O.K. I am afraid but I want to take a baby step...

[smidgen]

I went to my bank the other day just to talk to my loan officer she is really nice and we seem to get along really well? My goal is, to buy my first rental. But I also want it to be a fixed mortgage like my home is. Is that possible or do I have to have a loan that is wacky with an ARM and all that garbage because it is a rental? I asked my loan officer if there was a single family home that is not a mansion here in my area? I am also looking into a mobile (just something to start up the rental business) home just because it would be my budget. I have a less than $19,000.00 to spend so I was hoping for a loan less than 20% down? She told me that the bank does loans for curtain customers with no money down. God, my red flags went up and I just told her that I haven't found a property yet..... my hands get clammy and I say to myself, "get out of here you don't know what you are doing?" then I gracefully bowed out of the conversation. I went back to my car and then headed over to the dunkin's and ordered a iced coffee.

O.k. I need some help, I am getting terms confused? I would like something with an assumable mortgage just because it would be easy but I don't know if assumable mortgage means the same as pre-foreclosed home? The infomercials say that they are two different things? The bank is implying that they aren't? If they are what are the differences? I am trying to find out this on my own but my eyes are red and I am just getting confused? :SM131:


Help:icon_bete

[Debbie]

Sharon,

I hope you don't mind, I moved your post to "Buying your next property right" from the "Ladies' Room". This way, you'll get more responses for your question.

Now, I can't respond much because I lost my reading glasses plus I gotta pick up my daughter shortly. So, I'll respond as much as I can read with my head tilted back and my eyes WIDE open so I can read beyond the blurry words. LOL

You were very, very smart to walk away from the proposal. If you had years of experience under your belt as an investor, then that proposal may be something you could consider. For now, you're an investor beginner.

My strong advice for you when it comes to rental home is to get a fixed 30 years. Put down as much down payment as you can afford. But be sure to leave some money for potential vacancy costs, remodeling costs, etc. You will need some equity in that building so that you can get re-fi or heloc if needed.

My strong advice #2 for your very first rental home is a duplex. This way, you'll have one side paying your mortgage whenever the other side is vacant. Try, if at all possible, to get one side's rent payment to match your mortgage payment.

Regarding mobile home----you really do not need to get a loan at all. Actually, with your $19k, you are in perfect position to buy mobile homes and be seller finance. Heck, you can easily double your money in less than two years! But (always a but), make sure that the city you live in allows mobile homes. Do research first. Check the mobile home parks. Talk to the park managers/owners. It is possible that you may have to travel away from your city to where mobile homes are located.

In the meantime, I'm going to allow Jim Johnson to take care of you. He'll respond as soon as he sees your posting.....

I gotta go pick up my daughter. Talk to you later!

Good luck, girl! You're doing just fine!

Debbie

[Dan Auito]

Deb preety much gave you a good lowdown.

O.k. I need some help, I am getting terms confused? I would like something with an assumable mortgage just because it would be easy but I don't know if assumable mortgage means the same as pre-foreclosed home? The infomercials say that they are two different things?
Assumable simply means that the lender who currently holds the mortgage agrees to substitute another payer in place of the current owners, there are qualifying assumable and no qualifying assumable (no doc's) If preforecloser was involved you'd most likely be talking short sale "buy out" with a new loan completely.

[smidgen]

O.k. now, let's say I want a assumeable mortage from a prospectful house? What is the word to tell the lender that I want to assume this mortage? "say Mary there is a house that I would like to assume there motgage on what is the best offer that you can give me on a rate?" that just plan doesn't sound right? Is there a better wording that I can use? Also, the lender that I spoak to told me that there is a difference rate on the mortage if it is a rental vs. a vacation home. Why? I know that life in unfair but is there a way that I could get a home rate instead of a rental rate? If you tell the lender that it is a vacation home but you are really using it as a rental, is that a violation of some law that I don't know about? I can stomach 6% much better than 9% (for example) so could my husband.

I absolutely love the duplex idea, since I am used to that with my parents but it is just finding the right one? It will come.... I can feel it in my bones! Lol... I am looking at the AZ ads almost every day (yes, I am a little obsesive) to see what is out there?

[smidgen]

o.k. the corrections are not updating? I am not sure what is going on?

