attorneys who sue investors/banks question - Posted by P A E

Posted by IB (NJ) on March 14, 2011 at 21:28:18:

“I am thinking that probably a good percentage of all investors are taking the ‘rent’ payment or option payment and pocketing it- and not paying the underlying mortgage that is not in their name. Thereby using the money for their own expenses. If an investor gets 10 houses and the length of a typical foreclosure can add up to a lot of money for an investor.”

PAE - I think you’ve convinced yourself that since you weren’t able to succeed at REI, it must be because you weren’t crooked like the Investors who did make money and are “successful”. I think you need to back away from that idea.

attorneys who sue investors/banks question - Posted by P A E

Posted by P A E on March 12, 2011 at 10:47:26:

Unfortunately, I tried investing about 8 years ago and nothing good came from it. Now, a bankruptcy and in my early 30’s- I decided a few years ago to become an attorney.

I am now in my 3rd year of law school and I am thinking that it may be profitable suing real estate investors who misrepresent all these ‘subject too’ deals and fraudulently enter into contracts without the homeowner being properly represented. All those release of liability forms would certainly be unenforceable.

I am also writing a lengthy paper on how banks/lenders should be liable to some homeowners, etc. Do any attorneys here bring lawsuits against banks in their practice? Are they using the covenant of good faith or unconscionability? I’m a little short on information as to the remedy for a homeowner.

I know this may sound hostile to investors, but really investors do ruin a lot of ordinary peoples lives with reckless transactions in the same way a bank does or Madoff did.

Do any attorneys here provide services with evictions, transactional work, etc? Just am curious how others view how real estate work will be in the next few years.

Re: attorneys who sue investors/banks question - Posted by Woody

Posted by Woody on March 15, 2011 at 20:59:43:

Why not make a contribution with your work.

Be a resource for those to do their investing correctly. Be a pro at that and misfortunes will lessen, resulting in an endless supply of people knocking on your door for the knowhow, and with $$$.

Irony?? - Posted by JeffB (MI)

Posted by JeffB (MI) on March 15, 2011 at 13:39:36:

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this guy is asking a group of RE investors for information and experience that he can use to come “take us down” for our alleged wrongdoings? Surely we cannot expect him to distinguish between the unethical RE investor, and us, since in his mind, all RE investors are evil.

Perhaps you should focus on what you know, which is failure. After failing as a RE investor, and failing to manage your own money (BK), you could probably make a decent living showing others how to abuse the system the same way you have. You’ve used the system to remove your obligation to pay back debts that you owe. You still owe the debt, ethically. It’s just you are no longer have a legal obligation to repay it. That sounds like a great rate of return!

Read this Counselor - Posted by Devil

Posted by Devil on March 15, 2011 at 10:07:11:

Now Counselor, spend a little time reading about some of your fine, fine Attys in the trade. This should make you proud to call yourself an Atty. [argh or should I say barf]

The trasncript is 57 pages, but suggest you start on pg 7, line 19, and you read just as much of it as you can stomach. It displays what fine upstanding Attys there are practicing law on behalf of some of these banks foreclosing on properties today. This case is in Miami-Dade, FL, Judge Maxine Cohen Lando presiding. She finds two Lawyers in contempt of court for shoddy and sloppy legal work and dismissed the complaint of foreclosure “WITH PREJUDICE”. A befitting end to this miscarriage of justice.

Read it and weep baby: Probate Attorney, Trust & Estate Law, Code Enforcement - WeidnerLaw

Re: attorneys who sue investors/banks question - Posted by AmotoXracer

Posted by AmotoXracer on March 13, 2011 at 17:55:01:

The very fact you think it will be “profitable” suing broke RE investors on behalf of broke homeowners is an example of poor decision making ability. Moreover, you obviously are unable to determine what is and what is not profitable.
Of course, these types of poor decisions are why you failed at RE investing and ended up in bankruptcy. Curiously enough, your now in your thirties and not even out of school. I think your need to reevaluate your life strategy, or your going to continue your track record of failure.
Consider working for the government, or maybe a union.

Re: attorneys who sue investors/banks question - Posted by P. Rick

Posted by P. Rick on March 13, 2011 at 12:34:05:

Let me be the first to say, you are a prick.

Compare Investors ~ Attorneys - Posted by RE Inv who would’t…

Posted by RE Inv who would’t… on March 12, 2011 at 11:21:53:

From: A RE Inv who would’t…p*ss in most Attys ears…if their brains were on fire… of course their are a few exceptions, like everything.

Now that is an excellent question that arrises from your writings… You say that: " really investors do ruin a lot of ordinary peoples lives with reckless transactions in the same way a bank does or Madoff did"

Now sitting in a different perspective than you… I have seen far more Attys screw over Joe lunch-bucket than anything that the collective group of RE investors have done. Sure, there are some rouge RE investors out there, that have done some harm… I think they are regulated and prosecuted for their transgressions by the prosecutors offc, in gen’l. But the fact that Attys are licensed to steal makes prosecuting their transgressions much tougher. They seems to have this good ole boys network called the Bar Assn… which looks after their own.

