DUE-ON-SALE CLAUSE: The clause (Para. #17) in virtually all mortgage loans, that permits a secured mortgage lender (federal, state or private) to call the entire unpaid loan balance Due and Payable immediately should the property securing the loan be sold, transferred, traded, gifted or otherwise disposed of without the lender’s prior written consent (‘and without the borrower’s giving them the opportunity to charge more money or say “No” to the transfer).
Despite the due-on-sale clause and its implications in the creative real estate financing business, it is quite possible for one to take over the payment stream on a non-assumable mortgage loan without needing to fear, or even to be concerned with, a DOSC Violation…’and without violating it.
In order to effect such a take-over without there being an unauthorized transfer, one need simply assure that the property is, in-fact, NOT being sold, traded, hypothe-cated or transferred in any ‘unauthorized’ manner (‘i.e., one’s placing his/her own real estate into his/her own inter vivos trust is not considered an unauthorized transfer as per Title 12 of the US Code §1701j-3)).
In this regard, since placement of real estate in the borrower’s revocable living trust for “asset protection” purposes is fully allowable under the law (ibid); and since appointment of a co-beneficiary as Remainder Agent is a prudent thing to do when creating any kind of inter vivos trust: a would-be “seller (“owner of record”) need merely vest its real estate in bona fide corporate trustee for such a trust, and thereupon deal with the ownership interest in the trust, ‘rather than dealing with the title ownership in the property.
At this point, the buyer (‘i.e., ‘of beneficiary interest: versus interest in real estate) gains virtually 100% of the same incidents and benefits of Fee-Simple Real Estate ownership that any traditional buyer might in a traditional transfer of the property’s title, i.e.: income tax deduction for mortgage interest and property tax, use, occupancy, quiet enjoyment, littoral and riparian water rights, salability, and the right to ‘quiet enjoyment.”
The only caveat here is that the “living (inter vivos)” trust being utilized for this purpose must be an “Illinois-type,” title-holding [Land] Trust, and be fully revocable and be an inter-vivos trust (‘i.e., ‘in effect during one’s lifetime). However, the land trust is, by its nature, wholly directed by its beneficiaries and ‘not by its trustee, as is the case with other inter vivos trust structure (‘such as, say, a “fully funded inter vivos family trust). As well, ‘in the land trust, the legal title to the corpus (‘the property) as well as all “equitable” title, is vested in the trustee, who becomes the true (‘albeit, temporary) owner of the real estate during the trust’s stipulated term of agreement.
As a result of of the total vesting of title in the trustee, the beneficiaries themselves, hold only a personal property interest in the trust, versus owning real estate per sé; however, in this type of trust, the beneficiaries are none-the-less treated as property owners for income tax purposes (IRR §92-105).
The term of the trust is decided-upon by mutual-agreement of the beneficiaries, and can last up to 21 years beyond the “life-in-being” of any primary beneficiary (i.e., this rule is to prevent a Contract in Perpetuity).
The rule against perpetuity is often stated as follows: “No interest is good unless it unconditionally must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.”
*When a part of a grant or will violates the Rule against Perpetuity, only that portion of the grant or devise is removed. All other parts that do not violate the rule are still valid. The perpetuities period under the common law rule is not a fixed term of years. By its terms, the rule limits the term of the contract to no more than 21 years following the death of the last identifiable individual living at the time the interest was created (i.e., the “life in being”).
Such terms generally run for from 1 to 20 years, with the understanding that, at the end of that time, the trust will be terminated and the seller’s interest (as little as 10%) will be forfeited to the co-beneficiary (buyer). Such forfeiture merely needs to be in consideration of some future act by the buyer (e.g., prompt payments; strict adher-ence to contract terms; a share in appreciation or overall profit; etc.).
Often times, however, beneficiaries might mutually agree to share profits at
termination in proportion to their respective beneficiary interests (50:50, 90:10; 75:25, etc.). n tis regard, it is most important understand here that the verbiage of a lender’s Due-on-Sale clause doesn’t always convey exactly what we or our attorneys THINK it does, or what the lender expects us to believe it does ( little trickery here)…irrespective of whether a lender’s exercising its rights under a DOS clause are “real,” “false” or indifferent.
