Posted on 03/30/2010 8:10:56 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Here's a new concept in real estate: Buy a house, and when you go to sell it years later, owe the original developer or builder 1 percent of the sales price.
Freehold Capital Partners, a company started in Texas, is selling developers across the country on a plan that would attach a private transfer fee to homes, allowing developers to profit for generations.
The fee, written into neighborhood restrictions, would encumber the property for 99 years and throw 1 percent of the sale price back to the developer — or his or her estate or another investor — and Freehold each time the home changes hands.
It's an idea that's drawn the attention of some state legislatures and real estate trade organizations, which are fighting to stop the transfer fees from gaining a spot in the market.
Critics say such fees could taint entire neighborhoods, making it difficult to sell homes, and could complicate title records for decades. If the fee is not paid by the seller, a lien is placed on the property and the title becomes muddy.
And then there's the basic question: “What it comes down to is, 20 years later, why is the developer still profiting?” asked Jeremy Yohe, director of communications with the American Land Title Association, the national association for title companies.
Freehold, which started in Austin, compares the transfer fees to mineral rights and calls land development a creative process on par with writing a book.
“Just like authors who write books and musicians who write songs that will be enjoyed for generations to come, those who improve property are also engaged in the creative process, and the economics of the transaction should reflect that reality,” a Freehold brochure says.
Freehold says it has signed up developers, including many across Texas, who hold more than $500 billion in residential and commercial property — but it will not name any of them.
Because courthouse property records are filed by owner name, it's difficult to track the company's activities in Texas and know which developers have signed on to the program.
Title companies that have been watching Freehold say it's possible that a homeowner could have a transfer fee in a neighborhood covenant and not realize it until he or she resells a home. Even if a transfer fee were to turn up in a title search, few people read all the neighborhood covenants and restrictions before signing.
A spokesman for Freehold says the company favors clearly disclosing private transfer fees in a standalone document. But in Texas, there's no legal requirement to do so. And under the standard real estate contract in Texas, home buyers agree to accept any restrictions that are common to the subdivision.
Freehold founder Joe Alderman refused requests for an interview, and spokesman Curtis Campbell would only answer questions by e-mail.
In response to the company's sales pitch, Texas lawmakers have passed restrictions on private transfer fees, but they are not banned. Some other states have banned such fees outright.
The American Land Title Association and the National Association of Realtors wrote model legislation banning private transfer fees that members can present to legislators. And last week, the trade groups asked the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department to clarify that it prohibits the use of private transfer fees on government-insured mortgages.
“It's a limit on property. If you don't pay the fee, the property doesn't transfer, and you don't have clear title,” said Gerry Allen, community outreach manager with the National Association of Realtors. “There's nothing to say that anybody who owns a home can't attach this to their property. You could have a whole chain of these.”
Legislative efforts
Florida, Oregon, Missouri and Kansas have banned transfer fees in recent years. This month, Utah legislators banned them, and a bill to do the same is pending in Louisiana.
Texas law restricts private transfer fees but says some groups can collect them, including charities, property owner associations or governmental entities.
Freehold has interpreted this to mean that if a slice of the transfer fee — 5 percent — goes to charity, the developer and Freehold can collect the rest.
“This industry felt like they could create a nonprofit and get around it,” said Trent Thomas, chief of staff for state Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo. Darby owns a title company and has sponsored legislation to try to further restrict private transfer fees.
After the California Association of Realtors learned about transfer fees, the trade group took the issue to state lawmakers in 2007.
“I could put one in my deed that would require every future (seller) to pay a fee to me personally,” said Alex Creel, senior vice president of government affairs for the group. “We used to joke that you could create a college fund.”
But developers aligned with environmental groups and affordable housing advocates, promising that a percentage of the fee would help set aside open space or create affordable housing. It proved an unbeatable coalition, and CAR settled for a law that requires clear disclosure of transfer fees.
“We had 210,000 members at the time, we have a big PAC, lots of money, lots of resources, four lobbyists. We have a very sophisticated operation. We couldn't beat it,” Creel said. “We couldn't believe it. It just seemed like such a bad idea.”
The largest private transfer fee Creel has seen was 1.75 percent in a community where homes sell in the range of $800,000 to the low millions — meaning homeowners will have to pay a fee of around $17,500 when they sell their homes.
Patent pending?
Freehold was based in Austin before moving its headquarters to New York this year to be at the “heart of the financial markets.”
While the company says it has a patent pending, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the patent last year and lists the application as “abandoned.”
Company spokesman Campbell said by e-mail that Freehold has filed a continuation patent to pick up the claims of the first patent.
The company name makes reference to English law — “freehold” essentially means outright property ownership.
A few years ago, a predecessor company called Freehold Licensing tried to sell individual homeowners, as well as builders and developers, on the idea of transfer fees.
“Maybe you planted a tree, added on a room or rehabbed a home,” the Web site said in 2007. “Fifty years from now, when a family is enjoying the property that you improved, and making a profit by selling the property you improved, why shouldn't you benefit? Of course you should.”
Founder Alderman put a transfer fee on his own nine-bedroom home in Round Rock in 2005, according to public records. He took it off in 2009 when the home was listed for sale.
An e-mail from Campbell said the timing was coincidental. But, he said, “one of the things we like about our program, and which resonates well with developers, is that they can terminate the instrument if they decide to do so.”
Today, Freehold markets to large landholders — not individuals — and says it will create a secondary market for selling the rights to transfer fees.
The idea is that developers would get money upfront from investors, who would get a 99-year income stream.
The pitch
The Freehold pitch sounds good to many in the industry who need money now to finance a project.
“It's a phenomenal plan,” said Greg Blume, a Houston-based developer who plans to use transfer fees in the Savannah Plantation development in Brazoria County. “It's just one more way of trying to finance and fund any type of real estate project.”
Selling transfer fee rights to investors would mean a developer could add more amenities to a neighborhood or sell for less than the competition — or both. “It just makes sense,” Blume said. “You can do more for the project and have less debt.”
Blume said developers in all the state's major markets are signing up with Freehold. There's no cost to sign up, but because there's no secondary market, no one has seen any money.
San Antonio subdivision developer Norman Dugas talked to Freehold representatives a few years ago. But he decided such fees would create too much of a marketing hurdle.
“The guy across the street, the competition, is going to say, ‘Those guys are sticking you with this transfer fee,'” Dugas said. “I just don't quite think it's going to go over. For the fee to work, it would have to be so desirable or attractive a property that people just had to get in there.”
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.