# Here is a tip



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

If you are buying real estate and doing so from a bank with a mortgage and note. At closing demand a receipt from the bank for the note. By the note you have created a negotiable instrument. If you abandon it without a receipt the bank can request permission from the IRS to seize and sell the note as an abandoned account. With the receipt you have just opened up a demand account with the bank.

P.S. I don't believe I would make this request prior to completion of closing. I expect the bank would turn down the loan.


----------



## Madame (Jan 1, 2003)

Okay, I'm displaying my ignorance here. What is a note?


----------



## buffalocreek (Oct 19, 2007)

A note is the contract between you and the bank for the property loan.


----------



## Madame (Jan 1, 2003)

Thanks for explaining.


----------



## gizmoraleon (Mar 8, 2010)

Ok, call me naive, but how does this work or help?? please explain, or refer to site with explaination.
thanks


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

gizmoraleon said:


> Ok, call me naive, but how does this work or help?? please explain, or refer to site with explaination.
> thanks


Envision yourself buying a property worth $100,000 in cash. Now envision you at closing placing the $100,000 in cash on the tale and walking out without anything that indicated that you paid (aka a receipt).

A negotiable paper is just that. It is negotiable. It is the same as cash. The bank knows this. The lawyers know this. Now you know this. Demand a receipt for ANYTHING with your signature on it because IT IS CASH. The receipt says you have not abandoned it but that you have DEPOSITED it instead.

It is cheap protection.


----------



## cc-rider (Jul 29, 2003)

But doesn't getting the deed show that you paid for it? They wouldn't give you clear deed or title (or whatever you want to call it) otherwise. I'm just still confused....


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

Sorry, but here in civilization, this doesn't make a lick of sense. If you properly transfer a property you have a clear title when you leave the table. Doesn't matter if you pay cash, or certified funds. The deed is immediately filed as unencumbered (free and clear) with the courthouse. No need for receipts, you get a copy of the deed. I have several in my files for properties I currently own. When the courthouse mails me a raised seal deed that describes the property and clearly states that I own it, free and clear, that's about as good as a reciept as your gonna' get. And the IRS doesn't give a rat's butt hair about your receipt, if they want your property, they will take it, end of story. BTW, in these parts you will not have much luck trying to close a deal with $100K in cash. Nobody want to handle, record, and be responsible for that amount of cash in today's business climate. It generates paperwork and suspicion, creates unneccesary risk, and isn't acceptable to many in the business. I just did a deal and the question came up during some idle chat at the closing table. Both brokers, the title agent and a lawyer all said that they don't do cash, period.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

cc-rider said:


> But doesn't getting the deed show that you paid for it? They wouldn't give you clear deed or title (or whatever you want to call it) otherwise. I'm just still confused....


The tip is to demand a receipt for ANYTHING you sign. The reason to demand a receipt because a promise to pay IS money. A note is a promise to pay that is NEGOTIABLE .... that means others might purchase it from the holder. If you have a receipt you may pay off the note and demand the original back. If the note has been NEGOTIATED (sold) you may pay it off and your demand for the original will not be fulfilled because the entity you paid off no longer has possession of the note.

And to be even more specific, a receipt should have a signature on it from whoever issues it.

I would even suggest extending the policy to traffic tickets or any other dealing with the state. Even checks are negotiable. You no longer receive the original back. Issue a check demand a receipt.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tiogacounty said:


> Sorry, but here in civilization, this doesn't make a lick of sense.


Civilization is a process. Specifically, it is a process to make a common law crime a civil crime. Civil crimes represent money for the state. Common law crimes are punished by stocks, incarceration and hanging.



tiogacounty said:


> BTW, in these parts you will not have much luck trying to close a deal with $100K in cash. Nobody want to handle, record, and be responsible for that amount of cash in today's business climate. It generates paperwork and suspicion, creates unneccesary risk, and isn't acceptable to many in the business. I just did a deal and the question came up during some idle chat at the closing table. Both brokers, the title agent and a lawyer all said that they don't do cash, period.


I have no idea of your age but will venture a guess that you have never seen lawful money in your lifetime as Roosevelt outlawed it in 1933. As you have never been exposed to lawful money then you also have no idea what ownership of property actually is. What you are familiar with is equitable possession rather than lawful ownership. This is because the lawful owner of all property in a communist country vests in the state. They are going to let you use their property (which was bought with their credit created for your benefit) as long as you pay the taxes for said use (or usufruct).

The example I gave of leaving $100k on the table without a receipt for it was just that ... an example.... not a thread drift.

