Is it possible to assume a properties old prop 13 tax rate?

[UCGal]

Napa’s assessor site has an example that would suggest this wouldn’t work.

http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentContent.aspx?id=4294968559

Here’s another article that also suggests it wouldn’t work.
http://www.paullawgroupsf.com/articles/property-taxes-qa/

As I read both links – the transferred portion would be taxed at the new rate, at the time of the transfer. Exceptions would be if it were transfers between spouse, parent/child, into/out of a trust.

[bearishgurl]

I wanted to add that there are three other documents that can be recorded AFTER the death(s) of a current Prop-13 eligible owner that would convey the property with it’s current Prop. 13 status intact. These documents are not interchangeable in that their use would depend on whether the last living owner died with or w/o a will and/or trust. Two of the documents must reference the property and its legal description and the names of the heirs and their relation to the decedent and would be filed upon the closing of a probated estate. One of these documents must reference the probate case no. and must be signed by the probate judge.

After the intestate estate is closed and one or more of these documents are filed, if there is more than one heir listed on the document(s), each heir then has the option of buying another heir out and quitclaiming their portion to the remaining heir(s), who will retain the Prop. 13 eligibility.

[bearishgurl]

I wanted to add that there are three other documents that can be recorded AFTER the death(s) of a current Prop-13 eligible owner that would convey the property with it’s current Prop. 13 status intact. These documents are not interchangeable in that their use would depend on whether the last living owner died with or w/o a will and/or trust. Two of the documents must reference the property and its legal description and the names of the heirs and their relation to the decedent and would be filed upon the closing of a probated estate. One of these documents must reference the probate case no. and must be signed by the probate judge.

After the intestate estate is closed and one or more of these documents are filed, if there is more than one heir listed on the document(s), each heir then has the option of buying another heir out and quitclaiming their portion to the remaining heir(s), who will retain the Prop. 13 eligibility.

[bearishgurl]

I wanted to add that there are three other documents that can be recorded AFTER the death(s) of a current Prop-13 eligible owner that would convey the property with it’s current Prop. 13 status intact. These documents are not interchangeable in that their use would depend on whether the last living owner died with or w/o a will and/or trust. Two of the documents must reference the property and its legal description and the names of the heirs and their relation to the decedent and would be filed upon the closing of a probated estate. One of these documents must reference the probate case no. and must be signed by the probate judge.

After the intestate estate is closed and one or more of these documents are filed, if there is more than one heir listed on the document(s), each heir then has the option of buying another heir out and quitclaiming their portion to the remaining heir(s), who will retain the Prop. 13 eligibility.

[bearishgurl]

I wanted to add that there are three other documents that can be recorded AFTER the death(s) of a current Prop-13 eligible owner that would convey the property with it’s current Prop. 13 status intact. These documents are not interchangeable in that their use would depend on whether the last living owner died with or w/o a will and/or trust. Two of the documents must reference the property and its legal description and the names of the heirs and their relation to the decedent and would be filed upon the closing of a probated estate. One of these documents must reference the probate case no. and must be signed by the probate judge.

After the intestate estate is closed and one or more of these documents are filed, if there is more than one heir listed on the document(s), each heir then has the option of buying another heir out and quitclaiming their portion to the remaining heir(s), who will retain the Prop. 13 eligibility.

[bearishgurl]

I wanted to add that there are three other documents that can be recorded AFTER the death(s) of a current Prop-13 eligible owner that would convey the property with it’s current Prop. 13 status intact. These documents are not interchangeable in that their use would depend on whether the last living owner died with or w/o a will and/or trust. Two of the documents must reference the property and its legal description and the names of the heirs and their relation to the decedent and would be filed upon the closing of a probated estate. One of these documents must reference the probate case no. and must be signed by the probate judge.

After the intestate estate is closed and one or more of these documents are filed, if there is more than one heir listed on the document(s), each heir then has the option of buying another heir out and quitclaiming their portion to the remaining heir(s), who will retain the Prop. 13 eligibility.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Napa’s assessor site has an example that would suggest this wouldn’t work.

http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentContent.aspx?id=4294968559
[/quote]

Awesome link, UCGal.

Read your other link, too. It’s amazing to read that some people who buy property with a “significant other” (not a reg. domestic partner) still think that since they only own a “half-interest” that they are only liable for half the property tax – LOL!!

I run across this “tenants-in-common” form of property ownership frequently and my personal opinion is that it is a recipe for distaster.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Napa’s assessor site has an example that would suggest this wouldn’t work.

http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentContent.aspx?id=4294968559
[/quote]

Awesome link, UCGal.

Read your other link, too. It’s amazing to read that some people who buy property with a “significant other” (not a reg. domestic partner) still think that since they only own a “half-interest” that they are only liable for half the property tax – LOL!!

I run across this “tenants-in-common” form of property ownership frequently and my personal opinion is that it is a recipe for distaster.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Napa’s assessor site has an example that would suggest this wouldn’t work.

http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentContent.aspx?id=4294968559
[/quote]

Awesome link, UCGal.

Read your other link, too. It’s amazing to read that some people who buy property with a “significant other” (not a reg. domestic partner) still think that since they only own a “half-interest” that they are only liable for half the property tax – LOL!!

I run across this “tenants-in-common” form of property ownership frequently and my personal opinion is that it is a recipe for distaster.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Napa’s assessor site has an example that would suggest this wouldn’t work.

http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentContent.aspx?id=4294968559
[/quote]

Awesome link, UCGal.

Read your other link, too. It’s amazing to read that some people who buy property with a “significant other” (not a reg. domestic partner) still think that since they only own a “half-interest” that they are only liable for half the property tax – LOL!!

I run across this “tenants-in-common” form of property ownership frequently and my personal opinion is that it is a recipe for distaster.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Napa’s assessor site has an example that would suggest this wouldn’t work.

http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentContent.aspx?id=4294968559
[/quote]

Awesome link, UCGal.

Read your other link, too. It’s amazing to read that some people who buy property with a “significant other” (not a reg. domestic partner) still think that since they only own a “half-interest” that they are only liable for half the property tax – LOL!!

I run across this “tenants-in-common” form of property ownership frequently and my personal opinion is that it is a recipe for distaster.

[patb]

you could do lease to purchase…

[patb]

you could do lease to purchase…

[patb]

you could do lease to purchase…

[patb]

you could do lease to purchase…

[Author]

Posts