Since FHA mortgages can require a down payment as low as 3.5% of the purchase price, more and more buyers are applying. If you are putting your condominium on the market, or if you are on the board of a condominium association where it has been difficult to sell condominium units, you may want to consider getting the association FHA approved. This will make it easier for potential buyers to purchase in your association.
Unfortunately, not all condominium associations will qualify for FHA approval, but if your association meets the following criteria, you have a good shot:
1. No one investor can own more than 10% of all units.
2. Only up to 15% of units can be past due on assessment payments.
3. Only up to 25% of the association can be used for commercial purposes.
4. At least 50% of the units must be owner-occupied.
If your association meets all of these criteria, and if your association applies for FHA approval and is approved, FHA will still only fund up to 30% of the total units in the condominium association. Regardless, your pool of potential buyers will expand, making it more likely that units in the association will sell!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Should you get a Radon Test for your new home?
When you're buying a house, you should have it professionally inspected. Sure, everyone knows that. And in this day and age, with so many foreclosures on the market, mold testing has become quite common. But what about radon testing? Should you do it?
Radon is not tested as often as it should be, even though over a third of all homes tested for radon do actually contain high levels of radon. After smoking, radon is the number 2 cause of lung cancer in the United States. And it's everywhere, because it starts in the soil.
Then why don't more people test their homes for radon? Well, you can't see it, and you can't smell it. It has no color and no odor. People tend to be less concerned about things that they cannot sense in any way. However, radon is even more dangerous because of its invisibility. People tend to assume they do not have a radon problem, when they very well might.
You are not required to perform a radon test on your home. But if you do complete a radon test and find that radon is in fact present in your home, all is not lost. Radon can be mitigated, and people do it all the time!
Radon is not tested as often as it should be, even though over a third of all homes tested for radon do actually contain high levels of radon. After smoking, radon is the number 2 cause of lung cancer in the United States. And it's everywhere, because it starts in the soil.
Then why don't more people test their homes for radon? Well, you can't see it, and you can't smell it. It has no color and no odor. People tend to be less concerned about things that they cannot sense in any way. However, radon is even more dangerous because of its invisibility. People tend to assume they do not have a radon problem, when they very well might.
You are not required to perform a radon test on your home. But if you do complete a radon test and find that radon is in fact present in your home, all is not lost. Radon can be mitigated, and people do it all the time!
Monday, July 11, 2011
Trim Your Trees -- Avoid Liability!
In a recent case, Ortiz v. Jesus People, USA, 210 Ill. App. LEXIS 1221 (1st Dist. 2010), the court found the defendant corporation liable for damage caused by a tree on defendant's property. Specfically, the tree had a large tree limb that extended over a public sidewalk. The plaintiff was riding her bicycle on a windy day, stopped on the sidewalk under the tree, and was severely injured when the limb suddenly broke and fell on her.
The plaintiff sued the the corporate defendant, as well as the city. The court determined that the city was not responsible for the tree or its limbs, since the tree was located on private property. However, the jury found the corporate defendant at fault. The jury felt that because of the type of the tree (a particularly brittle variety) and the general condition of the tree, the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that a limb would break off. The jury found that the corporate defendant was negligent, and ordered the defendant to pay $686,000 to the plaintiff.
What's the bottom line? You need to maintain the trees on your property and make sure they do not damage anyone or anything else! Otherwise, you could be liable!
The plaintiff sued the the corporate defendant, as well as the city. The court determined that the city was not responsible for the tree or its limbs, since the tree was located on private property. However, the jury found the corporate defendant at fault. The jury felt that because of the type of the tree (a particularly brittle variety) and the general condition of the tree, the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that a limb would break off. The jury found that the corporate defendant was negligent, and ordered the defendant to pay $686,000 to the plaintiff.
What's the bottom line? You need to maintain the trees on your property and make sure they do not damage anyone or anything else! Otherwise, you could be liable!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
A Second Inspection Could Protect You From Surprises, and Failed Lawsuits
Earlier this year, in In re: Kellie Cooper, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 562 (2011), a buyer of residential property in Des Plaines, Illinois sued the seller for misrepresentation and fraud. In this case, the Buyer and Seller entered into a contract for the purchase/sale of the property. During the Buyer's professional inspection, however, a number of serious problems were noted by the inspector. As a result, the Buyer canceled the Contract.
Some time thereafter, the Seller contacted one of the real estate agents involved via electronic mail, and stated that a number of the repairs were completed. The Seller also provided a number of repair bills to the Buyer. The Buyer and the Seller signed a new contract in the summer of 2006, and closed before the end of the summer. The Buyer walked through the Property, but did not conduct another professional inspection. The Buyer stated that the Seller made specific verbal statements that certain repairs had been completed.
Regardless, many of the same issues that were in the original inspection report surfaced again after closing. Because the home suffered extensive damage, the Buyer eventually sued the Seller. The court, however, took the Seller's side, stating that the Buyer should not have relied on Seller's statements and should have conducted another professional inspection, since the Buyer was already on notice that there were many problems with the house. In this situation, a second inspection could have saved the Buyer a lot of time, money and grief!
Some time thereafter, the Seller contacted one of the real estate agents involved via electronic mail, and stated that a number of the repairs were completed. The Seller also provided a number of repair bills to the Buyer. The Buyer and the Seller signed a new contract in the summer of 2006, and closed before the end of the summer. The Buyer walked through the Property, but did not conduct another professional inspection. The Buyer stated that the Seller made specific verbal statements that certain repairs had been completed.
Regardless, many of the same issues that were in the original inspection report surfaced again after closing. Because the home suffered extensive damage, the Buyer eventually sued the Seller. The court, however, took the Seller's side, stating that the Buyer should not have relied on Seller's statements and should have conducted another professional inspection, since the Buyer was already on notice that there were many problems with the house. In this situation, a second inspection could have saved the Buyer a lot of time, money and grief!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
