Assignment of a Rent to Own Contract by the Lender

[thanadj]

You can not keep the contract the same because he does not want me to deposit the funds in his account any more
You can't have the same contract if your no longer paying the guy on the contract
He stated he is donating the funds that means he is donating my contract
Like I said I will continue to obide the contract and deposit the funds as the contract states in to his account
Your not going to tell me that he can tell me to donate the funds to a chairty church and he has no access to that bank account to verify I paid or didn't but keep the contract the same and the contract states in written i must deposit the funds in to his bank
So I will not be breaking the contract but if he requesting i put the money in a new bank it has to be changed to show that

[jk]

thanadj;926465]You can not keep the contract the same because he does not want me to deposit the funds in his account any more
You can't have the same contract if your no longer paying the guy on the contract

yes, you can. It is called an assignment and it happens every single day, especially in the real estate world.

He stated he is donating the funds that means he is donating my contract

so what? It means nothing to you. You are still bound by the terms of the contract.

Like I said I will continue to obide the contract and deposit the funds as the contract states in to his account

then the church will be able to foreclose on the contract since they are now the rightful owners of the contract.

Your not going to tell me that he can tell me to donate the funds to a chairty church

You aren't donating squat. You are making your payments in compliance with the contract in your hand. He is the one that has donated something here. It just happens to be the proceeds from the contract you are a party to but don't make the mistake thinking you are donating anything; you aren't.

and he has no access to that bank account to verify I paid or didn't but keep the contract the same and the contract states in written i must deposit the funds in to his bank

he doesn't need access to the account since he is not who is owed the money. The church is who is owed the money. That is why I said he does need to transfer the lien to the church since they are the entity owed the money which makes them the lawful lien holders. He has no interest in the activity any longer and has no right to continue to hold a lien on the property.

So I will not be breaking the contract but if he requesting i put the money in a new bank it has to be changed to show that

so let me ask this; if he kept the contract but changed banks you think there needs to be a new contract? Where you deposit the money is irrelevant. It is not a material part of the contract. Your obligation is to make the payments to whomever holds the contract. If you fail to do that, you are in breach of the contract and they holder of the contract can seek to terminate it.

[thanadj]

What part did you not read in the thread. He holds the contract, he is not giving the contract to the chairty, he just wants me to give the money to the charity. Go back and read the email he sent.

Let me sum it up for you: He said he donated the funds. He will hold the lien until i pay the church 32 payments. Then at that time he will release the lien.

If I am no longer paying him I am not obeying the contract as the contract states pay him shows me where to pay shows me the account to pay the bank to pay when to pay/. If he wants to change how and where it is payed your going to sit there and tell me that I have to pay a bank that is not attached to the contract. That he only knows what the church tells him and of course my receipts. He is changeing the contract there for he should have to change it in written.

[jk]

I read this part:

Today I received a email telling me he gave the dept to a chairty and he wants me to start paying there instead of him
When we are done in 32 weeks he would end the UUC

Not sure what a dept is but I presumed it was meant to be debt which means he is assigning the contract to the church.

and this part where you apparently understood he was assigning the contract to the church:

I still don't agree how someone can take a contract give it away and say now you pay a chairty who will collect the same % and still call them selfs non profit

and this part where, again, you stated you understood he was assigning the contract to the church:

And my concern for giving to a non profit is as stated many times
He is giving the contract to them.

so to your statement of:

He is not giving the contract to the chairty

I guess you need to make up your mind.

so, at this point, do whatever you want to do.

[Taxing Matters]

The basic rule in contract law is that a party to a contract may assign his/her rights in the contract but cannot assign away his/her obligations under the contract with the consent of the other party to the contract. The assignment of the rights does not alter any of the other party’s obligations under the contract.

In order to make this discussion a little easier to read, I'll refer to the guy with whom you entered into the rent to own contract as Paul and refer to the organization to which he assigned the contract the Charity.

Under your contract with Paul, he has the right to receive rent payments from you. Thus, under the contract rule I stated in the first sentence, Paul may assign his rights to the payments to anyone he wants. He does not need your consent for that. The assignment does not change what the contract says you must pay for the rent — the payment amounts and the interest rate will stay the same as the contract says now. The reason the law allows for this assignment that is that you aren’t damaged in any way by it. Why should you care to whom the payment goes, as long as you get credit towards the purchase of the property for the payments you make? Paul cannot assign away his obligation to ensure that the property is transferred to you at the end of the contract (assuming you make all the payments). So if there is a problem at the end of the contract and the property does not get transferred to you once all the payments have been made, you would still have the right to sue Paul for that, just as you do now. The key thing here is to get confirmation from Paul when the assignment becomes effective and to make sure you know where to send the payments once it is effective.

Your posts imply you have a problem with Paul getting a tax deduction for the assignment and/or have a problem with the Charity getting the money. But why would either of those things concern you? He’s got a right to contribute his money to charity if he wants, after all. He doesn’t need your permission for that. So why should the assignment, which just accomplishes the goal of getting the money to the charity in one step (you to the Charity) instead of two steps (you to Paul then Paul to Charity) matter to you? If you can better explain your concern, perhaps you can get some comments addressing that.

- - - Updated - - -

If I am no longer paying him I am not obeying the contract as the contract states pay him shows me where to pay shows me the account to pay the bank to pay when to pay
If he wants to change how and where it is payed your going to sit there and tell me that I have to pay a bank that is not attached to the contract
That he only knows what the church tells him and of course my receipts
He is changeing the contract there for he should have to change it in written

He is not changing any material part of the contract. He is simply assigning his rights to the payments to the church. He may do that. That is not a breach of the contract. And you paying the church based on that assignment is not a breach of the contract by you. Assignments of payment rights occurs every single business day in countless transactions across the country. It is legal and very common. You won’t get anywhere objecting to that.