If a transfer fee allows a home buyer to get into a home for less money - realizing years later there will be a 1 percent fee to be repaid - then I don’t see a problem with this.
Didn’t read the whole article but it would seem there would issues around title to property or clouds of encumbrance.
I wouldn’t buy it.
If a dead Elvis can generate income, why can’t developers enter into a contract to share the future sales?
Eventually I would expect Goldman Sachs to own each and everyone of these encumbrances. Or maybe Disney. It likes this sort of revenue stream.
So basically it seems they want to equate building or designing to copyright. Okay. You sold the home, it's now under the first-sale doctrine of copyright. You don't get a penny from subsequent resales.
Umm....well...maybe because you sold the house????
Maroons.
This is just going to encourage people to go further into debt for homes and home improvements based on some phonus-balonus pipe dream of price appreciation, which is one of the main things which got us into the mess we are in now.
Suppose the developer sells me a house in 2007 for $500,000 with one of these 1% clauses in the deed. If in 2013 I have to sell the house at $375,000, is he going to kick in one percent of my loss?
Developer appears to be a synonym for thief.
They can do whatever they want, I suppose. Hell will freeze over before I buy such a tainted property.
It’s simple. Simply refuse to buy any property that has the transfer fee written in. I know some idiots will buy anyway but if most people won’t then these fees will go the way of the DoDo bird when the “developers” find out they can’t sell the crap they build.
>>“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.” <<
Yeah! And what about all the people that actually held hammer in hand to do the work. What if, as a condition of employment, they said they wanted .01% of every sale for 99 years? I suspect they would not get the job.
And what about ME! I was a programmer for a bank for years, writing programs that they benefited from for many years after that. I should get a piece of it!
IOW, it is true. All you have to do is get the buyer to buy into it. Sometimes that might be a challenge. :)
But if someone is stupid enough, well...
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.
Who pays the fee, the buyer or the seller?
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.)
This is why I read every word of every contract I ever sign. I would not buy a home under this contract unless I got a discount sufficient to cover the extra cost that they are delaying and to cover the reduced value due to added difficulty in selling a house with such a gross provision attached. BTW, I would love to get the builders on a home that was going to stay in the family forever - go ahead and defer your profits without realizing that we’re not the transients you hoped for.
I wonder what would happen if someone with this kind of contract walked away from an underwater house? Would the bank be liable? Are banks going to take a big hit from this?
What a crock....This is gonna give realtors a new idea. I am sure they would like a piece of this future pie, as well. A homeowner already shares his “profits” with local government in the form of increased property taxes - or at least he did when the housing market was booming. What’s another 1%? Has Pelosi heard of this? She might like to cook up some new legislation. Can anyone say “Government Assisted Seller’s Program”(GASP)? Of course we will need another 16,500 IRS agents to make sure the assistance fee is collected....