As there is no circulating lawful money of exchange then the only currency in existence is your promise to pay ... your signature. The cash you call money is actually money of account ... credit (other peoples debt).

After closing on a property (real estate) go up to your banker and ask him if his books balance at the end of the day. I expect 0% of bankers are going to admit that their books don't balance. If he drew $250,000 out of his vault to pay for your property (or more likely created it on a ledger) in exchange for your note and his books balance and then later he sells the note exactly why would you want to pay him? He no longer holds your note and has no ability to return the original to you. His books are now unbalanced because of your monthly payments because he no longer has possession of your note. Sounds sort of criminal to me. 

If you had a receipt for the note you could present him with the cash to repay the note and demand the return of your original. The receipt creates a demand account.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Here is another thought .... If the note you signed is negotiable then could the receipt for that note (a warehouse receipt) also be a negotiable item?

We live in a society where property transfers and equitable ownership is evidenced by paper and pages and pages of quasi-contracts (lacking substance). A proper receipt that is in someones possession is a property right. If the bank can sell your note then why can't you sell their receipt for holding that note?


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

You may be correct, or not. Doesn't really matter to me, the buyer or seller I do business with, or the judge you attempt to explain your theories to. Your "advice" is of no value in the world of modern day real estate transactions. Your cash is not acceptable to most who engage in those transactions. Yes indeed, it's a paper game backed by nothing and only legitimate until the authorities decide otherwise.........but it still puts food on my table and keeps my kids in college, which says a lot in the middle of this mess.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Madame said:


> Okay, I'm displaying my ignorance here. What is a note?


To be a little more precise, the term "note" refers to a promissory note, which is the loan contract. The promissory note is different from a mortgage, which is a granting document that conveys the property being used as collateral for the promissory note to "mortgage".

The mortgage document is normally recorded with the county recorder, which establishes certain legal rights to the lender. With the mortgage being recorded, the lender can foreclose the property under certain conditions. Also, the mortgage establishes the lender as the first mortgage holder so the borrower can't get a bankruptcy charge-off on the mortgage debt without giving-up the property.

The purpose of having two unique documents (a promissory note and a mortgage) for a real estate transaction is to keep the details of a loan agreement private, since promissory notes are not normally recorded. The mortgage document refers to the promissory note for loan contract details, so the mortgage only has to include the language necessary to convey the property to mortgage but nothing more.

Be aware that a mortgage and promissory note can also be a single unified document.


----------



## txquilter (Dec 29, 2009)

Well, if you are purchasing your property with a mortgage more than likely you are closing the deal either at a "Title Company" or a "Real Estate Attorney's" office. In either case you are signing and receiving a document known as a closing statement or a settlement statement that shows the amount you are paying for the property, all the fees and the amount of your mortgage. Title Companies are not permitted to receive large amounts of cash in their offices (it's been a long time since I worked in one but the threshhold used to be $5,000). Anything over that required a cashier's check or certified bank funds.

If you are paying cash for a property you will not have a "note" only a deed of trust. And again, if you're closing your property using one of the means I mentioned earlier you will have a closing statement showing the funds paid.

If you're doing the deal yourself "in the back room" so to speak I would suggest you NOT purchase such a property. More than likely there has been no title search and there could be all sorts of baggage and liens attached to the property you are attempting to purchase.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

txquilter said:


> If you are paying cash for a property you will not have a "note" only a deed of trust.


I think you meant "deed", not deed of trust.

A deed of trust, which is used in many states in place of the mortgage, conveys certain rights for the property to a trustee. The trustee normally has the right to file papers to foreclose without any court action in the event of a default. The parties of a trust deed are:

Trustor -- the borrower (the home owner)
Trustee -- a company licensed to be a trustee in that state (usually a title company, not otherwise involved in the transaction)
Beneficiary -- the lender (the bank)

In the event of a loan default, the trustee will file with the county recorder a Default (stating that the loan is in default), a Substitution (taking claim to the right to sell the property by virtue of the Trust Deed), and a Notice of Trustee Sale (stating the time a place of the sale). No further legal action is required on the part of the trustee to sell the property. The bank (the beneficiary) gets the proceeds of the sale, or gets the property deed if the minimum bid isn't met (happens maybe 95% of the time).

In a cash transaction there would be no purpose in a trust deed.