[smidgen]

O.k. now, let's say I want a assumable mortgage from a prospective house? What is the word to tell the lender that I want to assume this mortgage? "say Mary there is a house that I would like to assume there mortgage on what is the best offer that you can give me on a rate?" that just plan doesn't sound right? Is there a better wording that I can use? Also, the lender that I talked to told me that there is a difference rate on the mortgage if it is a rental vs. a vacation home. Why? I know that life in unfair but is there a way that I could get a home rate instead of a rental rate? If you tell the lender that it is a vacation home but you are really using it as a rental, is that a violation of some law that I don't know about? I can stomach 6% much better than 9% (for example) so could my husband.

I absolutely love the duplex idea, since I am used to that with my parents but it is just finding the right one? It will come.... I can feel it in my bones! Lol... I am looking at the AZ ads almost every day (yes, I am a little obsessive) to see what is out there?

[smidgen]

Thanks so much Debbie for what you put down. It got me to think about what my gut has been feeling. I never thought about the refi issue also I am glad my gut says the same thing as you did about the 30 yr. fixed! I woudn't do it any other way right now.

thanks again!

[Debbie]

O.k. now, let's say I want a assumable mortgage from a prospective house? What is the word to tell the lender that I want to assume this mortgage? "say Mary there is a house that I would like to assume there mortgage on what is the best offer that you can give me on a rate?" that just plan doesn't sound right? Is there a better wording that I can use? Also, the lender that I talked to told me that there is a difference rate on the mortgage if it is a rental vs. a vacation home. Why? I know that life in unfair but is there a way that I could get a home rate instead of a rental rate? If you tell the lender that it is a vacation home but you are really using it as a rental, is that a violation of some law that I don't know about? I can stomach 6% much better than 9% (for example) so could my husband. Not quite clear on vacation home that is really a rental. Do you mean by you and hubby using the home for couple of weeks per year yet rest of the time rent the house? If yes, then just request for a loan for rental purposes.

Sharon,
There's no law that says you must have 1 year rental lease to tenants. You can always have 10-11 months lease. Better yet, have M2M lease (month to month) for non-collective tenants. This way, you can treat the house as a get away place for you and hubby.

Debbie

[Dan Auito]

You may be assuming an existing rate! The thing here is that if current rates are lower you'll do a new loan anyway!

Back in the day people had old non qualifying VA loans that had low interest rates to boot so if you found one and could make a deal then life was good.

Those Old VA loans are pretty much gone these days as far as assumption goes so onto traditional or other creative finance techniques, banks see rentals as risk and charge higher rates to compensate, it's the greyest of grey when you claim primary residence and rent it out, history says as long as the payments are made the old bank won't call the loan due, but it's no fun insurance wise along with the hatchet hanging over the old head.

Move into one side of a duplex and you wouldn't be lying! Move out and rent your half a year later and your golden!

[brianb_cobbres]

My strong advice for you when it comes to rental home is to get a fixed 30 years. Put down as much down payment as you can afford.


Why do you recommend putting down as much as possible or putting anything down when there are so many lenders that will do 100% financing with no money down?

[FloridaProperties]

I didnt see this reply but every loan I've written states this loan is NOT assumable. At least here in our market.
Dont want to hijack but has anyone here ever successfully assumed a mortgage?

[Dan Auito]

Sure have, but they MUST be assumable!

[FloridaProperties]

You've been around doing deals a lot longer then I have. How many have you seen? I would love to assume a mortgage, just havent seen/found any.

[Debbie]

Why do you recommend putting down as much as possible or putting anything down when there are so many lenders that will do 100% financing with no money down?

She's a beginner investor. After setting aside carrying costs, I recommended her to put down something--could be 5% to 20%. We've got weird lenders nowadays and I do not want her and her hubby to find themselves in a hole that they can't get out of. Plus, they can use the equity should they ever need to re-fi or heloc.

Debbie

[Jim FL]

Smidgen,
I understand you wanting to get into the rental business, for some reason, we've all wanted that at one point or another.
Even thought about getting a loan to buy them, and sometimes, did.
Heck, some of us actually ARE landlords now, I know I am, and not always by choice. I love payments, just not complaints, and entitlement attitudes......but I'll get back to point, sorry. :-)

Getting a loan to buy a house, or assuming one?
........there are better ways.
You have $19k to invest, but why use all of that as a downpayment to get a loan, in your name. (frankly, you should have as much of that on hand as possible since you want to hold a property, cash reserves are a must in the rental biz.)
Anyway....
My advice, study up here on some alternative financing methods, and put that $19k to work for you BIG time!

