Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Beware when canceling real estate contract

DEAR BENNY: My husband and I signed a contract in November and put $1,000 down. The real estate agent put financing as "n/a" (not applicable) because we were preapproved by our bank. He sent us to a bank and the loan was approved, with a great interest rate and no points. Then problems started.

The underwriter said a road maintenance agreement was needed, which was not disclosed in contract. We told the other side we want out, and to give us our money back. The agent said an attorney was working on the road maintenance issue with 28 families.

We still have not gotten our deposit back, and the agent said if we pay the seller's fee of $500 for the attorney doing the road maintenance agreement, they might release us from contract.

I filed a complaint with the Department of Real Estate because of the nondisclosure of road maintenance, and they said there is no violation. Now the home inspector is calling us wanting his money, and we have told him the agent still has it. We did sign a release of contract designating where the $1,000 should go, and when we called the agent he said the owners are still thinking about it. Do we have any options left, other than paying even more money for an attorney? This has been a nightmare. --Tom

DEAR TOM: Does your state require sellers to disclose known conditions of the property? If so, and if the road condition was not disclosed, I believe you have a good case against the sellers -- not the real estate agent.

If disclosures are not required by your state, I suggest you call the attorney involved with the 28 other families. Find out the situation and ask why you have to pay the $500. That attorney is not representing you, and the seller will have to pay that fee regardless of who buys the house.

You should also discuss this with your own attorney. It may very well be that the road maintenance issue is a cloud on title, which would have prohibited you from buying in any event.

Generally, there is a provision in real estate sales contracts that the seller is conveying good and clear title. Under these circumstances, because the seller may not have had clear title to convey, you should get your money back. Furthermore, you may even have a claim for reimbursement of the home inspection fee.

There is, of course, a good lesson to be learned from your experience. Even though you had a preapproval letter from a lender, you still should have included a financing contingency in your sales contract. I know that real estate agents will object, stating that your contract was more attractive without that contingency, and I would agree with them. But I want homebuyers to be fully protected, and contingencies are consumer protections.

DEAR BENNY: I'd like to know if a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure is possible in the following situation: I am the sole mortgage holder on our house. I listed it as a short sale for a year to no avail. I am recently divorced, but my ex can reside in the house. Both of us are on the deed.

In our divorce settlement agreement, because the house mortgage is in my name only, he must allow me to try to sell it. I spoke with the bank and a deed-in-lieu is an option I would like to pursue. However, does my ex husband need to be involved with any of the official documents in the deed-in-lieu process? I guess what I am asking is although I am able to pursue selling however I choose, would a deed-in-lieu be considered the same thing? --Lisa

DEAR LISA: First, a quick explanation of a "deed-in-lieu." This is a process whereby your mortgage lender agrees to take back the house instead of (i.e., in lieu of) spending the time and money foreclosing on the property. Some lenders will agree to this, especially if there is only one mortgage on the house.

Have you discussed the situation with your ex-husband? Does he understand that he will probably have to move out, whether it is sold or the deed is given back to the lender?

Keep in mind that even if you have the absolute right to sell, your ex will have to sign any deed. Although you are the only one on the mortgage (in some states that is called a deed of trust), he still has an ownership interest in the property and will have to sign the deed along with you.

If you believe you can sell through a short sale, whereby you will not get any of the sales proceeds, I believe you would have the same right to give the deed back to the bank.

But before you proceed down either path, make sure that your ex will be on board. Talk with your divorce lawyer to confirm that you have the right to do a short sale. If so, then I think the deed-in-lieu will also fly.

DEAR BENNY: Your comments in a recent column to an elderly person seeking advice on possibly renting were unfair. Suggesting to this person that he or she watch "Pacific Heights" is like telling someone interested in country life to first see "The Amityville Horror." Painting such a gloomy picture is as wrong as saying renting leads to the road of riches.

There are pitfalls to renting, as you suggest, but there also are many benefits. A person could get help from a trusted family member, attorney or friend in screening applicants and learning the ins and outs of renting. Some older people might appreciate the companionship of a renter.

Although renting is not for everybody, someone who does his or her due diligence may find it very rewarding. I wouldn't recommend that my 80-year-old mother rent her house, but I do know seniors who have been successful landlords.

