Written By Ashley L. Hobson, Esq.
One of the most recent movements in real estate is the concept of the “tiny home”. We’ve had many Realtor friends ask about how to consult their clients when it comes to buying the perfect home. There is a lot to be said about changing your lifestyle to fit a new environment- it shouldn’t be a decision made lightly. It is important to consider certain issues before jumping into the tiny house movement. Below we take a look at some of the Pros and Cons of the tiny house fad.
Ownership and Investing in your Future
Home ownership can be both rewarding and draining. In today’s market, millennials are projected to be the next big target for home buying. Having equity in your home is one of the best ways to invest in your future. Additionally, the tax benefits of owning a home are beneficial as well. On the other hand, while renting might be an appealing option- it doesn’t have monetary return. In a time where the market is finally becoming more stable, the opportunity to own a home is becoming a more attainable goal.
While owning your own home is surely an investment, you will reap the benefits of this investment when it comes time to sell. Where Tiny Home are proving to differ from standard residences is in resale value. According to an article in Forbes Magazine entitled “5 Reasons Buying a Tiny House Is a Mistake”, tiny homes are actually less marketable. There is a small concentration of individuals that a tiny home would actually work for. It seems that you would be hard pressed to find a buyer who didn’t want to entertain house guests at some point. The pool of individuals truly interested in tiny homes shrinks even smaller due to lending institution restrictions. In the same Forbes Magazine article, the author notes that lenders often have square footage requirements that must be met. This means that buyers have to be ready to pay with cash. It might be easy to make an “in the moment” decision, but you really should consider the long term value of your investment.
Since millennials are a large target for home buying- it is likely many may consider “going tiny”. In a time where we can’t go five minutes without checking our texts, or social media and email accounts- the thought of cutting out clutter and living cleaner can be appealing. The idea of being mobile and picking up and moving whenever you want might appeal to those who love to travel. For those who don’t want to be tied down to one location forever, but still want to invest in real estate- this concept may work for you. Making the “tiny home” purchase has taken the hassle of shopping for a home away- it’s now as easy as clicking a button on Amazon. Student loans do not make the idea of owning a home appealing to many millennials; debt often gets in the way of getting loan approval. The tiny home movement does have its appeal when it comes to targeting the millennial crowd.
Space- is it really feasible?
While living simply might appeal to you in theory- it might not actually work in practice. Can you really part with 75% of your possessions? If you have a bike, cooking equipment, or shoe collection- this could prove to be difficult. Individuals interested in tiny homes should really consider what they can truly part with before going through with the purchase. If there are big items you can’t part with- will they fit in your tiny home? If you cannot answer this for certain, maybe hold off on the purchase.
For the month of July, the staff held a Back to School drive for St. Peter Claver Elementary School. The staff brought in items from toddler clothes to backpacks filled with glue, paper, crayons, pencils, pens, folders, hand soap, markers, and much more. Each of the fifty backpacks were filled with the donated items along with an inspirational note. We even had donations left over to give to the teachers to help replenish their stock throughout the year. The staff was rewarded for their donations with an ice cream social.
June 15, 2017
A three-year legal battle came to an end on April 28th, when HB483, estoppel reform legislation, cleared its final legislative hurdle. An estoppel certificate or letter is required on each real estate closing involving a homeowner’s or condominium association and is intended to provide a full breakdown of expected and delinquent dues or assessments, special assessments, late fees, and violations.
As of yesterday, June 14, 2017, when Governor Rick Scott signed this into law, property owners with homeowners or condominium associations now can rest easy with mandatory caps on estoppel costs. In the past, associations were charging hundreds of dollars for estoppels which hiked up loan amounts, closing costs, and frustrations with everyone involved in the closing. In addition, title companies, realtors, brokers, closing agents, and mortgage brokers can now provide more accurate quotes to their customers.
The law goes into effect on July 1st and requires estoppel certificates to be provided within 10 days of the initial request and be valid for a minimum of 30 days. For owners who are current on their dues, the estoppel fee cap is $250. For owners who are delinquent on their dues, an additional fee of $150 can be charged. For rush estoppels, the fee cap is $100 for rush deliveries within 3 days.
For an example Estoppel Certification, please see Sapphire Title & Escrow’s Guidelines
By Jennifer Lima-Smith, Esquire
Partner, Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A.
