Thanks for the welcomes in advance! "Anticipation denotes intelligence."
Apologies in advance for the length of the post. I can be long-winded at times when I have what I feel are lots of important points to make.
Before I draw a possible conclusion, I need to outline some assumptions that the conclusion would reasonably flow from. For some of you, the assumptions may have a high likelihood. For myself, I'm simply outlining them as possibilities. I do not have sufficient factual information from which to even begin to speculate on the probabilities thereof. They may be just as probable as a given lotto 649 ticket has of winning the jackpot.
Assumptions:
- PD may be one of those who has been acquiring some form of income out of those s/he convinces to follow "the path"*. From a factual perspective, Russell Porisky has been lawfully determined to have done so.
- PD may be in a situation where s/he wants to benefit further. In short, s/he isn't making enough quickly enough.
- PD may be searching for a way to increase that so s/he earns more faster.
- PD is asking the question for her/himself and not for someone else.
So... what tactic could we be seeing the begining of?
From the thread Private Sector Act dod Com, by Mowe
an old 1970's scam where desperate homeowners can put Mr. Johnson's company on title to preempt foreclosure
Let's start with a basic legal definition of trustee (from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trustee: The Free Dictionary):
An individual or corporation named by an individual, who sets aside property to be used for the benefit of another person, to manage the property as provided by the terms of the document that created the arrangement.
In my humble legal layman opinion, this represents a position where an entity is assigned the responsibility of managing property for the entity who actually owns said property. This does not define a position of ownership over said property. This is not a transfer of Title but is an assignment of responsibility.
In that context, the subject ("grant title ... to trustee") is, therefore, meaningless. But it does have value in another context. In the context Mowe outlined - as a way to scam property out of the rightful owners into the cons hands.
It's a possible solution to PDs dilemma with regards not earning enough fast enough.
- Implement a method to legally transfer the property.
Result: PD offers up protection in the form of transfering the value to him/her (or an entity s/he owns) in order to prevent the big bad bank from foreclosing on the property. PD then proceeds - with lawful title of the property - to sell the property at market value. Immediate profit.
Part of the con would obviously involve convincing the mark that PD will be a "trustee", not "owner". This would certainly explain the subject - from my layman perspective.
-----
I did not author the outline for the benefit of those who visit here that are curious of watching the train wreck in the form of the latest follower of "the path" destroying themselves. The strategy outlined has been proven, and will continue, to fail under the methods of the "gurus of the path". However, if implemented correctly** it can succeed in making victims of those who have built up equity in their homes.
I authored the outline for the victims. For the followers who are considering following "the path". And those who may be on "the path" but haven't advanced so far there's no turning back.
Think very carefully about what you want to achieve out of your property and the investment you've already put into it. If you truly want to still benfit from the responsibility you entered (keep the home) without abiding by your commitment (paying the mortgage):
- It's not going to happen unless whoever gave you the original money to buy the home decides to be extremely generous and give you the home out of the kindness of their hearts.
And if you buy into the scheme above, remember:
- If you sign over the Title to your home, no matter who it is you signed it over to, you still no longer own it.
Whether it's the bank that takes it from you (lawful foreclosure) or the con tricking you out of it in order to save you any further payments into the mortgage - both the property and the value you paid into it are gone.
There's a much easier and lawful method to get you out of the mortgage and the house... it even comes with a potential benefit to you:
- If the current market value is at or above the outstanding mortgage + selling costs, then put up the property for sale on the market for fair market value.
Once the property is sold, part of it will go to honoring the outstanding mortgage amount, part of it will go to any costs associated with the transaction and the rest will go into your pocket.
If the Volks had followed this route, they'd still be renting. But there's a good possibility they'd have $100,000 in their savings account to show for the sale (assuming selling at the original mortgage value, not counting income tax factor).
Consider thinking deeply about two core principles:
- 1) Renting is sending your money into a black hole - you will never see a penny of it returned.
- 2) Paying a mortgage is an investment. Every cent you pay into the principal is value in your net worth. You won't know how much that is till you sell... but it is a real value.
It also has a much more valuable benefit:
- Look closely at your monthly expenses. Set them out, make a note of the rent/mortgage and what percentage it is of your total monthly expenses. Don't be surprised if you realize it's the greatest expense.
- Now... imagine if that expense was decreased to the amount of property tax.
A retired person on a fixed income has a much, much easier time of it if they don't have to pay the value of rent. An example: I rent at $1,300 per month - for the moment, I'm very close to exchanging rent for the value of a mortgage payment. The property tax is $1,416 per year, that's $118 per month. Imagine having to pay $118 per month instead of $1,300. Do the math and think about what it means to fully own your own property instead of having to pay rent ... but to get there, you must fully honor your mortgage committment.
Also consider:
- Land does not expand. But the population does over time. As the population increases, property will continue to increase in value.
As a result, give sufficient time for market growth you could see that value as:
- new market value - old market value - interest = profit
The real Profit being the extra above and beyond the total value you paid. Obviously the faster you pay off the principal (by making extra payments for example) the lower the total overall interest you'll pay in the long run increasing your utlimate return on investment.
Given how low current interest rates are.... renewing your mortgage with current interest rates really is a borrowers market. This is the time when you can really take advantage of the situation and do so ethically as well as lawfully. Not so long ago, mortgage interest rates were much higher. I hear they were in the high double digits in the 80s or 90s. And they're around the 3% mark today....
incredible - relatively speaking.
So please... think about your choices and what you want very carefully:
- A) Try to keep what you gained from the agreement you entered without taking care of your responsibility = lose everything
- B) Get rid of your responsibility lawfully handing it off to someone else so you no longer face the risk of loss = lose the value you built into the property
- C) Get rid of your responsibility by putting the property on the market so you can at least get some of that value back
The choice is yours. What will you decide?
One final thing to think about just in case you haven't and have bought into the whole "bank was fraudulent" concept.
- If the bank lent you fake money to buy the property then the previous owner did not get paid.
Whether the previous owner tried to use those funds to purchase another property, invest in safe low interest yields such as GICs, put it into their RRSPs.... they would have found out they didn't get paid. Don't you think - if a fraud was comitted by the mortgage lender - that the original owner would want their property back?
Think about it.
* "the path" = whatever the du jour flavor of the month is, freeman, de-taxer, whatever they want to call themselves.
** I have to outline a certain amount for the home owners.... but I'm trying to outline as little as possible to avoid showing the cons how they can lawfully implement the process and - in effect - "steal" the wealth the current homeowners have built into their property.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
