I don't doubt that you have gotten IRS liens released without payment of funds. The IRS is often willing to negotiate and/or subordinate their liens.

The whole point is that you got nasty with ScottGem, saying that a transfer of ownership will not inhibit the lender's lien. I gave you an example of where that could happen.

Most mortgages have a "due on sale" clause. Whether that clause is enforced by a lender is not important. What is important is that I, and most of the experts on this site, will not give someone an answer that suggests they should ignore the terms of legal documents that they have signed.

It amazes me how some people will continue to beat the dead horse, to the point of arguing with a REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY. They express anecdotal testimonials, but NO FACT. I believe that the FHA and VA Due on Sale Clauses are nation-wide. FNMA and FHLMC have their standard verbiage contained in Realty Mortgage and Deed of Trust states. I think that those would be nation-wide. Probably the two dissidents have not read the link that I provided earlier in this discussion. I would advise those gentlemen to read the terms of their Realty Mortgage or Deed of Trust, if they happen to be homeowners, and take note of the DOSC therein. On this site, we do our best to deal in fact, rather than opinion.

Well said. Most of the experts here are ethical people concerned with the quality of the advice given here.

Would we tell someone they WILL be arrested if they jaywalk? Of course not! But would we advise someone to jaywalk? No! Because the possibility exists that they might be ticketed or arrested however, slight.

The best advice to give, in this situation is to contact the lender. The likelihood that the lender will give permission is high. But the consequences of not getting the lender's permission might be dire. When a simple phone call or letter can avoid it, why not do it?

Scott, very well said and that is possibly where I missed the point. Yes I am the lender, therefore we are able to do it. So I stand corrected.

This doesn't make any sense.

To what is this lien attached?

In the original question, the owner had an existing loan on the home and asked about adding the domestic partner to the loan, and was really asking if the partner could be added as an owner.

If the partner is added as an owner then yes, someone could attach a lien linked only to the partner.

What I would like to know is how that lien, be it IRS or otherwise, would supersede the existing first mortgage.

Because changing ownership without satisfying the existing lien could cause a question about that lien.

Lets cut to the chase here.

1) The OP asked about adding someone to the Loan. I pointed out, and the OP agreed, that what really needed to happen was adding the partner to BOTH the mortgage and the deed. At that point she was advised, correctly, to discuss this with the lender.

2) You subsequently posted a response saying it was untrue that the lender's permission was needed.

3) Myself and several others have pointed out, correctly, that there MAY be dire consequences in not getting lender approval, namely having the loan called.

4) You continued to disagree with this factual information, getting nasty in the process.

Bottomline, therefore is that I gave accurate and helpful advice while you haven't. Stop trying to defend an untenable position and admit you were incorrect.

Sure it does.

Any property that John Doe owns or acquires during the term of the lien.

If the IRS lien was filed before Jane Smith entered into the mortgage with Bank of America then the IRS lien would be a pre-existing lien. An example would be if the IRS filed the lien against John Doe in 1998 and Jane Smith entered into the mortgage in 2000. Once John Doe gets added as an owner of the property the question is whether the pre-existing IRS lien would supersede the Bank of America lien. That's an issue that a court would have to decide.

[Thanks, I had thought that Scott was now answering for you.]

I'm thinking we're somehow discussing two different things, based on what you've written here.

In your example here, of course the IRS lien would be a pre-existing lien, but we're talking about a loan already in place on a property owned by Jane Smith. She adds John Doe as an owner AFTER the loan has closed. I don't see how the IRS could then file a lien which would supersede the first mortgage, which was closed well before John's name was on it. My original question was how the proposed change in ownership would hinder a lender's ability to collect payments or foreclose.

If John Doe owns no property, how can a lien be filed at all... and to what would it be attached?

How can the IRS lien be filed before Jane Smith got the BOA mortgage if she bought the house with the BoA loan? You can't record a lien on a property *before* someone owns it.

Anyway, this thread's getting long in the tooth... but if you know of a case where the IRS has stepped in *after* a loan was closed and recorded a lien which took senior status, then I would seriously be interested in getting a case name.

No, I don't think we're discussing two different things. Instead, I don't think you realize what an IRS lien actually is and the power that the IRS has once a lien is filed.

An IRS lien is filed against a person, like a judgment. Then it attaches to any property that person has at the time of the filing and any property that is acquired after the filing, for a period of 10 years. After 10 years the IRS can renew the filing.

That's because the lien is against the person. It is basically notice to the public that the IRS has the right to take any property that person has or will have in the future.

"enforced" instead of "recorded"

No, I don't know of any specific cases. And I already toldja I'm not going to kill myself to look for one. All I did was describe a scenario where a title transfer can inhibit a lender's ability to collect or foreclose.

In the state of Georgia, anyone can quitclaim half of their real estate property to another person without contacting the lienholder. In my experience, it comes back to haunt the original borrower in the buttocks. If or when the secondary person on the deed is leaving due to the whatever reason, they have as much right to the home as the borrower. Therefore, the secondary person on the deed can, and often do, demand a payout before signing back their half of the quitclaim deed. The secondary person can also leave their share of the property to another person via a will for example. That would hold up any sale of the property. The only way to protect oneself is to either make a written agreement addressing these issues BEFORE signing or just flatout not doing it. If you are trying to improve a loved one's credit, open up a secured credit card with that person...don't add them to your mortgage payment. It makes no sense.