how to get title to this property

I have a friend that has a situation here it is - her father has been living in a mobile home in a mobile park for at least 10 years, the mobile home is owned by someone else and her father has been paying the actual mortgage payments to the mortgage company even though his name is not on the loan or property. He has also been paying the property taxes for the last 6-7 years. The owner has had nothing to do with the property as far as doing any needed repairs or maintenance or paying the mortgage. Her question is - is there any legal means of obtaining the property deed from the original owner and not be responsible for paying the mortgage and not worry about the bank foreclosing and forcing her father out? he only owes on the mortgage about $13k. but doesn't want to finish it because the mobile home is'n't worth even that much with all the repairs that are needed for example no heat, holes in floor leaky roof etc.. His daughter actually wants it and plans to fix it up so she can live in it after her father moves or dies , but she wants the actual title to be in his name & her name. How can this be done if possible?

There are many issues in your posting, such as is the mobile home considered real or personal property, is it bricked in, with wheels taken off, etc. and more importantly, is it packaged together with the land, or merely renting the space upon which it sits. However, the most basic issue simply is that paying the mortgage doesn't give this man a legal right to the mobile home, nor does paying the taxes, unless, of course, he did so at a tax sale. Example: if you miss a car payment, I cannot send the bank a check and continue doing so, then own your car--it is still titled/deeded to someone else. There is also the issue of the deed/certificate of title and the jurisdiction in which you live. Some jurisdictions cancel the title once the property has a mortgage recognizing it as real property and not just personal property (that can be moved).

The man can make an offer on the property, but I don't suspect that the company will accept the offer since he has been paying on it for all this time. Or, he can stop paying on the note and one of several things may happen. He may be evicted and the property, if it is in disrepair may sit empty until which time the company may find it not worth its time to come take possession of the collateral. Also, you do not specify if the land and home is deeded together, or if the land upon which the home sits is a rented lot. It matters.

Also, it can go for foreclosure and the mortgage holder can take possession of the property and resell it at a public sale at which time it can be bought for much less than what is owed on it.

On a side note--I am not certain as to the advisability , from a safety standpoint of "fixing up" a trailer in which to live. The cost of doing so would be impressive if it is as damaged as you say and it will be, most likely, a series of repairs that will be ongoing and continual, not as lasting as they would be in a house. With the housing market as it is, there are a lot of bargains and low interest rates to boot. That would be a safer route and most assuredly, a better investment of time and money.

While the original mortgage on the mobile home is in another person's name, you can and must find the documentation that allowed the man to move in to the property and what specified that he pay the mortgage and the taxes. This document... if it can be found... will also spell out what is to happen when the mortgage is satisfied.

Now, your question on taking ownership without paying the mortgage is a simple one. Paying the taxes and the mortgage payment is BELOW-NORMAL amount for a renter to pay. It is not a legal thing to TAKE someone's property without satisfying the mortgage on the property. It will not happen that way. There are many ways the mortgage can go into default, but normally, the original owner will have first say on what happens to the property... I wouldn't bet on the owner giving it away to the father and paying off the mortgage. It is, after all, the owner's credit rating that will be affected. Most folks find it highly offensive for a renter to fail to make payments on a mortgage they have agreed to pay. Not likely they would turn around and either let it go and get charged with a failure on their credit or even pay off the $13K and then give it to the father... or his daughter. Common sense says it won't happen.

If the daughter wants the mobile home, she will have to PAY for it.

Why would anyone think they could just TAKE someone else's property without satisfying the mortgages on said property?

Even if there IS a document that the two parties signed, it is secondary to the primary mortgage. And, most of them state clearly that there is to be no subleasing and that the person whose name is on the note is also the person who resides in the dwelling. So, even if they did agree to something, it in no way means it is a legal document since it is subject to the terms of the first agreement ( note ) and the second will be nullified by the first at those places where they are in juxtaposition one with the other.

What most mortgages might say versus what this one says is irrelevant.

I would beg to differ on whether a property NORMALLY has a mortgage that says the property cannot be leased... that is ABNORMAL. There are many reasons why it would make sense for both the lender and the owner to be able to lease a mortgaged property... thus it is NOT a normal paragraph in a mortgage to forbid leasing a property under mortgage. What possible good would it do for a mortgage company? NONE. Thus they don't seek to forbid proper usage of anybody's property... check that bundle of rights associated with real estate. It includes this.

The only thing that will make a difference in this case is what agreement the father and owner signed... thus if you ignore it, you risk injury. Why would you want to counsel someone to ignore legal documents that cover the use of his residence? Perversity has its means... but not much logic.

My apology. I had no idea you KNEW what this particular mortgage said. How you became privy to that astounds me. And what "most" mortgages customarily do IS relevant in absence of proof to the contrary. It is safer to assume that this mortgage follows generally accepted terms than to argue definitively that it does not.