What the DOS does infer is: “UNLESS PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW…” the lender has a right to foreclose, if the title to its security is transferred into a trust, and if a beneficiary interest in that trust is sold or transferred.”
Well…make no mistakes about it! Such action ‘IS’ indeed prohibited by “applicable law.” The Law (The Federal Depository Institutions Regulations Act of 1982) strictly prohibits ANY lender from taking exception to a borrower’s placing its property into its own inter-vivos (living) trust (such as a Title-Holding Land Trust), and appointing a 2nd party to function as a remainder agent co-beneficiary. Tjs is so because the directors of this type of trust are the beneficiaries, ‘not the trustee. Ergo, the person to take over in the event of the demise of the director would be another beneficiary: not another trustee.
Further, there is nothing to prevent the same co-beneficiaries from leasing the property out to any one they may choose…’say, to the trust’s 2nd co-beneficiary, for example.
Overall, the process described here creates what is tantamount to a legally constructed, and very safe and well-shielded ‘Wrap-Around Seller-Carry’ device.
Since the original owner of the property has named the second party as a beneficiary in the trust and leased the property to him/her under a triple-net lease (i.e., net, net, net lease, wherein the tenant pays mortgage interest, property tax and handles all maintenance), the resident beneficiary (or investor co-beneficiary) has obtained all the benefits of a standard sale… ‘without there actually having been one.
When proposing that a seller remain on the existing loan for you: if you really want to be assured of ‘getting the deal,’ its important that you make it sound so good for the seller that he can’t refuse. In order to do that, you’d suggest that for his own safety and peace of mind, you’ll pay to put the property into a neutral trust (‘if he prefers), and that he need never transfer the property’s title to you at all… until you’ve proven yourself, by eventually refinancing or selling the property and paying off
his mortgage.
In this scenario, you’d explain that you’ll consent to merely becoming a co-bene-ficiary in the trust until the loan is fully retired in, say, 6 months (or 3, 4, 5 or 20 years…or more).
Note that this arrangement (i.e., a “Equity Holding Trust Transfer™”) gives you, as the buyer, 100% of the tax write-off (See IRC § 163(h)4(D)); 100% of the use, occupancy, possession; 100% of the equity build-up (from principal reduction); full rights to all rents; and other profits upon the sale or other disposition of the property.
Note as well, that you also have any and all other rights ordinarily only available under the so-called “Bundle of Rights” in any form of Fee-Simple Real Estate
ownership.
In the Equity Holding Transfer™, the seller needn’t ever take any chances with you; and you don’t have to take any chances with the seller either. By virtue of the structure of the Equity Holding Transfer™, the trust property is protected from liens, suits judgments, divorce actions or claims, bankruptcies or anything else you can think of…’on both sides…’including state and/or IRS tax liens. Moreover, the due-on-sale clause becomes pretty much a non-issue in that the property has not been sold; the title has not been transferred (other than to the borrower’s authorized trust); and there is no consideration for a ‘purchase of real estate’ per se.
In addition, the commodity being transferred (beneficiary interest in a trust) is characterized as Personalty (personal property), and not Realty (real estate), and therefore is not subject to the same creditor rights as would be real estate. And…the transaction has not infringed upon the lender’s foreclosure rights, or compromised its security interest).
In closing, do note that for maximum safety, it recommended that at least 10% of the trust’s Beneficiary Interest and 50% of the beneficiary’s Power of Direction should be retained by the settlor (seller), with an agreement to forfeit that interest to you upon disposition of the property at the trust’s termination. However, also note that the Settlor Beneficiary’s fifty percent Power of Direction can be given to you by means of either an Assignment of Power of Direction, or by a Revocable, Limited, Power of Attorney.
The reason for the seller’s retaining a percentage of beneficial interest is to satisfy the requirement that if the seller places his property into a revocable trust, he must be and remain a beneficiary of that trust. The reason for keeping the 50% Power of Direction intact, is that most county jurisdictions will not re-assess the property for
property taxes, or require transfer fees, when one transfers its property to a bona fide living trust, so long as no more than 50% of the “voting rights” are being conveyed by the transaction.