Yep, there are going to be evictions, foreclosures and other associated legal work over the next decade. If you perceive the real legal boondoggle as that of representing homeowners against RE investors, then I doubt that you are going to make it in legal practice. If you hadn’t noticed there are 1000’s of banks and other type of lenders, with some deep pockets that have committed transgression after transgression against homeowners… (not that these same ho’s are without fault either…).

You might wish to start your search by familiarizing yourself with TILA. A blind squirrel of an Atty could find the acorn in the rich hunting grounds against these banks for their numerous and frequent TILA violations.

Let me give you a real life recent example. As an investor, I advised a property owner from entering into a certain transaction with another party, due to it blatantly being Bank Fraud. I had other remdies for the person which they decided not to seek. They were in fact bent on trying to prove my advice and statements to be errant, so they dought legal advice from several high profiled Attys. The most high-profiled of the bunch, a 35 yr Vet, who serves as Bk Conservator in high profile cases. So his advice to the client was… that I didn’t know what I was talking about, “that this individual could NOT commit Bank Fraud, that ONLY A BANK COULD COMMITT BANK FRAUD”.

Now the ironly here is that the person I had avised went onto do the deal that I had advised against… that the high profiled Atty sanctioned. The indivdual was convicted of Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud several years later is WILL report to serve a multi-year Federal PRISON TERM WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. The wrong person is serving the prison term, since it should be the sleaze-ball Atty, who gave bad advice and screwed over his client. In fact that piece of crap Atty should be disbarred and then sentenced. What you say about that?

Maybe you struck a nerve here. Good luck on your endeavors Counselor!

At least you are consistent - Posted by Potash

Posted by Potash on March 12, 2011 at 11:13:07:

Based upon your game plan your law career will be as equally unproductive as your Real Estate investment career. That is not to say that you do not make a valid point about some Banks and Investors being reckless, just that the reckless investors do not have any money and the reckless Banks have a structural advantage and political connections.

He is just finger wagging - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on March 15, 2011 at 16:24:08:

I think they teach that in one of the law school classes. He is such an academic, which is evident from his postings here. He read it in a book somewhere, and it must be so.

Frankly, he is a fart in a windstorm. Next.

Re: Read this Counselor - Posted by P A E

Posted by P A E on March 16, 2011 at 10:40:58:

I know a big case in Massachusetts refused to allow the bank to foreclose. Don’t you think eventually this will touch and concern real estate investors who play the foreclosure game by keeping properties with underlying mortgages in someone else’s name?

The bank is equal to a sophisticated real estate investor who looks for deals which by their nature result in a owner losing their property and getting nothing of significance in return.

Re: Read this Counselor- OUTSTANDING! (NT) - Posted by Lee in LA

Posted by Lee in LA on March 15, 2011 at 16:09:53:

.

Re: attorneys who sue investors/banks question - Posted by P A E

Posted by P A E on March 13, 2011 at 18:17:11:

I’m trying to think outside the box with this sue the investor theory. Yes, I am in my 30’s after 5 years of military service and 4 years getting a bachelors degree and now 3 years in law school. Education is a scam in and of itself, but thats how the government has brainwashed people. Its better to just make money being a real estate investor with no expensive and time consuming formal education.

I am thinking that probably a good percentage of all investors are taking the ‘rent’ payment or option payment and pocketing it- and not paying the underlying mortgage that is not in their name. Thereby using the money for their own expenses. If an investor gets 10 houses and the length of a typical foreclosure can add up to a lot of money for an investor. When an investor gets in trouble he is going to look out for his or her own best interests.

All that money the investor got from the subsequent tenant or buyer is fraudulently obtained as a result of a ‘deal’ they self created when they had superior knowledge (no equal bargaining position, simply a contract of adhesion). This certainly is not an enforceable contract when you get a home without giving the homeowner anything.

DELETE THIS THREAD! - Posted by Frank

Posted by Frank on March 15, 2011 at 09:19:39:

Hopefully the mods will delete this entire thread. You totally fail as an investor so now you’re on a mission to sue investors and ‘get even’. Go ef yourself!

Not a prick, just an Atty ~ worse - Posted by Devil

Posted by Devil on March 13, 2011 at 14:31:38:

That isn’t fair to the few Attys who do not deserve such an Assn, but the evidence is overwhelming.

And of course the OP likely relishes in being called such a name; most do.

Re: Compare Investors ~ Attorneys - Posted by P A E

Posted by P A E on March 13, 2011 at 18:27:18:

Attorneys don’t enter into deceptive contracts with financially challenged homeowners. The investor thrives on this unethical and unlawful conduct to extract equity in the house that the homeowner can’t reach due to a variety of reasons.

The investor has no risk. Many can cloak themselves whereby nobody can figure out how they came into the picture. The investor rarely gets sued by attorneys due to their shrewdness. BUT if creative attorneys can figure out the scam then maybe they can provide some legal remedy to the homeowner.