First, let me clarify something, and the thread may have covered it, but I frankly did not read it all...yet. (sorry guys, been busier than a one legged man in a kicking contest).
Anyway, you mentioned 'assuming' someones loan?
There are two types of assumable loans.
Those without qualifying, and these are rare, since they would be VERY old at this point, and most likely refinanced out of. (unless held by a private investor lacking skills in note drafting)........and the other type.........,
,,,,,,, 'qualifying assumable', which means the terms on the note/mortgage/deed of trust remain the same as they are for the original barrower, and YOU are allowed to subistitute in their place, AFTER the lender 'qualifies' you.
Which you'd need to do in order to get a new mortgage anyway.......so, unless the rates were killer and you did not mind having your name out there for the world to see, and had the money to spend to jump thru lender hoops........then, it might make sense...for you.


So, let me give you something to think about.
I have a feeling it might appeal to you, and frankly, satisfy the things you seem to want out of a deal, the way you describe in your original post.

You mentioned wanting to assume a pre-foreclosure?, or something like that, my words used here of course.
I take it by this, you mean a scenario such as follows.
A home owner, with a nice house that would make a good rental property, based on the mortage payments, expenses, and rental market in the area, who is facing foreclosure for not making payments.
You want to step in, make those payments up, have the home owner move on, assume the loan, and take ownership of the property, and rent it out?
Am I on track here?
(if not, wouldn't be the first, or last time for sure.)

So, what about this.
Joe homeowner/seller contacts you, or you are referred to him, whatever, contact is made.
Joe has a house he owes about 65% of value on, and his payments are nice, due to a great owner occupied interest rate on the loan.
If those numbers remained in place, and the house rented, it would bring in say $450/month in cashflow.
or, better yet, 40% of the rent would be cashflow, and use numbers to satisfy your market numbers locally.
So, Joe says, "Smidgen, I'm behind by two months, I need to make those payments up, and make the next one, or the lender will start foreclosure, and I don't have that money. Can you help? I also need $1500 to move into a rental accross town, and get on my feet."
Now, remember, he owes 65% of value, the place will cashflow well, and just use a number here to illustration purposes, it will take $3500 to make the loan current and get the seller moved on.
Now, the only problem is, how to take on the loan, and ownership of the property?
The sellers loan is NOT assumable, without qualifying, and its an owner occupied loan, so, as an investor, you cannot qualify for it, and rent the place out.......you must live there.
IF you formally assume the loan.

But, get this, there are ways, and yes, we here at MB can walk you thru them, guide you to resources to get it done, without having to qualify and take over that house in the scenario above.

So, imagine this, you pay the sellers mortgage current, and when he packs his stuff and hands you keys, you pay him his cash, or, pay the new landlord the deposit direct. (never give cash til the house is in your possession).

Anyway, you pay out $3500, plus a title search/insurance policy, some contract work with a local attorney (for your first, a wise move), and your in for say $5k, and still have $15k left as a cushion.
This is called a subject to deal, and of course, it is my favorite.
The thing is, there are multitudes of ways to use the existing financing, and get into a property, without using your own, credit, name, and/or much of your own cash.
Many of these types of deals can even be done now money down.

So, save your $19k, and don't complete any loan apps, unless of course you are buying for 50% of value, and it makes sense.
Leverage your brain, not your wallet.

With $19k, in any area of the U.S.A., you should be able to make at least 2-3 deals happen that make sense, and nice profit.

The key, is to deal with sellers who have a problem, that you can solve, and profit while doing so.
Sounds easy, but it is hard work, and there are plenty of details to attend to.
the good news is this, you are a family member here, and thanks to that, have access to more FREE info and help from fellow members, who can certainly make things easier........as long as you are willing to work.

My first creative deal was done thanks in large part to folks I'd discussed things with online, and worked out kinks along the way as they arrose.
Which they always do.

Good luck, and whichever way you go, there is help in them there boards at MB's.