We have been landlords for years and have never had anything remotely close to a "Pacific Heights" experience. I am sure you were looking out for the best interests of the elderly, but a more balanced column would have been more helpful. --Steve

DEAR STEVE: I accept your criticism, and perhaps I was a little too harsh in my response. But as you point out, renting is not for everyone, and sometimes one has to point out the extreme risks in order to get the point across.

As always, I welcome comments and suggestions from my readers -- positive or negative.

Benny L. Kass is a practicing attorney in Washington, D.C., and Maryland. No legal relationship is created by this column. Questions for this column can be submitted to benny@inman.com.

All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.


View the original article here

Know the basics of copyright, trademark infringement

Could your branding, an innocent picture on your blog, or some other minor mistake cost you plenty? You bet! Here's how to avoid damaging mistakes that can cause serious damage to your pocketbook.

Several years ago we hired an offshore designer to do some work on the back pages of my husband's website. We posted the page along with a picture of a woman wearing a headset. Two years later, we received a demand from Getty Images for payment of $1,300 for copyright infringement.

Apparently, the Web designer had taken a picture from Google Images and used it without authorization.

Unfortunately, even though we didn't commit this violation, my trademark attorney advised us that we were responsible because we hired the designer. When we contacted him, he said, "I did nothing wrong -- it's your problem!"

Needless to say, we were pretty upset. Because he was offshore, our only recourse was to report him to the agency we used to locate him and ask to have him removed. We ended up paying $650 to settle the infringement claim.

more...

To continue reading sign in to your Premium Membership Premium Member account.

Premium Membership Premium Members have full access to all news archives.


View the original article here

Introducing the Facebook 'Send' button for groups


Sample of Facebook's Send button.

It has always been easy to share with all your friends on Facebook, but until Facebook introduced "Groups" last October, there wasn’t a simple way to share with just a few people.

This week, Facebook announced three new upgrades to groups: the integration with Facebook Questions, the ability to upload photo albums, and additional membership controls. You can post questions and polls for group members to weigh in on.

For group owners, Facebook also added a control that lets you approve people before they are added to the group.

Big news: the "Send" button ...

Read the complete article at Future of Real Estate Marketing.

Katie Lance is social media director for Inman News. Future of Real Estate Marketing is a part of Inman News.

All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.


View the original article here

Study: Strategic defaulters are credit-savvy

Borrowers who engage in "strategic defaults" after their home's value has plummeted tend to be more savvy about credit than the population at large, with higher FICO scores, lower revolving debt balances, and lower retail credit card usage.

That's according to a study by Fair Isaac Corp., developer of the FICO score, which says it's helping lenders identify borrowers who are most likely to engage in strategic defaults.

In a strategic default, "underwater" borrowers who owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth stop paying their mortgage -- not because they can't afford the monthly payments, but because they don't believe their home will regain its value anytime soon.

Home-price declines have left 11.1 million homeowners underwater, according to a study released in March by loan data aggregator CoreLogic. Studies by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business have estimated that 31 percent of mortgage defaults in March 2010 were strategic, up from 22 percent in March 2009.

more...

To continue reading sign in to your Premium Membership Premium Member account.

Premium Membership Premium Members have full access to all news archives.


View the original article here

Snag real estate bargains in post-bubble market

Book Review
Title: "Finding the Uncommon Deal: A Top New York Lawyer Explains How to Buy a Home for the Lowest Possible Price"
Author: Adam Leitman Bailey
Publisher: Wiley, 2011; 230 pages; $19.95

I'm a (recovering) attorney myself, so I feel at liberty to point out that most people think their encounters with lawyers will cost them money, and lots of it. New York real estate lawyer Adam Leitman Bailey aims to disabuse homebuyers of this belief by revealing his insider secrets for saving money on their homes.

With his new book, "Finding the Uncommon Deal: A Top New York Lawyer Explains How to Buy a Home for the Lowest Possible Price," Bailey offers a stripped-down, fluff-free set of anecdotes and action steps culled from his own daily work as a real estate attorney, homeowner and real estate investor.

In New York, where Bailey practices, attorneys are much more involved in the nitty-gritty details of effective real estate transactions than in states where the brokers and escrow providers do this work and attorneys are rarely retained for basic real estate transactions.

