Real Estate Apps For Foreclosure Properties

Below is a summary of some of the apps for Apple and Android devices that allow someone to search for homes in foreclosure.


USHUD.com -- Their web site and application contains both foreclosure and conventional listings from HUD, FMNA foreclosures and bank REO properties. When opening the app, the initial screen shows a picture of the US and all 50 states. Tap on a state and the app produces a list of the counties. Tap on a county and it provides a list of the cities. Select the city and view the listings. The listingReal san be filtered by price range, number of bathrooms and/or bedrooms, whether a conventional or foreclosure listing.  Property listings from any search result can be saved as a "Favorite for easier access later. The app is very user friendly.


HUDSeeker.com -- Their web site and application searches HUD properties.  When opening this app, the initial screen provides 2 search options: (1) searching foreclosures in its database by city, state, zip code, price range and number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms; and (2) searching by current location. To use this second option, the app must be allowed to access the devices location. Search results are mapped out and users can change their map options from standard, to satellite or a hybrid of the two. Other selection options on the home screen allow users to run  their credit score, locate a realtor or a lender (through the "Foreclosure Expert" button)  or learn more about HUD properties and how to buy them. The one negative of this app is the requirement to provide a name, email and phone number before the app allows the user to access photos or other details about a property listing.


Luxury Foreclosures -- Another app by HUDSeeker.com that is powered by SimpleForeclosures.com but with more emphasis on higher end discount properties and foreclosures. This app functions the same as HUDSeeker with a similar home screen. The only difference being the narrower focus of the foreclosure properties that are searched.
__________________

CLE Update: Upcoming Real Estate Seminars in Ohio

Falling behind this season with CLE credits? Want to become a more seasoned real estate professional this fall/winter? Below are links/information to selected seminars/webinars and teleconferences being offered between now and year end.

Sterling Educational Services –                                                                                                                                                 

When: 10-24-2014 - 8:30 AM
Where: Crowne Plaza Downtown
33 E 5th St-Dayton, OH

What: Landlord-Tenant Law: Leases, Evictions, Litigation and Settlements
$329		per person
$319		per person for 2 or more (applied automatically)

National Business Institute –

When: 12-08-2014 - 8:30 AM- 6hrs CLE
Where: Holiday Inn Independence

6001 Rockside Road-Independence, OH

What: Land Use Law: Current Issues in Subdivision, Annexation and Zoning
$329		per person
$319		per person for 2 or more (applied automatically)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When: 12-10-2014 - 8:30 AM (Canton); 12-11-2014 - 8:30 AM (Cleveland) - 6hrs CLE
Where: Canton: Hilton Garden Inn Akron-Canton Airport
5251 Landmark Boulevard-Canton, OH

 Cleveland: Doubletree Hotel

6200 Quarry Lane-Independence, OH

What: Title Workshop: From Examination to Commitment
$359		per person
$349		per person for each additional registrant

Ohio State Bar Association –

When: 11-05-2014 - 8:00 AM- 6hrs CLE
Where: (LIVE) Columbus-OSBA-1700 Lake Shore Dr.

 (SIMULCAST)-Cleveland-The Ritz-Carlton -1515 W. 3^rd St.

Fairfield-Reception Conference Center North-5975 Boymel Dr.

Perrysburg-Hilton Garden Inn-6165 Levis Commons Blvd.

What: Residential Real Estate Transactions
From $187 (govt. attorneys		-members) to $300 (walk-in, non-member) per person

Cleveland Metro Bar Association

When: November 13 and 14, 2014 -8:15/8:30 AM- Up to 12.75 CLE

Where: Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, 1375 East Ninth Street, One Cleveland Center, Cleveland, OH  44114

What: 36th Annual Real Estate Law Institute

Sponsored by the Real Estate Law Section of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association

Click here for registration information.

Title Policy Corner: An Overview of the ALTA 9 Series Endorsements

The article below was contributed by the National Commercial Services Team at Fidelity National Title:

 

In 2012, the ALTA Forms Committee adopted significant changes to the series of ALTA 9 Restrictions, Easements and Agreements (REA) endorsements, not only to clarify the specific extra title coverage provided, but also to address the result of litigation about a Schedule B exception for an REA.  The old “plain Jane” ALTA 9 endorsement provided coverage to an owner or a lender against three major title issues:  violations of recorded REAs that could affect the validity of title or the lien status of a mortgage, encroachments, and mineral rights.  Now, the Committee has separated coverages for these issues into ALTA 9 (REA), ALTA 28 (encroachments), and ALTA 35 (mineral rights). Below is an explanation of the latest ALTA 9 series endorsements.

 

ALTA Form 9-06    Loan policy:  This endorsement contains all the coverages provided under the old ALTA 9 except that it removes coverage over any encroachment from adjoining property (or onto adjoining property) that is identified in the Schedule B exceptions.  The change is handled primarily through a clarification of what constitutes a “violation".  Disclosure of a known violation in the Schedule B exceptions removes that violation from coverage under the ALTA 9-06 endorsement.

 

ALTA Form 9.1-06   Unimproved land — Owners Policy: This form endorsement only addresses covenants and restrictions.  The ALTA 28.1 and ALTA 35 endorsements must be added to address encroachments or mineral rights.

 

ALTA 9.2-06   Improved land — Owners Policy: Revisions to this form endorsement also only addresses covenants and restrictions.  Coverage for encroachments (ALTA 28.1) and mineral rights (ALTA 35) must be addressed separately as additional endorsements.

 

ALTA 9.3-06   Loan Policy: Like the ALTA 9.2-06 for Owners Policies above, this endorsement only addresses covenants and restrictions and any coverage for encroachments or mineral rights would be dealt with by separately under the ALTA 28 or ALTA 35 series of endorsements.