Take care,
Jim FL

[Dan Auito]

This is where I come in and say jump on over to www.REmentors.com (http://www.REmentors.com) and get Jim's E Book. It's worth the few bucks he asks!

[tinae01]

I second that motion. My husband and I bought it and it is terrific! We have maybe 10 or so real estate books on our shelf - but that is the one we use on a daily basis and literally follow it's instructions step by step for marketing and sales.

I HIGHLY reccommend it! Besides that - Jim answers any questions I have via email and is just an all around nice guy.

[SPIVALAW]

I assume mortgages all the time "subject to".
Don't ask, don't tell.
:>)

[smidgen]

O.k. there is a storm coming so if I get cut off I am sorry. I want to ultimately do a Jim thing but I need to learn so much more! Gotta go the storm I will type later!

[landtrustwizard]

Someone posted, "There are two types of assumable loans.
Those without qualifying, and these are rare, since they would be VERY old at this point, and most likely refinanced out of. and the other type.........,
,,,,,,, 'qualifying assumable', which means the terms on the note/mortgage/deed of trust remain the same as they are for the original barrower, and YOU are allowed to subistitute in their place, AFTER the lender 'qualifies' you.
Which you'd need to do in order to get a new mortgage anyway.......

The poster is correct to a point. What the poster is not mentioning above is what is the penalty for assuming a loan without lender permission. That penalty is the Due on Sale Clause (DOSC). Although it's not a crime and not often invoked as it was in the 1970's and 1980's (as interest rates rise so will DOSC foreclosures), does anyone truly feel safe trusting a bank NOT to call a loan when they spent millions and fought so hard to get Garn-St. Germain passed in 1982 ALLOWING them to invoke a DOSC? Bonnie & Clyde didn't trust them and neither do I.

ALL LOANS ARE LEGALLY ASSUMABLE if you use a land trust and the owner remains a co-beneficiary. It's that simple and definitely an alternative worth learning about in order to maximize efficiency and safety, and minimize liability.

Wiz

[SPIVALAW]

I assume subject to all the time. Have for 25 years,
Never had Due on Sell clause exercised.
I often tell mortgage company, most dont care.
I have used trust, LLC, C Corps.....

[optionfl]

Never had Due on Sell clause exercised. neither have i

I often tell mortgage company, most dont care. i never did, and i alway disclosed this "what if" dosc thing to the seller

does anyone truly feel safe trusting a bank NOT to call a loan when they spent millions and fought so hard to get Garn-St. Germain passed in 1982ALLOWING them to invoke a DOSC? i know i don't, but!

a few my solutions :

make payments on time
dont change hazard insurance beneficiary
dont change name on the deed

if you use a land trust and the owner remains a co-beneficiary. It's that simple and definitely an alternative worth learning about in order to maximize efficiency and safety, and minimize liability. a homeowner may transfer title to a living trust for his own benefit may work.

[landtrustwizard]

A living trust is NOT exempt from the DOSC, only a land trust is exempt. Just thought I'd note that. As for insurance, homeowner's coverage will only last for 30 days. I always convert my insurance to landlord coverage and require my tenant to get renter's insurance. In my opinion, ANY time you are hiding anything from the lender, you have something to hide. What amazes me is the lengths investors will go to to try to obtain the advantages already existant in a land trust. My favorite benefit is it makes all loans assumable.

Wiz

[optionfl]

wiz, please help me understand number (8) please,

what i read:

The Garn St. Germain Act carves several exceptions in which the lender may not enforce the due-on-sale:

Exemption of Specified Transfers or Dispositions
With respect to a real property loan secured by a lien on residential real property containing less than five dwelling units, including a lien on the stock allocated to a dwelling unit in a cooperative housing corporation, or on a residential manufactured home, a lender may not exercise its option pursuant to a due-on-sale clause upon -

(1) the creation of a lien or other encumbrance subordinate to the lender's security instrument which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy in the property;

(2) the creation of a purchase money security interest for household appliances;

(3) a transfer by devise, descent, or operation of law on the death of a joint tenant or tenant by the entirety;

(4) the granting of a leasehold interest of three years or less not containing an option to purchase;

(5) a transfer to a relative resulting from the death of a borrower;

(6) a transfer where the spouse or children of the borrower become an owner of the property;

