From: Judi A. Chide [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:40 AM
To: Assembly Commerce and Labor Exhibits
Cc: Jennifer J. Gaynor
Subject: RE: SB242
I incorrectly stated that Jennifer Gaynor appearing on behalf of Desert
Land, she is NOT. Ms. Gaynor is appearing on behalf of Sher Development
and the individual investors.
Thank you,
Judi
Judi A. Chide Legal Secretary
8363 West Sunset
Phone 702-550-4469
Road
Fax
844-670-6009
Suite 200
Las Vegas NV 89113 Email [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Judi A. Chide
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:25 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Jennifer J. Gaynor
Subject: SB242
Attached are letters of support for SB242. Jennifer Gaynor will be
attending the hearing on Wednesday, March 8th on behalf of Desert Land.
Thank you,
Judi Chide
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s), and
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments, destroy any
printouts that you may have made and notify us immediately by return e-mail.
Neither this transmission nor any attachment shall be deemed for any purpose to be a "signature" or "signed" under any electronic
transmission acts, unless otherwise specifically stated herein. Thank you.
February 28, 2017
Dear Sir or Madam,
This letter is in support of AB242. My name is Bessie Chachas and I have personally invested $10,000
into a note backed by real estate, with the intention that the dividends could help supplement my
income in my retirement years.
While $10,000 may not be a lot of money to some people, I am a single woman who has spent my entire
adult life working to support myself. The money I invested had been put aside for my retirement years.
This last year has been very stressful, financially as well as emotionally. I appreciate your consideration
of this bill (AB242) to avoid self-dealing by borrowers, such as we have seen attempted in our case, to
prevent harm to small investors such as myself.
Sincerely,
Bessie Chachas
2/18/17
To Whom It May Concern:
As I do not have a pension, I planned to use the interest payments from my loans in
which I have fractionalized-ownership positions to supplement my Social Security.
These payments would have made it easier to meet my ordinary living expenses.
Unfortunately, for approximately 10 years, the borrower has used my money without
paying me what they had agreed to do. And now they are attempting to use the 51%
rule to serve their own interests at the expense of myself and all of the other interest
holders. If the Nevada legislators can help us it would be appreciated.
Veronica (Roni) Wolf
February 20, 2017
To whom it may concern:
I am asking all legislators to support the new bill BDR
#857 which will block some of the loopholes and
shortcomings of NRS 6458.340 that fraudulent borrowers
have taken advantage of.
There are many investors in first deeds of trust that
were left with little or no value after the real estate
recession of 2008. NRS 6459.340 was to help secure the
investments of the lenders. Many of the lenders have put
their life savings in these loans. T he borrowers have
found ways to work around NRS645B.340 to their
advantage.
Please support the new bill BDR #857 to protect
Nevada's investors in the state of Nevada.
Merely,
/J
"
��
«<
UJ�
Raymond Je Poncia
PO Box 429
Verdi, NV
89439
•
1r
February 20, 2017
RE: REGARDING B0R#857
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
The current NRS.645B.340 law has been twisted in a way that threatens the investments of
small investors such as myself and my partners: some borrowers have taken advantage of the
51% majority rule, by "buying out" enough of the original loan investors to hold the 51%
majority interests, and then, through the purported controlling majority interest, taking over
the loan to pay the lender/investors back pennies on the dollar or nothing at all.
Because of this situation, further clarifying language is needed in NRS 645B.340 to ensure that
investors, such as myself and my partners, are not victimized by such a scheme.
I am asking for your help with BDR# 857 to help us and the tens of thousands of still existing
lender/investors and prevent Any Borrower from robbing us of what is rightfully ours.
Mark A. Schnippel
Managing Member
Industrial Properties LLC
�::..
8 3 6 7',.,W EST FL AM ING O RO AD
� ,..,�-:...�
....$'::
SU IT E 1 0 0
LAS VEG AS. NEVAD A 8 9 1 4 7
-..3g:::..: ...
7 0 2. 3 0 4·: 1 9 4 7
--·\... -'-..
-
Josbro
inc.
February 21, 2017
Re: BDR #857
To Whom It May Concern,
I am an investor in first trust deeds. More specifically, personally, my family and
my profit sharing plan. This has been a part of my overall savings plan for the last
30-35 years. Until 2008 and the devastation in the real estate markets this was a
satisfactory investment. We, the investors gave homeowners, home builders,
contractors and others a source of monies to buy, build and develop. Borrowers
included single family home purchasers, apartment builders, home builders, office
development builders and of course speculators.
