Hardship = Tenant Not Paying

20100514-hardship-tenantKevin Kauffman (with a Fred Weaver slide in…) shares a bank’s internal documentation that was sent to him by mistake. The document is all numbers and has one line for the homeowner’s hardship. "Hardship = Tenant Not Paying"

HOW TO CLOSE AT LEAST 3 DEALS IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS

Get instant access to our online masterclass to learn the simple steps.

webmaster

Kevin and Fred the founders of Group 46:10. Over the last 10 years Kevin and Fred, and their team have closed tens of millions in real estate all over the country and have created some of the best training for agents in the market. Kevin and Fred are also highly sought after teachers whose work has helped agents all over the country build their own next level real estate business.

HOW TO CLOSE AT LEAST 3 DEALS IN YOUR NEXT 90 DAYS

Get instant access to our online masterclass to learn the simple steps.

About the Authors

IMG_8903squARE

Kevin Kauffman & Fred Weaver

Kevin and Fred the founders of Group 46:10. Over the last 10 years Kevin and Fred, and their team have closed tens of millions in real estate all over the country and have created some of the best training for agents in the market. Kevin and Fred are also highly sought after teachers whose work has helped agents all over the country build their own next level real estate business.

Popular Posts This Week

Reader Comments

6 Comments

  1. coach on May 14, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Wow! Never cease to be amazed! It’s amazing, but not surpising.

    Great stuff! It’s a numbers game, so tenant not paying is a justifiable hardship. Since it’s not loss justification, but loss mitigation, the truth is revealed! Simply, savings over foreclosure!

  2. Terri on May 14, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Great info again.
    You say we can get copy of the email when we attend a class. So, when is your next class. I believe it would be a mind blower. Thanks

  3. hangemhi on May 14, 2010 at 9:52 am

    This is something I’ve been wondering about – clearly this is an investment property. So what about income and assets? Is the investor liquid or not? Did they ask for participation? Or was it really only about foreclosure vs. short sale profits to the lender? The issue being that investor property is recourse and so the lenders can play hardball. But it sounds as if they didn’t care – they approved the short sale simply because it was more profitable – and I didn’t think they did that. I just assumed they turned down most investor properties – especially if the investor was liquid. Am I wrong?

  4. kevin on May 14, 2010 at 10:19 am

    @Terri – Check the events page

    @Hangemhi – Its ALWAYS only about what is more profitable for the bank. We have closed 300+ short sales, more than half of them have been “investment” or rental properties.

    • hangemhi on May 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      but are the investors broke – so they have a real hardship on top of the “bad tenant” reason? what about investors who have money elsewhere, but have a home that 50% under water? You owe the bank $50k or $100k and you’ve got at least that in cash. I’m just curious if it’s got to be a double hardship – the property and the investor’s own finances? Or do they demand financial participation – and if so how much?

  5. kevin on May 18, 2010 at 8:27 am

    @Hangemhi – Its ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS only about money and what is more profitable for the bank.

Leave a Comment