Can My Mother Sell Her House After Foreclosure?
Hello folks, this is a great site . I've read a lot, but this is my question to you.
My mother has two houses on the same mortgage note that was sold on foreclosure on January 15, 2004. The sale price was $36,889.05. The letter she got from the attorneys said she may save her properties by paying the sale price plus interest before the redemption period expires on July 15, 2004. The attorney said she can pay the sale price, or re-finance the property with another lender before the end of the six month redemption period or she will lose all rights to the property.
My question is this, Can my mother sell me the two properties on land contract for what ever amount, I fix them up enough to get bank financing, or sell them and pay off the foreclosing bank with out breaking any rules or laws. Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work. 
YES YOUR MOTHER MAY SELL THE PROPERTIES TO YOU OR TO ANYONE, OR SHE COULD (IF SHE HAS THE CREDIT OR EQUITY) REFI THE PROPERTIES. EITHER WAY THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONIES PAID AND SUBSQUENT ADDITIONAL CHARGES WILL HAVE TO BE PAID TO REDEEM THE PROPERTIES. SHORT OF PAYING THEM OFF IN FULL, OR WHATEVER THE NOW OWNER REQUIRES, THEY ARE GONE. SORRY TO BE A BEARER OF BAD NEWS TO YOU.[ Edited by ozzie on Date 03/21/2004 ]
Basically your mother can do whatever she wants with the property as long as the bank gets paid off before the end of the redemption period.
Basic legal ROT (rule of thumb):
Anybody can sell anything, anywhere, anytime, that he/she might own...either a whole or partial interest...whatEVER that intererest is.
So while a foreclosee might not own much, he/she does have some rights and those can surely be sold.
In RE particularly, one does see some very odd interests being sold...I have sold some very thin interests, where basically all I had was a small partial interest in the property...but it was enough to get me paid by somebody who wanted me outa there.
In law practice, it's very common & everyday that a lawyer sees somebody make a claim that has very little merit, but just enough to make the other side (insurance co., etc pay to make it go away & get a release of such from the claimant.
I've had to pay some very weak claims over the years where all my client wanted was peace-of-mind that he was not gonna be getting sued by some dumb turkey who really had no legitimate claim.
I once represented a client who'd been injured when the car he was riding in was struck by one of two cars racing down an intersecting street.
I sued both drivers, although only one of them hit my client's car. But just before we selected the jury to go to trial, I settled with the non-collider for some small amount, because I knew that his liability was pretty thin.
In law, the validity of any claim is always in the mind of the beholder...to the claimant it's very good, to the insurance co. it's poor or fraudulent, etc.