I have had no less than a dozen mortgages in my lifetime and EVERY single one asks if I personally will be residing in the dwelling. If I am not, then I should not be obtaining a mortgage designated as my "primary residence" if my intent is to rent it out to someone else. In any regard, my point is the same--they can write and sign ANYTHING they want---but whatever document they manufacture is SUBJECT to ANY restrictions their mortgage may or may not have. And since YOU haven't seen the paperwork, nor have I, I am speaking from MY experience which is valid. While my paperwork does not FORBID, it DOES ask me to sign stating I am the person who is living in the dwelling ( hence making it my primary dwelling, for mortgage as well as for tax purposes ). Even if this particular document does NOT prohibit his renting the house to someone else, the fact doesn't change the fact that they cannot jointly enter into an agreement which is in conflict with the ORIGINAL document, REGARDLESS of what it says. I didn't say he COULDN'T rent it, I was using that as an example. You haven't seen the paperwork, nor have I. So, why argue a negative?

Also, another interesting tidbit: Why must the borrower go through credit testing and other qualifying procedures if the bank wants them to RENT to someone else? The renter very well may NOT meet the same standard as the borrower. If the mortgage company had no preference as to who made the payments, they wouldn't bother putting the borrower (i.e. responsible party) through the rigors of qualifiying. Doesn't make sense to qualify for a loan if you have no intention of being the one making the payments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boykinmama The only thing that will make a difference in this case is what agreement the father and owner signed...

While this makes for interesting copy it is incorrect. If what you are saying is true, they can agree together to override the mortgage company and do as they see fit. What you have written totally ignores the bigger picture---the all knowing MORTGAGE COMPANY.


You are equating a document two people signed as being a "legal document". Just because two people signed it doesn't mean it is a LEGAL document. I can sign a document agreeing that I will deliver illegal contraband to someone on a particular date for a particular price. That doesn't mean that document is a LEGAL document because it is enforcing ILLEGAL means. Here is the POINT (again): If the father and owner AGREE to do something against (in juxtaposition with) the interest or directive of the lienholder, their document is rendered null and void. Understand?


Do not make the erroneous assumption (again) that the litmus test for truth is whether or not it makes sense to you. In the law, that isn't how it works.

"I had no idea you KNEW what this particular mortgage said."

This particular poster has already said that this mortgage was taken by a GROUP OF INVESTORS. Now thinking through this problem would take one to the immediate assumption that they in plural could NOT have a homeowner's mortgage.

It is time for you to think outside the box. Stop dissecting the words and complaining about spelling. Your brain is better than that. You also should not compartmentalize every poster to unknown until fully explained. There are many things you can infer as impossible to be any other way from basic information given by the poster... and frankly that is what our SCHOOLS are trying to TEACH our CHILDREN.... how to think things through before throwing up our hands in defeat.

Advanced logic? No, simple deduction, Watson.

OBTW. If you really want to find fault, try this one. If he bought this on a Land Contract, there won't be a registration of his name on the deed until he PAYS IN FULL. But there must be SOME reason he thought his name should be on the property as registered... Maybe he just didn't know what a Land Contract was.

The rest of what you posted has nothing to do with this poster's problem, so I'm going to leave it to you to explain what reason you had for a diatribe of such length... without cause. You just didn't think it through.

This thread does not contain the words LAND CONTRACT, nor does it reference INVESTORS.

Advanced logic at its best.

Too funny.

The original poster is confused on how one obtains land. Perhaps the thinks that by paying the property taxes for seven years, her father can obtain title. It doesn't cross her mind that the rules for taking property vary in every state, but all of them require open, hostile use of the property while that is NOT true in her father's situation. He is paying the mortgage by an agreement... he has the owner's permission to be on the property.

Now if she wants to pay the $13K remainder of the mortgage, she can probably do that, but perhaps the owner won't want to sell it for the remainder of the mortgage... assuming there is land with it. If there is no land with it, I can't see paying that much for a worn out trailer... but perhaps it is in Florida or some other state where they won't allow new trailers in unless they meet the hurricane code... but older trailers are grandfathered... But we don't know where this trailer is, do we.

The other item of interest is all this consternation about how the father came to be living there and paying the mortgage and taxes. Not many parks in ANY state are resident owned. Thus I suspect this is only a trailer loan. Regardless of whether it is considered a mortgage or a loan, civil courts don't allow a continuous abrogation of the right to sublet a property just because they have a loan on the place. The initial statement of property being their primary residence is usually just a starter for the registrar's office to set the taxes on the place. There is nothing to be gained by preventing an owner from leasing the space, and there is much to be lost if he cannot... and specifically by the lender.... so it is doubtful they would object to his RENTING the place. Like someone has already said, it is a fairly low rent if it is only the taxes and the mortgage... most rental places use a 20 year ROI to set rents with there being a "profit" built into the rental. We know this one is probably not that long based on the ten years and the $13K he still owes. It might be only 15 years. Thus the owner of the trailer is not making anything on the property.

WHY WOULD HE GIVE IT TO THE DAUGHTER? Wouldn't.

Can either of them get it without paying the mortgage? NO.

Any other questions?

Judging from the posters name "socal", I'm going to hazard a guess the property MAY be in Southern California.