(7) a transfer resulting from a decree of a dissolution of marriage, legal separation agreement, or from an incidental property settlement agreement, by which the spouse of the borrower becomes an owner of the property;

(8) a transfer into an inter-vivos trust in which the borrower is and remains a beneficiary and which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy in the property; or

(9) any other transfer or disposition described in regulations prescribed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

good luck and latter

[SPIVALAW]

A living trust is NOT exempt from the DOSC, only a land trust is exempt. Just thought I'd note that. As for insurance, homeowner's coverage will only last for 30 days. I always convert my insurance to landlord coverage and require my tenant to get renter's insurance. In my opinion, ANY time you are hiding anything from the lender, you have something to hide. What amazes me is the lengths investors will go to to try to obtain the advantages already existant in a land trust. My favorite benefit is it makes all loans assumable.

Wiz

Hello WIZ:

You and I keep saying the same things, just a different way.

By "hide" I mean,
not have my name on anything of public record, like the title.

You may infact be safe in an entity but when you have your name on it,
it is like driving a porshe, it just invite lawsuits.
I don't fear lossing a Lawsuits, I am a trial lawyer and I usually win.

I want to avoid it in the first place. Lawsuits are like street fights, no one wins.

I just dont like using trust the way you do. I am happy they work for you.
As a lawyer I bull doze over trust in GA.

When I do "Subject to" I sometimes use a trust. Sometimes I dont.
I never said I use a LIVING TRUST. I said that what the bank sometimes thinks it is. Thats their false assumption.

I too buy insurance and I usually tell mortgage company that I will be making the payments. When I dont tell the mortgage company, its not "hiding" its just none of their business, I have no contract with the lender, the borrow does.

TO me a DOS clause is not a big deal.
If any bank ever exercises a DOS clause I will just use a credit line or private money to pay it off. None ever have. They often know I take it over.

You still havent solved my concern of the requirement in Ga that the TRUSTEE must be an individual.

Make it a great day!
howard

[landtrustwizard]

optionfl,

#8 is what gives the land trust its credibility. When you take a property subject to, the seller MUST remain a beneficiary (he/she always holds 10% until termination in my deals) and the trust must not refer to occupancy rights. It does not.

Once the trust is established, the law allows the owner/beneficiary(ies) to lease the property for up to 3 years as long as it does not contain an option to purchase (see #4). I avoid that with a first right of refusal to purchase at Fair Market Value. This is done with an Occupancy Agreement.

Inevitably, someone will come up with Federal regulation [12 C.F.R. 591.5 (b)(vi) which says: "A transfer into an inter vivos trust in which the borrower is and remains THE beneficiary AND occupant of the property." That means that if the owner moves, he has violated the DOSC. It was a misinterpretation of the original code.

Title 12 of the CFR is NOT the law and has never been enacted as such, or even proposed to be law. Title 1 of the CFR will show any reader which codes are law and which are not, and Title 12 itself is NOT. And do not let any uninformed attorney or nay-sayer ever tell you than the CFR is law. Some titles are, and some are not, and Title 12 is not, and would always be subordinate and defer to Title 12 of the U.S. Code (12-1701j3, etal).

From the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives:

"Certain titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are merely prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. Only the following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49.?

Obviously, therefore, those caveats that appear to preclude one's leasing out of a mortgaged property and/or that would require residence and non-transfer of a partial beneficiary interest, are simply not law and not valid. The Code is the law. The regulations are written up to interpret the law.

Title 12 says the Seller must remain THE beneficiary of the Trust. In our trust system, there is always a co-beneficiary, thus, the Seller is not THE beneficiary of the Trust, but "A" beneficiary. If you don't see the difference, ask yourself this question: "Would I rather be "the" man sleeping with my wife, or "a" man? See the difference?

Also, if this law really intended to have the Seller remain the occupant, why does it provide specific guidelines for a lease? You can place the property into a trust and lease it for less than 3 years without an option. The IMPORTANT DETAIL is that the seller MUST retain at least a 10% ownership interest in the trust. He is entitled by the law to then lease it.

Wiz

[Debbie]

Hey guys---time out!

A special favor? While your responses are well received and well deserved, would you guys get back to Smidgen's original questions?

Sharon (Smidgen) is a beginner's investor and she's already drowning in confusions as this thread continued off topic.

Let's help her out by giving out simple answers and simple directions.

