|
| Of the 3 options my vote is against holding the mortgage. There's two ways to do it: first would be an agreement for sale where title stays in your name until the land is paid for at which time it's transferred to the purchaser. This was popular years ago before the banks got into farm lending and before Farm Credit came on the scene. It's probably the more secure for the vendor as he retains title but not too popular anymore. Second is to transfer title subject to a first mortgage, same as FCC does now. However you join all the other secured creditors in event the buyer goes bankrupt.
I don't care for either one - either renting it out or selling outright is the simplest and, in the case of selling, everything is cut and dried. Renting is worthwhile depending on the type of agreement - if you were on a crop share these past couple years and the renter couldn't get any crop in on your land, no income. Cash rent seems to be preferred around here which works as long as you don't get stiffed on all or a portion of the rent.
| |
|
Question re: Holding Mortgage on Property
