different properties. This way, if a lawsuit attaches to a given property, it does not also attach to every property the investor controls. Unfortunately, this law describes that the entity that owns the property must be a ‘contractor’, so each of the entities that an investor uses will need its own contractors license, bond and insurance.
This subject was tabled so that we could get on to other questions. The audience was asked if they would like to be more informed of this subject through an email blast and the majority raised their hands in favor to this.
Fastest Eviction in Seattle
A question was raised as to the fastest method to evict a tenant in Seattle. Randy talked about the 15 reasons for legal eviction in Seattle and all of these require time. The fastest method the panel knew of was ‘cash for keys’ - basically pay the tenant to move out and give up the lease. If the tenant refuses, or demands more than you want to spend, then you will need to find one of the 15 that has been violated and go through the normal eviction process.
Birddogging
A birddog is someone who finds property deals and sells the lead to an investor - they are not a principal in the deal. Paying the birddog is illegal in WA - only real estate agents/brokers can be paid for facilitating the sale of real estate. It is commonly done, but it is illegal.
Private Lending and the SEC
The question was about under what condition was it required to file with the SEC when you get private financing. Private financing is whenever a non-commercial entity loans you the money for a mortgage / deed of trust. The most common form of private financing is seller financing (where the seller of the property takes some of their sale price in the form of a note). Another common form of this is to borrow money from a friend or relative to finance a deal.
The SEC requires you to file whenever you offer a ’security’ to the public. So, the panel’s opinion was that the question you need to ask yourself is ‘how did you solicit the money?’ If you had a previous relationship (friend, relative), then it is likely a private transaction and would not require a filing. If you did not know the person before, then you are soliciting the public and would require a filing.
Subject To
Property can be purchased subject to underlying financing. What this means is that the seller gives the new buyer a deed to the property subject to the deeds of trust that insure the previous lenders. So, if the lenders are not paid and they foreclose, then their claim on the property supersedes the new owner’s claim. Normally, the new buyer is also agreeing to make the payments on the underlying financing.
The question is whether this is legal and ethical when the underlying financing includes a ‘due on sale’ clause. Yes, it can be done both legally and ethically. There is no law broken when the sale occurs because the ‘due on sale’ clause is a contractual agreement that the lender MAY call the note due when the sale occurs. The lender is not required to do so, and most often will not as long as the payments continue.
The ethical part of this has to do with whether the lender is informed of the sale. That is part of the agreement between the lender and the seller of the property - it is really the responsibility of the seller to inform the lender of the sale subject to the financing in place.
Conclusion
It was an interesting meeting. Good questions were asked and I think a lot of people walked away with some good information. I also think most of attendees had not previously known about the SR 1843 issues and will be watching for more information about it.
I apologize for not covering every question that was asked during the meeting. If you attended and took note of an important question, please add a comment!
Comments (0)