Thanx guys--I knew you'd be willing to help! :icon_bete

Debbie

[SPIVALAW]

Buy low sell high.

[BSH]

Smigen, I'm going to jump in here. First, I'm going to recommend you call my #1 lending guru, Deanna Valeo. She's with American Home Mortgage. Her # is 800-794-9955. If she can't help you, she'll know someone who can. When I first started out in REI she held my scared little hand all the way through. (Well, she still has to hold my hand a little bit, but it's not as bad anymore :-) Anyway, call her. She's not going to try to "sell" anything to you. She'll tell you what products are going to work for you now--just remember, a good financing product now may not be a good selection later, say when rates are higher (or lower, dare we hope?), or when your situation changes (i.e., you have less/more for downpayment, property type is different, etc.). Tell Deanna I sent you. She's also my friend.

Secondly, I agree with the other advice so far. Yes, put at least 20% down. If you don't, you will be hit with PMI (personal mortgage insurance). PMI rubs me the wrong way. Basically, you're paying for insurance to cover the BANK in the event you do not pay back the loan. Does that sound right to you? I doubt it. Avoid it. It's a huge waste of money. Also, yes, strive to get a 30-yr fixed rate mortgage. Especially for your first few deals. With 20% down, and your rate/payment fixed, there's no question about how much your monthly expenses are going to be. For someone new to this scene, a set monthly expense is really going to help you out. A 30-yr fixed with 20% down is also very good on a property you plan to keep. This way, you have instant equity in the place--ask the same bank that's financing your mortgage to set up a HELOC (home equity line of credit) for whatever balance they can. Voila! You have access to the cash you need for the downpayment on property #2.

That's how I financed all my properties beyond the first one. First house was fixed 30-yr with 20% down, as was property#2. After that, I got brave and tried a 3-year ARM because the rate was only 2.3% for 3 years. That rate ends in 2 months, and I'm paying off the mortgage with the proceeds from a flip we close on tomorrow. (yay!) Anyway, I always go for 30-yr fixed with 20% down on my rentals. On my flips, I do short-term interest-only notes. Monthly payments on those are next to nothing. Also, since I buy my properties at usually 60% below value, the bank happily finances both the primary mortgage and my downpayment via a second note. I don't care since I'm going to sell the property in a number of months at the most.

Anyway, that's my take on things. Not an expert, but have been financing houses for 10+ years. Love the traditional (30-yr fixed with 20% down), usually avoid the ARMS because of the changing rates/monthly payments. But ARMS are good for short-term investments that you're going to sell. Keep talking to lenders--try all sorts (local banks, big mortgage brokers, and everything in between).

By the way, we end up paying about one percent more on our non-owner-occupied properties than we do on our primary residence. That's not that big a deal. On a little property, it won't affect your monthly payment enough to worry about. If you don't take the other advice in this thread, just pay the extra percent and don't sweat it. Unfortunately, it's the other stuff that irritates me--insurance is higher, and so is property tax where we invest (tax is 6% higher for non-owner-occupied than for primary residence--ridiculous!)

Well, I guess I got carried away . . . blab blab blab. Hope this helps.

[Debbie]

Excellent BSH! Excellent!

Methinks Smidgen will concur!

Debbie

[smidgen]

I totally agree! I don't want to offend anyone in here I am just trying to learn new ways of doing things but to be honest, the new way scared the holy bejesus out of me but that doesn't mean that I don't want to try. I just need to build on what I learn and not get off on a tangent then get frustrated.

I really don't want to call anyone because I still have to talk everything out and write some notes. I thank-you for the help though. I just need to keep learning and keep looking for the right property for me and my situation.

All of you guys are wonderful in here it is just you send REALLY loaded emails and to keep up it's a little hard. Just you all wait though, I will get caught up and then be able to talk just like the rest of y'all maybe give you a spin around the block or two? LOL!

[landtrustwizard]

Howard,

"You still haven't solved my concern of the requirement in Ga that the TRUSTEE must be an individual."

Please show me where that is a requirement. The ONLY requirement I have found in researching GA law is that the Trustee be involved with property matters in order to avoid a classification as a dry or failed trust. I have found nothing about a Trustee having to be an individual. In fact, I have found many situations where the Trustee is a corporation such as a bank. Thanks.