Posted on 03/30/2010 8:10:56 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Yup. So long as the entire transaction is disclosed - fully - so that everyone is aware of everything, then I don’t see the problem with that. If you don’t like it, further on down the road, then don’t buy the house.
While the idiots in Washington certainly deserve blame, they didn't put in the glued-together paste board crap that is in newer homes.
I agree. And if someone is stupid enough to sign, well, it’s their money. It is how those who think in the future can make money off those that live mainly in the present.
How do you think they get people to sign those “zero interest” loans? The day of reconing is several years away so they figure it’ll be fine by then.
Type in the phrase "Chinese drywall"
and learn.
Yeah, like the frickin' criminals didn't make the profit on the "improvements" when they sold it to the family that sells it 50 years later. What a crock of sh**. This country is going to he** in a hurry.
Law is a growth industry after all.
Holy Smokes!
Houston PING
If they think they can take money on the shoddy buildings they put up, 99 years after the fact, then I think I should have a 99 year warranty on all facets of their construction. Let’s see how they like that.
Sunlight is a great disinfectant. We just need to obtain a list of developers who signed up with these crooks, disclose the list on the internet, and encourage people to blacklist ANY property sold by these crooked developers until they get out of this sucker racket.
Please point to the place where it says that it would allow a home buyer to get into a home for less money. The way I read it, the new buyer would pay the whole amount, and then pay 1% more when he sells the property, and it would go to the builder. Otherwise, the builder would get LESS money until the home is re-sold. If I misread something, please show me just where it was printed.
Note: I am not a lawyer, nor is any member of my family a lawyer, but I strongly urge people to be represented by a lawyer who specializes in real estate practice BEFORE they sign anything on a home purchase, even the orignial offer which usually merely includes a small amount of money to “hold” the sale until final papers are signed.
Who pays the fee, the buyer or the seller?
The article did not specifically mention the sales price might be reduced as an incentive to accept this 1% fee. But to me, this makes sense as a marketing ploy.
If I were a greedy developer seeking to prey on unsuspecting dummies, I’d emphasize how I’m lowering the sales price!
(Only to make a 1% profit years later when they sell the home.)
The seller.
(Unless he is smart enough to stick this in with the buyers fees.)
I meant it to show how absurd their arguments are. Also it’s a good defense to this practice becoming any sort of accepted legal doctrine in the future, where they could force this “royalty” on owners even without written encumbrances.
Could this be void on the grounds it is an unconscionable contract? What reasonable person would agree to this?
How long before you’re required to keep the property in a condition that will maximize resale value in accordance with the views of the recipient of the transfer fee?
How long before your are not allowed to do anything that will detract from the resale value according to the view of the recipient of the transfer fee? (Like smoke, or take out a wall, or put in a pool or a barbecue pit.)
***The article did not specifically mention the sales price might be reduced as an incentive to accept this 1% fee. But to me, this makes sense as a marketing ploy.
If I were a greedy developer seeking to prey on unsuspecting dummies, I’d emphasize how I’m lowering the sales price!
(Only to make a 1% profit years later when they sell the home.)***
That seems to make some sense, however, the developer would rather have the money NOW than to wait years to collect it. The home might not sell for 25 to 50 years, and at a lower price per dollar value than when it was first sold. Only if the developer believes that our dollar will increase in value (not likely) would he be willing to wait years for the 1% to be paid back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.