Ontario Tax Sale Property Forum
Tax Sale Forum => Questions and Answers => Topic started by: payla on November 15, 2006, 03:35:46 PM
-
Hello everyone.
Rob this site has been very informative thank you, this is my first post and I wanted to ask few questions see if you and any one else can help me, I have done some work on the oro properties and find out that on property number B there is a charge of $1481250.00 by Sacks Pollack Receivers Inc., which is a receivership company I want to know if this charge will stay after the sale.
Also on property number D there is an execution registered on the title in the am out of @$53447.00 Plus costs seem like some kind of judgment executed by the Sheriff I need to know if this will stay after the sale also.
Thanks.
-
Firstly on Property B, we need to find out who the receiver is working for - that should be in the documentation. It is likely a bank, or some other financial surety since the Crown would simply put its own lien on.
On property D, same thing - we need to find out who the Sheriff's execution is on behalf of.
Did you take copies of the documents, if so perhaps I can help you decipher them.
Please let us know so that the rest of us don't waste time duplicating this work.
-
Thanks for the quick response I do have the copies and the first document is charge/mortgage of land is in the shape of mortgage loan to the owner corporation of land by sacks pollack receivers it seems that seems that receiver loaned the money and for the second execution it seems like it was done by a person against the owner of the land and it was executed by the sheriff i hope this information is enough.
-
OK, so if you don't want to share any more specifics with us, than satisfy yourself. You asked for our views and yet you don't want to provide any additional details.
All I can say at this point is, if you don't see me at the sale it is likely because these are crown. If that is the case you should withdraw your bid before you lose money. 8)
-
The information I have written is the information I have but if you want me to check anything specific let me know.
-
Good Day All.. I haven't Posted here in a while and sort of been "sitting in the bush" learning along the way, bidding too, but yet to be successful.
I took a drive yesterday to Oro and checked out 3 of the 4 properties for sale. Property "A" has been cancelled by the municipality. Property "B" has a Charge/Mortgage as discussed in the other postings. I was able to do a bit of sluthing so far and came up with a web site address www.sackspartnership.com. same address and suite number listed on the Charge/Mortgage of land. I have Emailed them, but yet to get a replie. Property "C" is a wooded lot, flat and level in the hamlet of "Foxmead". Property "D" is a sloping lot from the road, Moderate grade, great location next to the ski hills, Might have some building limitations, Looks to be the only vacant lot left in the neighbourhood. I was able to find a phone number for the creditor listed in the Writ of Execution, but again have not received a replie yet. And Property "E" i did not look at.
From My experience, I believe the properties will be cancelled buy the municipality on Monday, or the winning tender will be about 8 times as much as the minimum tender amount. I'm just a "small fish" but I think my guess is as good as any one else. If you send me a private message I'd be happy to pass on the names and phone numbers I have found.
Good Luck Bidding
Robert
-
Folks: Posting Update. I have just received an email from "Sacks Pollack Receivers Inc" The Charge is a registered mortgage on property "B"
Robert
-
Hi all, I just want to let you know that I called treasurer department in Oro-Medonte Friday around noon. I was told that the owner of the property 'D' had approached the municipality with an intention to pay off taxes. It's a huge possibility that the property will be redeemed before the tax sale. If someone goes on Monday, please, tell us know the results. Thanks.
-
I was talking to the treasurer on Friday and they are announcing D property also cancelled, as far as the B property is concerned just want to find out if the registered mortgage will survive the tax sale if any one knows.
Thanks.
-
If the lien on property B is not crown - then it will disappear with the tax sale.
Too bad about property D. When you do these searches, do not contact the lien holders - they have had plenty of opportunity to come to the rescue, calling them (or e-mailing them) will simply wake them up and the sale gets cancelled. I have no problem with making contact with them to let them know that there will be excess proceeds for them to pursue after you have had the deed transferred to you (I've done that), but never before the sale (or until that deed is in your hands).
-
Frank thanks for the info.
-
No problem, and I just called Oro and they have officially taken property D off the list. Darn
-
Frank, Can you exoplain "Excess proceeds" to me (maybe I'm a little thick).
PM if you feel more comfortable with that.
-
Simple, if the property is up for sale for $2, and you bid $3, then the extra buck is excess and the town doesn't get to keep it automatically - they must pay it into court and if none of the interested parties applies to the court then they get to claim it.
Excess means extra. Get it.
-
So the debtor can go to the municipality and get back the excess proceeds from the sale?
Does that mean that for some of these properties going for hundreds of thousands, the debtor actually stands to make a profit beyond what they owed?
ie.
Minimum is $20,000
Winning tender/bid is $320,000
Debtor can go to the town and get $300,000 back.
Sounds like a way to make money - you get fair market value without having the hassel of a real estate agent and showings etc. You just have to sit on the property for 3 years. As long as you keep the mortgage up, you only lose on the back taxes and walk away free and clear.
-
In effect, yes. However, the owner or lien holder doesn't go to the town to get it, they go to the court where the Town paid the money and a judge decides who's entitled to it.
The owner would only be better off in that situation, if the property actually went for more than its fair market value. The one that went on the FRench River last year was for sale on the market for $80 for three years, and nobody wanted it for that. It went for over $100 at tax sale, and so yes they were better off. Provided they went to court within the year and asked for it. Lots of times they don't know that it is available to them. The last property I bought, I contacted the previous owner myself and explained exactly what they should do to get those funds. I no longer had a claim to it, but I was damned if I would let the Municipality get it by default. Generally, they don't go out of their way to find the owners since they have a vested interest in no doing so - they'll never admit to that.