Pre 2013 investors, borrowers and mortgage brokers worked and helped the
legislature craft and write a bill to help lenders and borrowers move forward from
the decimated real estate market. NRS 6458.340 was crafted, passed into law
and has helped. I am asking for your help with 8DR #857 because it seems that
clarifying language is needed for the original intent of NRS 6458.340.
Thank you,
I 1 Q (}
tCtti�
Robert F. Joslin
President, Josbro Inc.
3345 E. SAHARA AVE. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89104
February 21, 2017
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN REGARDING 8DR#857
i'm a retired single woman who chose to invest nearly all my small savings in Nevada real
estate about 12 years ago.
My holdings were decimated when the R E market collapsed around 2007. I've been
struggling to stay invested nonetheless, as I didn't want to sell my investments at pennies on
the dollar. Now, NRS 645B.340, which was created to protect us lenders, has apparently
enabled the MISuse by the very same BORROWERS who defaulted on their loans to swoop
down on lenders by using deceptive warnings,
thereby unfairly cheating the lenders, capturing their properties cheaply. Please PLEASE
protect the little guys like me by passing BILL BDR# 857.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gale Ebert
1177 S Riverside Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
March 1, 2017
Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Irene Bustamante Adams, Chair
Legislative Building
401 S. Carson St.
Carson City, NV 89710
RE: Support for Assembly Bill 242
Dear Chair Bustamante Adams:
I wish to voice my strong support for Assembly Bill 242, which adds important clarity to NRS
645B.340.
I and my wife participated in a transaction, loaning a significant portion of our savings ($80,000)
to the borrower, with substantial real estate on the Las Vegas Strip as the security. We did so in reliance
on a loan to value ratio of approximately 40%, the fact that the loan was secured by a first deed on a
property located on the Las Vegas Strip, the substantial assets of the borrower and guarantors and our
rights and remedies to pursue those assets if necessary.
However, the borrower and guarantor, while retaining assets far exceeding our own, decided to
default on their obligations. That default has been a serious blow to our financial security. We accepted
the risk of default on a 40% LTV loan with guarantors and a borrower with assets worth many times the
amount of the loan at issue. However, we did not expect to find the borrower exploiting a new and
untested statute in an effort to take control of our loan and stand between us and the collateral and other
assets we relied on.
This borrower is attempting to utilize this statute, NRS 645B.340, to sit on both sides of our loan
to our detriment. A ‘fair’ outcome would be for the borrower to honor the terms of the original
transaction, which the borrower has the capacity to do. A less fair, but not uncommon, outcome is for a
borrower to default allowing us, as in every debtor/creditor relationship I have ever seen, to pursue the
assets of the guarantor, the land on which the first deed is held and other collateral until those assets are
exhausted or our loan, interest, etc. have been repaid. We understand that loans sometimes default. We
only seek the normal means of salvaging our misfortune as are typical for any other secured lender.
We ask the Nevada Legislature for clarification that a borrower may not use NRS 645B.340, a
statute intended to protect lenders, to “restructure” away the borrower’s and guarantor’s own debts and
obligations. In our case, the amount of their proposed payoff bears no rational relationship to the value of
the subject land at issue, the borrower’s many other assets, nor the assets of the guarantors. It is simply
an amount the borrower feels is comparable to select other unrelated loans.
I do not live in a mansion, but I understand at least one of the guarantors does. If so, why is he
able to retain this and other assets and take almost all of my $80,000 that I loaned and avoid the interest
payments I bargained for, all while keeping the land (with positive equity) and all his other collateral
despite the guarantees and other undertakings on which I, like every other lender, reasonably relied? In
what debtor/creditor relationship would that be fair or just?
If the borrower and guarantors are permitted to use this statute in this distorted and unintended
manner to walk away from their obligations for pennies while retaining everything, it will turn upside
down the very notion of the lender-borrower relationship. Predatory borrowers will learn from this
borrower’s successful and abusive interpretation of the statute and will use it to exploit other individual
lenders, most of whom are retirees seeking interest income to support themselves. We pray that the court
and legislature prevent this abuse both in our case and for the benefit of future individuals.
Sincerely,
Will Marshall