As a result, Bailey's advice does not focus only on legally complex deals, but rather on helping everyday homebuyers get the best price for the best home they can in "regular" old everyday real estate deals.

These days, those can include distressed sales, short sales, foreclosure auctions and bank-owned property sales.

Bailey does cover some unorthodox transaction types, like seller financing (which, by the way, should involve an attorney no matter where they take place). And, notwithstanding the book's title, Bailey is not afraid to give readers valid advice on how to get a great deal in these sorts of situations, even when "a great deal" doesn't necessarily mean getting a home dirt cheap.

For example, Bailey cautions against a "have your cake (seller financing) and eat it, too (low, low price)" approach, if you want to successfully negotiate for a seller to carry your financing. "Remember," Bailey advises, "you are asking the owner to give you the property in return for future payments, and you are attempting to obtain homeownership that you would not otherwise be able to afford. For such benefits, offer to pay at least the asking price -- if not more -- in order to seal the deal."

This is just one of numerous instances in which Bailey tells buyers what they need to know to be successful in this post-bubble real estate market, rather than telling them what they want to hear. He does a great job of this when it comes to affordability issues, as well, explaining that while homes are highly affordable now, if you do the math (which he sketches out for you) and ownership is not affordable for you, Bailey advises to keep saving until you can better handle the costs.

But for the most part, Bailey tells buyers things they both want and need to know. He provides many examples of his own personal clients who have used various money-saving strategies successfully.

He offers truly usable tips about how to manage your inspections to both get you the information you need to know about the property and the documentation to support your negotiations for repairs or price reductions with the home seller, if that's the route you're going.

Compared with writers who tout making lowball offers or buying the very worst of the worst properties as the way to get a good deal on today's market, Bailey's methods are both vastly more creative and reality-based, if very slightly overindexed around East Coast real estate standard practices and issues, like co-op boards and home engineers.

Tell the seller what your price is, and ask for a call back when the seller drops the list price into that ballpark, Bailey advises. Provide deep documentation of the comparables and the rationale underlying your counteroffer, he says, and then walk away from the negotiation for two to three days. Learn -- and remember -- details about the seller's family and their lives, and endear yourself to them.

These suggestions may sound like too much work for today's so-called buyer's market, but I am personally witnessing these exact strategies work, right now, as employed by very experienced investors and savvy homebuyers who are getting amazing deals they otherwise would not.

"Finding the Uncommon Deal" is not a super-fancy book. It doesn't have tricks and DVDs and swanky design elements (though it does have the occasional sidebar with a story about Bailey's own personal real estate dealings, or those of his clients).

There are no cute acronyms or fancy websites with downloadable doodads. What this book does have is very savvy advice from the basic (understanding the costs of homeownership and qualifying for the best rates) to the advanced (e.g., logistics of buying a home at auction) for the entire process (from the rent-vs.-buy decision to closing), which will stand homebuyers in good stead as they seek out an uncommonly good deal in this uncommonly complex, post-bubble real estate market.

Tara-Nicholle Nelson is author of "The Savvy Woman's Homebuying Handbook" and "Trillion Dollar Women: Use Your Power to Make Buying and Remodeling Decisions." Tara is also the Consumer Ambassador and Educator for real estate listings search site Trulia.com. Ask her a real estate question online or visit her website, www.rethinkrealestate.com.

Copyright 2011 Tara-Nicholle NelsonAll rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.


View the original article here

FHA backing energy efficiency retrofits

The Federal Housing Administration has signed up 18 lenders to participate in a pilot program that offers homeowners "PowerSaver" loans of up to $25,000 to make their homes more energy efficient.

About 30,000 homeowners are expected to qualify for the loans by installing insulation, duct sealing, replacement doors and windows, HVAC systems, water heaters, solar panels, and geothermal systems.

Homeowners must have good credit, manageable debt, and at least some equity in their home. FHA mortgage insurance will cover up to 90 percent of the loan amount, with lenders retaining the remaining risk to encourage responsible underwriting and lending standards.