But you are correct that there will be no note for the transaction, and also no mortgage.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tiogacounty said:


> You may be correct, or not. Doesn't really matter to me, the buyer or seller I do business with, or the judge you attempt to explain your theories to. Your "advice" is of no value in the world of modern day real estate transactions. Your cash is not acceptable to most who engage in those transactions. Yes indeed, it's a paper game backed by nothing and only legitimate until the authorities decide otherwise.........but it still puts food on my table and keeps my kids in college, which says a lot in the middle of this mess.


People who purchase real estate generally do so through attorneys, a profession generally viewed as less than trustworthy. My guess is this profession is used for property transfers on the theory that your hired thief is willing and able to counter the actions of the others parties hired thief. 

My suggestion is to get a receipt for things that you might not otherwise consider "receipt worthy". If you pay with cash and get a deed in exchange a receipt is not necessary although I believe I would still ask for one. If paying with check the same statement holds. If a note is involved get a receipt for the PAPER you signed. If a combination mortgage-note is involved the same statement hold. If you pay $1 in silver love and affection get a receipt for the $1 and make sure your receipt specifies "silver". If you pay $1 and other valuable consideration the same statement holds.

Courts deal with ORIGINALS and not COPIES. If you are wise you should do the same.

A lady in Florida fighting foreclosure just had her home seized. It wasn't the bank her note was with that did the foreclosure. That bank had gone out of business two years ago. It was the State of Florida that did the dispossessing and yet the original note could not be produced. Had she possessed a receipt for delivering the original to the bank at closing she would be in a much better position. Frequently the lender has no way to produce an original anymore. The practice of using COPIES only leads to fraud.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I wonder why the topic of land is being addressed at this advanced, superficial and fractionalized point.

Why aren't we addressing the subjugating nature, the privileged and thereby compromised status, of "real estate" as opposed to _land_ ?

Why aren't we discussing serfdom and fiefdom, allodial or equitable title versus the near worthless legal title ?

Why don't we discuss the true nature of "real estate tax" and how such a leech was first attached to the lives and lands of America's freedom loving pioneer working class ?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> I wonder why the topic of land is being addressed at this advanced, superficial and fractionalized point.


Because land forms the substance of our being.



Forerunner said:


> Why aren't we addressing the subjugating nature, the privileged and thereby compromised status, of "real estate" as opposed to _land_ ?


 Words might have whatever meaning you assign to them. Most people these days are programmed to discuss real estate rather than land. Most people are programmed to believe they are powerless to resist a government that appears less than sympathetic. Actually people have more power than they think they have.



Forerunner said:


> Why aren't we discussing serfdom and fiefdom, allodial or equitable title versus the near worthless legal title ?


 The worth of legal title is that it can be separated from you should you misbehave; i.e., control.



Forerunner said:


> Why don't we discuss the true nature of "real estate tax" and how such a leech was first attached to the lives and lands of America's freedom loving pioneer working class ?


Private contract. Like the income tax, property tax started out insignificant but during the depression was the principle means by which people were forced off their property. Texas has now decided that, in the case of property, the true owner is the one who pays the property tax. 

All interesting topics. Not a lot of folks who have successes. Those who have are judged "peculiar". Sure beats being judged "bankrupt" though.


----------



## txquilter (Dec 29, 2009)

Nevada - you are correct, like I said "it's been a really long time since I worked in the Title Co." But my main point is that if you're doing the deal through a Title Co. or a Real Estate Attny your closing document is your receipt.


----------



## katy (Feb 15, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> I wonder why the topic of land is being addressed at this advanced, superficial and fractionalized point.
> 
> Why aren't we addressing the subjugating nature, the privileged and thereby compromised status, of "real estate" as opposed to _land_ ?
> 
> ...


_Please elaborate, have not heard of this before. tia_


----------



## greenhorn (Jun 3, 2009)

"Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to?
Clarence Darrow"

Palani, your signature line is funny in that it asks a question and proves the implied point of the question, since the second part is grammatically incorrect. Funny.

Sorry that's all I ca add to this conversation, but it's very interesting!


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> Why don't we discuss the true nature of "real estate tax" and how such a leech was first attached to the lives and lands of America's freedom loving pioneer working class ?


From my perspective the true nature is our common compact of our society, local and state level, and our common need of roads/bridges and services we need to provide for transportation/trade, schools etc., to provide for means to enforce rule of law etc. and lock up the criminals.

We as a society and our vote decide what service we desire the state to provide, and what laws we desire to live under, as well as what forms and amounts of taxation we subjugate ourselves to.

Personally, I like having a maintained public road system, a public school system, my states healthcare system, having a legal and court system to protect me. Not that any of them are perfect, but without their existence I would be worse off.


----------

