When structuring your CA's , is it a good idea to tell the homeowner that you will pay for any eviction costs associated with your TB as an added service?

I would think that is a bad idea. For starters, when you assign the deal you are out of the loop. Why reinsert yourself in the deal if and when a problem arises. Specifically, who are you or I to handle eviction proceedings? Are you a licensed Broker? An attorney? I think you are setting yourself up for legal problems if you do this. Just my two cents, since you asked.

I would let the tenant/buyer pay the court/eviction cost as is typically awarded by the judge.

Thanks guys .... Just tryinh to give an extra incentive to my seller....but u guys are right

Kyle, the incentive should come from reminding the homeowner that the t/b is less likely to be a problem than would a straight tenant. You don't want to be throwing around the "eviction" word so casually. Never bring it up. But if the homeowner does, emphasize the advantages of a t/b vs. a tenant.

thats a great point. Lately I been so excited about Joe mccalls thread about what hes using and trying to figure out why my conversion rate has dipped lately. Dont mention eviction until it comes up.

Here's my reasoning.....

You know that they are thinking 'eviction' when your giving your pitch..

So why not cover all objections in your pitch??

What thread did joe start?? Thanks

Deal with the eviction objection on an as-needed basis. If it doesn't come up, you bringing it up is self defeating, in my opinion.

Eviction?

You must be thinking about renters Mr. Seller. We place tenant/buyers; we don't place renters. A tenant/buyer wants to buy your house and wants to pay the rent and take care of the property becuase one day it will be theirs. As a result, an eviction for a tenant/buyer is extreamly rare if any.

Naked Investor