Lenders currently participating in the PowerSaver are Admirals Bank; AFC First Financial Corp.; Bank of Colorado; the City of Boise, Idaho; Energy Finance Solutions; Enterprise Cascadia; HomeStreet Bank; Neighbor's Financial Corp.; Paramount Equity Mortgage Inc.; Quicken Loans; SOFCU Community Credit Union; Stonegate Mortgage Corp.; Sun West Mortgage Co. Inc.; The Bank at Broadmoor; University of Virginia Community Credit Union Inc.; Viewtech Financial Services Inc.; WinTrust Mortgage; and W. J. Bradley Mortgage Capital Corp.

All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.


View the original article here

Square Feet: Government, Too, Has Trouble Selling Buildings

But the federal government did not put the building on the market until November 2009. By then, of course, the real estate market had slumped. Akridge and its partner, Rockwood Capital, a real estate investment fund in White Plains, finally bought the building last October, paying $12.5 million, less than the $14 million asking price.

In a report last October Republicans in Congress pounced on the long delay in selling the Bethesda building — and the discounted price — as an example of how the federal government has been mismanaging its real estate holdings.

The government owns or manages more than 900,000 buildings or other structures across the country — office buildings, courthouses, warehouses and other property types — making it the nation’s largest landlord. But like the former N.I.H. building, about 14,000 are no longer needed and are costly to maintain. An additional 55,000 are regarded as underutilized.

The report was also harshly critical of government spending to operate surplus and underused buildings, including $6.5 million for the Old Post Office Building at 12th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. The administration’s own figures estimate the annual operating expenses for those buildings at more than $1.8 billion.

Last June President Obama ordered executive agencies to accelerate efforts to dispose of unneeded buildings, and set a goal of saving $3 billion by the end of 2012. Yet various obstacles make it difficult for the government to unload buildings it no longer wants.

For one thing they must first be offered to other federal, state and local agencies. Officials also have to ascertain if the building has a community use — say, for a homeless shelter.

At times an agency may want to sell an obsolete building but cannot afford the moving costs, Jeffrey D. Zeints, a deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a telephone interview. Then, too, political considerations may come into play. “Politicians love to come hold a ribbon-cutting for a new building,” Mr. Zeints said. “Getting rid of a building is less rewarding.”

The Obama administration has determined that if the barriers to selling were removed, he said, the savings could be much higher — $15 billion over five years. The sum includes the dollars not spent on maintenance and energy costs as well as sale proceeds.

To speed up the disposal process the administration wants to create an independent commission modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC, a process begun in 1988 to review Defense Department recommendations for closing military bases. The proposed commission, the Civilian Property Realignment Board, would be able to cut through much of the existing red tape, establish new procedures and come up with recommendations for selling property in bulk, Mr. Zeints said.

The commission would also recommend ways the government could use its space more efficiently by, for example, consolidating space or getting agencies to move into one building.

In addition, the legislation is expected to provide incentives for federal agencies by allowing them to share in the proceeds from any sales. To reduce political influence, the commission’s recommendations would be submitted to Congress as a package and not subject to amendment — similar to the way the base closure recommendations were handled. Daniel Werfel, the controller for the Office of Management and Budget, said the commission would include people with experience in commercial real estate, government operations and community development.

The commission concept has bipartisan support, said Jeff Denham, Republican of California and the chairman of the House subcommittee on public buildings. “The goal in the short term is to sell as many buildings as possible to generate some immediate cash flow to help with the debt crisis,” said Mr. Denham, who backed a similar proposal when he was a state legislator. The longer-term goal is to improve the way the federal government handles its real estate needs, he said.

Some real estate experts wondered if a board was necessary. “Whenever government is faced with a problem, the first thing they do is appoint a commission,” said Nicholas R. Smith, an executive vice president at First Potomac Realty Trust, a publicly traded company that leases more than 700,000 square feet to the government. Mr. Smith said the process for selling federal property should simply be made less complex.

Jeffrey D. DeBoer, the chief executive of the Real Estate Roundtable, a Washington trade group that represents industry leaders, described the proposed board as a “positive idea.” But he urged the government to restrict its sales efforts for now to stronger markets with relatively low office vacancy rates, like Manhattan, the Back Bay area of Boston, Washington, San Francisco and the West Side of Los Angeles.


View the original article here