The Second District Court of Appeals issued a decision on September 2, 2016 in the case of Ballantrae Homeowners Association v. Federal National Mortgage Association (2D15-1025 and 2D15-1026). The case involves a consolidated appeal from final summary judgments entered by the trial court in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association otherwise known as “Fannie Mae.” The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae.
The background facts indicate there are two properties governed by the Associations Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Each property was encumbered by a recorded first mortgage and also by the homeowner’s association lien for unpaid assessments. The borrowers on both properties defaulted on their mortgages. The servicers of the loans initiated foreclosure proceedings. Neither foreclosure case included the HOA as a party to the action as a defendant. Final judgments were entered in favor of Fannie Mae and were sold to Fannie Mae. Subsequently, an estoppel of the assessments due was sought by Fannie Mae. The amounts due to the association was challenged. Fannie Mae requested a declaratory and injunctive relief on the amounts due and stated their responsibility was limited to the assessments accrued after it acquired title to the properties. The trial court examined the Declarations and concluded Fannie Mae was only liable for the unpaid assessments after it acquired title and the HOA was ordered to provide an estoppel letter reflecting the reduction.
The appellate court distinguished other appellate case decisions and examined the language of the Declarations. The appellate court determined the Declaration’s subordination verbiage contained provisions to subordinating the assessment lien to the 1st mortgage but it did not contain wording specifically limiting or eliminating the subsequent owner’s liability for unpaid assessments. The reviewing court examined the law and found that it is well established under common law, the foreclosure of a senior mortgage extinguishes that of a junior mortgage listed in the final judgment. However, it is also well established that where a junior lienholder is not made a party to the foreclosure brought by the senior mortgage holder, “the lien of the junior mortgagee is unaffected by the judgment.” Abdoney v. York, 903 So.2d 981, 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); See also, Willoughby Estates v. Bankunited, No. 2014AP000015, 2015 WL 5472506 at *2 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. June 23, 2015). At foreclosure therefore, the association’s lien rights were not adjudicated and the assessments liens remained intact. The appellate court concluded, the sale was held and the junior lienholders had no opportunity to bid or stir up others to benefit from a surplus.
The court stated the only remedies available to Fannie Mae are to move to compel redemption or filing a new action to re-foreclose. The association can defend itself in the same manner as if the foreclosure never happened. The court also stated that Fannie Mae’s actions for declaratory and injunctive relief are not recognized methods for removing the lien of an omitted junior lienor.
It is always a good idea to consult with your foreclosure and real estate counsel if there are any questions.
This past January 2016, The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), which is a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury, issued a Geographic Targeting Order (“GTO) which will impact sales of residential property throughout Florida’s Southeast. The January GTO applies to the sale of residential property located in Miami-Dade County for $1,000,000 or more, closing on or after March 1, 2016, through August 27, 2016, where the buyer is a legal entity and the purchase is made without a bank loan. This GTO was extended on July 22, 2016 to include Palm Beach and Broward counties, and also includes transaction when a personal or business check is used for any portion of the purchase price. The July 22, 2016 GTO commences with closings on or after August 28, 2016 through February 23, 2017.
All offices and agents of various title insurance underwriters are now required to collect and report information respecting certain real property purchases which meet all of the following parameters: (1) Sale of residential property located in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach or Broward County; (2) Sale completed on or after August 28, 2016, through February 23, 2017; (3) Sales price of $1,000,000 or more; (4) The buyer is a legal entity, such as a limited liability company, corporation, partnership, or similar business entity but not a trust; (5) Purchase is made without a bank loan or other similar form of external financing (financing by a financial institution that is required to have an anti-money laundering policy); and (6) Purchase price is paid, in whole or in part, with cash, cashier check, certified check, travelers check, money order in any form, personal or business check. This does not include a sale where the purchase price is paid entirely by wire transfer.
It’s important to note that title insurance commitments for a transaction which falls under the GTO must contain specific language found in Schedule B-1 of the GTO. Furthermore, these transactions must be reported to FinCEN by filing a FinCEN Form 8300 within 30 days after closing and a representative of the buying entity must complete, and have notarized, a Supporting FinCEN GTO Affidavit. Carefully following the requirements of the January and July GTOs will ensure your organization completes all Southeast Florida closings without incident.
By Chris Pavlidis, Esquire
Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A.