Would you consider this?

[www.theolympian.com]

Mod, move this post to whichever side you feel appropriate.

---

West San Gabriel Valley, California ... for the time being

No way to really judge without knowing how long the process might take, or whatthe consequence of default on the lease is, or how close to market rate the quasi-rental price would be.... but I found this interesting:
[www.theolympian.com]

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Not a very well written article. Lots of players names, but thin on the specifics.

Who's making monthly payments to whom when the house is transferred?

Assuming the owners-in-arrears had some equity, wouldn't the management firms owe them something when title is passed; either a lump sum payment, or a reduction of amount of rent to be paid by the former home owner?

I would not touch Rent-to-own. If it is a good deal, get a mortgage, or set up a land contract. Protect yourself.

---

Mr. Curmudgeon, on Mountain Lion.

Every time there is another party involved the cost only goes up.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

What speedy said. The players involved almost certainly did not do this to help homeowners. They did it with the intent of skimming as much equity as possible into their own pockets.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
davester
What speedy said. The players involved almost certainly did not do this to help homeowners. They did it with the intent of skimming as much equity as possible into their own pockets.

In lots of cases the equity has already been "skimmed" by the home owner--at least from what I've seen. Easier to get rid of them if they are renting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2012 09:48PM by geon.