 

ALTA 9.6-06   Private Rights — Loan policy: This endorsement provides coverage to the lender against loss that results from the invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the insured mortgage arising from “private rights” such as a private charge or REA assessment, option to purchase, right of first refusal, or right of prior approval of a future purchaser or occupant.

 

ALTA 9.7-06   Land under Development — Loan policy: This endorsement is substantially similar to the ALTA 9-06 discussed above, providing the broadest form of coverage to the lender, but is only used for issuance on a future development site.  In order to provide this endorsement, the title office needs a specifically identified set of building plans and specifications that it can compare against any recorded restrictions.

 

ALTA 9.8-06     Land under Development  — Owners policy: This endorsement is substantially similar to the ALTA 9.2-06, except that it applies to future development. It does not contain any coverage against encroachments or mineral rights. In order to provide this endorsement, the title office needs a specifically identified set of building plans and specifications that it can compare against any recorded restrictions.

ALTA 9.9-06    Private Rights — Owners policy: This endorsement provides coverage to the owner against loss that results from the invalidity of the insured title arising from “private rights” such as options to purchase, right of first refusal or right of prior approval of a future purchaser or occupant.

Overall, the revised ALTA 9 series is designed to provide owners and lenders with flexibility in being able to choose their desired coverage based on the specifics of the real estate transaction.

*   *   *

 

In a future blog post, Fidelity National Title will review the new ALTA 28 and ALTA 35 endorsements.

 

If anyone has questions about any of the endorsements discussed in this blog article, they can contact Jeremy Freed, Commercial Underwriter on the National Commercial Services Team at Fidelity National Title (Jeremy.freed@fnf.com) or 800.626.9881 or 614.818.4822.

__________________

Unruly Horse Renders Stable Owner Immune from Liability for its Unruly Dog

Prior to the twentieth century, the old adage- “every dog gets one free bite” was in effect in most jurisdictions. In other words, a dog owner was only held liable for his dog's biting someone if the owner had reason to know the dog would bite.

In Ohio, as of the date of this article, Ohio’s law governing unruly dog behavior is the opposite of the old “one free bite rule.” Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section. 955.28, to prove a statutory cause of action for injuries caused by another person’s dog, the plaintiff need only prove: (1) ownership or keepership [or harborship] of the dog; (2) that the dog’s actions were the proximate cause of the injury; and (3) damages. This is what is known as a “strict liability statute.

What if the unruly dog’s behavior does not directly result in harm, but causes a horse to be unruly, which then results in injury to a person? In a strange but true “premises liability”action, that very question was before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial District (Lorain County) in the case of Graham v. Shamrock Stables, 2014-Ohio-3977.

The facts of this case are simple enough; it is the law that is a bit unusual.  In October, 2011, Lethea Graham went to Shamrock Stables to look at a miniature horse for possible adoption. As she was walking  the horse back to its stall (according to Graham), a large dog  began barking and jumping at the horse’s back legs which “spooked” the horse and knocked Graham to the ground, causing serious injuries to two of  Graham’s fingers. Afterwards, Graham and her husband sued Shamrock Stables for the injuries Graham sustained as a proximate result of the dog Shamrock Stables harbored on its property.

Graham claimed Shamrock Stables was liable based upon the “unruly dog statute”, Ohio Revised Code Section. 955.28. Shamrock Stables asserted that the “unruly dog statute” did not apply, because Graham’s injury was the result of equine (horse) activity, and therefore, the “equine immunity statute” applied.

Ohio’s equine immunity statute, R.C. 2305.321, provides immunity from liability for harm sustained by an equine-activity participant allegedly resulting from the inherent risk of equine activities. As explained by a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision: 1) “the phrase ‘equine activity participant’ is broad enough that it encompasses a person controlling in any manner an equine, whether the equine is mounted or unmounted;” and 2) “almost every activity associated with a horse is an equine activity.”  The reason for such a statute, according to the Ohio Supreme Court is that horses are unpredictable, and there are inherent risks that arise when horses are near people.

The trial court agreed with Shamrock Stables, that the equine immunity statute applied, and Graham appealed. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

To reach its conclusion, the court of appeals in Graham first acknowledged that the issue at hand was deciding, which statute applied-the unruly dog statute, or the equine immunity statute. The court then found its answer in the plain language of the horse immunity statute. The court explained that “one of the inherent risks of an equine activity specifically listed in the statute was the unpredictability of an equine’s reaction to other animals”, and “since the General Assembly did not exempt dogs from the foregoing provision”, the horse’s reaction to the defendant’s dog would qualify as an inherent risk of equine activity, thus triggering the immunity.

The one dissenting judge in Graham asked a very good question in its dissent. “Why should the owner of both the horse and the dog (Shamrock Stables) escape strict liability arising out of the act of the dog, merely because the dog caused injuries via the horse?” The dissenting judge theorized that at issue was a general immunity statute (“horse immunity statute”) and a special provision specifically imposing strict liability on dog owners (the “unruly dog statute”), and that according to precedent, when two statutes, one general, one special cover the same subject matter, the special provision should be construed as an exception to the general statute which might otherwise apply. In spite of a well-reasoned dissent, however, two (judges) against one (judge), always wins.

So what is the moral of this story?  Simply, (in the words of my 10 year old nephew) “Horses rule, dogs drool.” In other words, even if a dog (or other animal) causes a horse to injure its rider (or other participant in an equine activity) the dog’s owner, and horse’s owner are immune from liability, at least when the owner of the dog and the horse are the same person. The dissenting judge’s theory that there would be no issue if a neighbor’s dog had run onto the property and startled the defendant’s horse, injuring Mrs. Graham seems to make a lot of - horse sense.