Real Estate

I live in So. Calif and am planning to be a real estate agent. I understand through the National Association of Realtors (NAR), you can get health insurance through them as an agent. I have Kaiser HMO right now and I’d like to continue with them. Is it possible to get Kaiser HMO through REALTORS Core Health Insurance?

"Core Health Insurance" is a specific brand of insurance just as "Kaiser HMO" is a different brand name. The two are different and mutually exclusive. In other words, the way your question is asked would be similar to saying "Can I get a Honda Civic through a Ford Mustang?" So obviously this wording doesn’t make sense.

You might have meant to ask whether the REALTORS association has a selling agreement with Kaiser. The answer is no; and there would likely be no business reason for either the association, Kaiser or the members for doing so. The REALTOR association, like most other professional associations, focuses on member benefits that provide revenue to the association while making an attractive offering to the individual members.

I stumbled onto this question because I am writing a “Core Health Insurance Revisited” article for the Freedom Benefits health insurance exchange following changes introduced during this period of health insurance reform. These other resources are available on the www.FreedomBenefits.net Web site.

I’ve called the numbers, looked at the website and can’t find hours of operation anywhere. Does anyone out there know what time they open? Thanks!

4:20

Most of the foreclosed (bank-owned) homes in Metro Detroit are listed with major chain realty companies (Century 21, Remax, Remerica, etc.). But some are listed with fly-by-night outfits that no one has ever heard of, and people at these offices can be extremely difficult to get a hold of (don’t answer calls, don’t return messages, etc), and have incompetent agents who couldn’t care less.

How can these outfits stay in business if they don’t seem to know the first thing about running one?

I have the same complaint! I will not even bother offering, there is no way that agent will close on the deal.

I am guessing the bank does not want to sell at this point in time and listing this way makes it appear like they are and they need that appearance for their insurance claim.

just read it here:http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/mansions-of-powerful-ceos.html that bill gates has 25 bathrooms in his house. isnt that just a little ridiculous? seems like it would be a bathroom every other door, with only 8 bedrooms. what are your guys’ thoughts?

Having many bathrooms is very handy, when you’re entertaining a big crowd of people. People won’t have to wait long to use a bathroom.

Its my house what country you thinks its from Australia Canada, UK or US…. obviously some would know lol hahaha

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-sovereign+islands-106782519

USA_-!-)~I’m still right-US,AUSTRALIA…

…in order to satiate vicarious lifestyle defined as “worshipping US richclass thieving slavers”? If it’s been a while, today’s the day:

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/us-neighborhoods-with-the-biggest-houses.html
@Right! Of course that complaint comes first.

Where’s the helicopter? Along with it, where’s my fix?

Those homes aren’t that great, trust me on this.

-it’s been awhile since I’ve seen a home that just says oooooh. I’m more interested in Panamanian retirement beach houses myself. Less upkeep, good views and cheap labor.

Paraguay and Argentina also have some nice real estate. I’d have to stay out of the metro area’s myself with condos going for 500k and up. Who wants to live in a 500 sq. ft apartment in a large city for 500k?
Not me.

LESS TAXES though. That’s what it’s about. Less taxes.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/Washington/Seattle/1217-39th-ave-e:a8ed8a628d5310a3e99fbc1b303589f1;_ylc=X3oDMTEzMmVzOHJkBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwLXB1bHNlBHNsawN5cmUtcGRw
I mean the walls inside of the house; living room, etc.

If you can afford that house I’d guess you could afford to repaint if you don’t really like the colors.
Happy house hunting.

I helped my daughter purchace her first home. After one year she was unable to continue making her mortgage payments. We tried to get a loan modification but was denied. I reviewed the contract and noticed that the lender did not sign any of the documents.

The contract of sale would be signed by buyer and seller- not by mortgage company. Even if some of the contract paperwork is not binding for some reason- the fact that your daughter signed the closing documents shows that she was OK with what had been agreed.

If you are talking about loan documents that she got at closing- she may have gotten copies that were not yet signed by mortgage company at closing. She could have gotten copies later that had signatures- or the signed ones may have been sent directly to county. It is possible someone made a bad mistake- but not very likely. You would have to hire a good local real estate lawyer to get a good idea.

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl10|sec1_lnk3|219259

Just look at the above website it explains everything!

thats a very very smart man

The law in Texas is called "adverse possession". The owner of this particular home simply walked away and the mortgage company happened to go out of business.

This opened the door for this "Squatter" as the neighbors call him, to go to court and sign a form claiming ownership of the house that he payed for a mere $16.00

If the home owner wants him out then he has to pay off the massive mortgage debt and the bank would have to file a lawsuit. The "squatter" thinks that neither of which is likely gonig to happen so he is staying there for three years until he can ask the court for ownership.

This has the neighbors outraged that this guy is "living on easy street" and are looking for ways to get him out, but for now he says he ain’t going anywhere.

What do you think about this?

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C78504

The issue is whether the Robinson will have, at the end of three years, satisfied the Texas statutory requirements for Adverse Possession. Adverse possession is conceptually defined as possession for a statutorily prescribed period of time which, if certain elements are met, may ripen into legal title. These required elements are, continuous and uninterrupted possession that is open and notorious, actual (requiring literal entry onto the land) and hostile, that is contrary to the consent of the true owner. In Texas, the statutory period is 3 years if the possession is under color of title, and 5 years if the property is claimed under a duly registered deed.

In this situation, Robinson has asserted that the home, Blackacre, has been foreclosed upon. In addition to his open and notorious use of Blackacre, he has in fact publicized his use of Blackacre and his assertions of its abandonment by paying the filing fee to the county clerk, thus meeting the requirement of hostility. Finally, he has entered onto the land, and although the strictest reading of "continuous and uninterrupted possession" could be construed to mean that he cannot leave again, most courts would allow Robinson to leave the premises for ordinary business, as long as he does return at the end of the day.

Should Robinson remain unmolested on Blackacre given these conditions, his possession may ripen into legal title, and Robinson can be held to be the owner of Blackacre. It should be noted that although the fact pattern states that Robinson researched the law and acted, there is nothing in the fact pattern itself that states with certainty that the $16 clerk’s fee gave Robinson color of title and, as such, the prescribed period of adverse possession may be longer than the anticipated 3 years.

A further issue remains as to how Robinson’s neighbors might successfully defeat this attempt to possess Blackacre adversely. Lacking standing to bring a cause of action, the neighbors’ only remedy is to goad the owner of Blackacre to move against Robinson. To this end, the neighbors ought to publicize Robinson’s use of the property and remind the legal owner of his or her right to act.

First and foremost, the legal titleholder may oust Robinson as a trespasser, thus cutting the three-year clock and forcing him to start over. Because an action for ouster is costly, this may likely be a last resort. A potential remedy for the legal titleholder might be to grant Robinson permission to remain on the land for a prescribed period. Once permission is granted, the element of adversity to the owner’s true possession is broken, and Robinson’s three-year clock would be cut.