Greetings my fellow NSAs,
Some of you may remember MV Realty and the their infamous 40 year Listing Contracts, that roped homeowners and their heirs, in to 40 year contracts to list and sell their homes in exchange for a cash payment. Well this popped up in my notification box this morning. Looks like the end is near for MV.
Hope all those people who signed that agreement get that released. I understand they filed liens on some properties for these monies so it remained a matter of public record…or they could just record the Agreement itself.
This is just a reorganization … They can still operate … Probably not the end for them unless they can’t redeem the company at all. To that I say GOOD!!! They deserve it with their bogus tactics.
The biggest problem with their contract is they filed a lien…which popped up in a refi…and so had to be paid out of refi $ so Lender had 1st lien position. So, the Chapter 11 will attempt to restructure that and, if successful…business as usual. The average bear will still not ‘get’ it. Best solution is outlaw ‘right to sell’ contracts. Problem REALLY solved.
Apparently, according to the article, several states already have outlawed them and I think I read there were a few that banned MV from doing business in the state.
As for the lien, that’s what I was referring to … Record a lien or the agreement clouds the title for future refi’s or the sale.
Restructuring will be difficult as MV doesn’t have a portfolio that can be sold off to satisfy debtors.
@Arichter I just realized…
You said “they filed a lien…which popped up in a refi…and so had to be paid out of refi $ so Lender had 1st lien position.”
A simple subordination agreement would have satisfied this…at no funds due from borrower
True. Just something I found online when this issue first raised its ugly head on NC.
Also at that time found out they always record this as a lien.
I’m gonna go way out on a limb, but imho–as a long time retired R.E. Broker, I think this is a very clever way to obtain future listings/sellers as most r.e. Sales people love selling/hate the grunt-work of looking for listings/sellers. So a lot of a co’s advertising money goes into trying to find Sellers. With Multiple Listing Service (MLS), anyone in any co. can SELL it, but if you have the majority of listings, you’re gonna make 1/2 the commission for a lot less work.
I did read the Contract & it really did seem fair to me. If memory serves, MV’s actual listing contract was for 6 months @ customary commission rate (both of which are pretty standard) &, after that, if it hasn’t sold, the Seller can list it elsewhere. I really don’t see anything ‘wrong’ with the concept.
Where I think they messed it up was in not pounding it into the ‘future Seller’s’ heads’-- explaining it well enough to the contract signer/potential future Seller. While the actual contract is clear, I think people were just looking at ‘free money’ and blew right past their ‘contractual obligation to list IF they or their heirs want to sell over the next 40 years’. All the complainers were obligated by contract to do, was list the property with MV first, at whatever price the Seller agreed to at that future time. With MLS, it would most likely be sold; MV gets 1/2 commission, selling co. gets 1/2, property sold–everybody happy. As to why MV didn’t do a subordination agreement when contract-signers refi’d–I dunno. Maybe nobody asked them to???
Adding… it was not a 40 year Listing Contract. It was a separate Agreement to list IF they decide to sell over the next 40 years. If they or their heirs never ‘decided to sell’–end of issue.
The 40 year contract assumes MV will still be in business 4 decades after the fact. If they’re not, there’s a lot of legal gymnastics to get the lien removed. Now that MV has filed Chapter 11, the only assets they have to sell, to generate cash are the liens. Are they buyers of those contracts willing to wait decades to get their cash back?
Of the few contracts I looked at MV gets to set the selling price of the property, not the homeowner. This means if MV can’t turn the property, MV gets first position to reduce the price of the property, even if this falls below the homeowner’s desires or market value.
Texas lenders are reluctant to offer Reverse Mortgages, Refinancing, or HELOCs on properties with liens unrelated to the loan. I don’t know if this is the same in other states.
Ah… your experience is different than mine as to who sets price. That puts it in a whole new light…spotlight, really! You’re right in that I, too, doubt they’ll find a buyer of their liens as easily as they found potential future sellers of property.
I raised this topic to Snapdocs over a year ago with reference to this company being predatory and illegitimate and they blew me off. I think my ranking was adversely affected because of me bringing attention to this company. I wish I had proof for recourse on this matter
It seems I’d read something about other NSAs doing the same as you, only to be penalized as well.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
