[bearishgurl]

[quote=rockingtime]Just curious, How do you define coastal california ?

Would whole of SD be qualified as coastal ?

For my perspective, everything is cyclical and nothing keeps going up for ever. This gives us opportunity.

A lot of people tried to convince me otherwise about SD real estate in 2007, I disagreed with them and bought in 2011.
The first house I bought in 2001, I sold it in 2007ish..

I am sure, my current house valuation would come down with due time

My guess: Wages are going to be stagnant at best which would affect the housing prices as well.[/quote]

Yes, in relation to inland CA counties, SD County is considered “coastal.” However, the TRUE CA “coastal market” is within 2-3 miles from the coast, IMO, given varying land elevations creating coastal views showing whitewater. The “coastal market” is also located on the western side of major geographical boundaries such as freeways and RR tracks. A property with a “peek’ view of blue water which is located several miles inland from the ocean isn’t really considered to be in located in a true “coastal market.” But ALL coastal CA counties have more temperate weather than inland counties and thus their RE prices reflect that.

Consider the vast pricing differences between LA County and it’s neighboring county to the east, San Bernardino County. Even similarly-sized houses on the LA side of the county line are worth nearly 2x as much as those on the other side of the county line (SB County).

There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is much better zoning (less “mixed use” zoning) and less density in the part of LA County bordering SB and RIV Counties. Many inland CA counties and micro-areas within those counties where the land is cheaper still have a lot of mixed-use zoning on the books which lowers the value of ALL surrounding properties. (Part of unincorporated Spring Valley is a good example of mixed-use zoning in SD County.)

In 2007, SD County’s residential RE market had already started to come down a little in price but did not really hit bottom until the last quarter of 2009.

By the last quarter of 2010, the market was already beginning to rise in some (not all) areas. This wholly depended upon the level of distress in the micro area. By 2011, many “coastal” micro markets had already bounced back or were beginning to.

I DO still think there is opportunity out there today …. for CASH buyers who have the ability and access to tools to do a lot of DIY.

I do not believe stagnant wages (or even an “employee’s market”) affect RE values in well-established areas of coastal counties. This phenomenon MAY affect home values in newer tracts which are adjacent to white-collar suburban or exurban job centers. It does NOT affect values in the most desirable, most established urban/coastal areas of coastal CA counties because a very large portion of the sales occurring within them are all-cash sales and another portion of those sales are buyers using a >50% downpayment. In these markets, the typical buyer is NOT Joe Q. Workerbee, his spouse and 2.3 minor kids.

In rural/semi-rural coastal CA counties, the bulk of the residential sales there are all-cash sales. There aren’t any high-paying white-collar jobs within commuting distance of those towns/small cities (except maybe local govmt jobs). Thus, the bulk of the buyers in these markets today are “retirees” or second-home buyers.

RT, if you’re depending on “stagant wages” for your next CA RE buying “opportunity,” you’ll need to choose your shopping parameters very carefully, imho.

[bearishgurl]

Whether the residential RE market in CA is currently holding its own or increasing in value is entirely local … on a micro-level.

I’ve been “saving” SFR listings online located in Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties since about mid-January 2015.

I just visited my “saved” listings today and had to delete all 14 of them which were “withdrawn” from the market just day(s) or week(s) after listing. The majority of these were last purchased in 2007 (the sellers obviously didn’t feel they could even get within $20K of what they paid in 2007), not even taking into account the costs of selling.

I’m finding that there are a lot of would-be sellers out there “testing” the market this spring.

Only one actually sold, a listing in Rohnert Park, a relatively “close-in” city in Sonoma County (not rural or semi-rural as are most of the areas I’m interested in). It sold for $2K more than asking price in less than 60 days (incl escrow period).

Yes, the closer-in bay area counties are “on fire” and thus devoid of listings which last more than 3 days but that is not the case everywhere in CA.

My spot checks in LA County show that SFR listings seem to be disappearing fast everywhere … at all price points. Even heavy fixers in “working-class” areas are selling fast there! Condos seem to be taking twice as long to sell as SFRs but do sell nonetheless. Except for just a handful of small cities which still have too many current short-sale and FC listings, the distressed inventory seems to have been cleared out of LA County. Some zip codes and micro areas in LA County are every bit as “hot” as the bay area right now … market wise.

LA County has next to zero “community facilities districts” (areas with MR) and far fewer neighborhoods with HOAs than does San Diego County as it is far more well-established. Thus, it never had degree the distress that SD, RIV and San Bern Counties did (Orange Co to a much lesser degree). Most of LA County’s residential distress appears to me to have resulted from homeowners taking out subprime cash-out refis and HELOCs during the “easy-lending” era … much moreso than homebuyers who simply bought at the wrong time.

Even in SD County, there are still small pockets all over the county which still have too many current “distressed” listings dragging down local asking prices (and likely future sold comps). Would-be sellers would be better off waiting to list if at all possible if their properties are located in any of these micro-areas, IMO.

In all cases, I don’t think interest rates, the state of the economy or perception of future water availability have a damn thing to do with anything, especially in CA coastal counties. It’s obvious to me that when a listing closes escrow 10-20 days after being first listed, it was an all-cash sale.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=KristopherSD]This is just mind-blowing to me that with $450k for a home and an additional $70k for remodel, with a overall total of $520k, I’m still not guaranteed a decent place. $520k won’t even get me into the city by your account, and will land me a smaller home in outlying areas. How can this unreality possibly continue? With my income I am supposedly in the top 15% of income earners in the US, yet somehow I feel poor when it comes to purchasing a home anywhere near San Diego. Unbelievable.[/quote]The problem you will face in the well-established areas in SD County (where the fixers with “good bones” are located) is that a very large portion of sales go to all-cash buyers.

Salary level … or lack thereof … has nothing to do with it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=KrisopherD]This is just mind-blowing to me that with $450k for a home and an additional $70k for remodel, with a overall total of $520k+ I’m still not guaranteed a decent place. $520k won’t even get me into the city by your account, and will land me a smaller home in outlying areas. How can this unreality possibly continue? With my income I am supposedly in the top 15% of income earners in the US, yet somehow I feel poor when it comes to purchasing a home anywhere near San Diego. Unbelievable.[/quote]

Kris, Allied Gardens IS in the city! The houses there ARE “decent.” Most of the tracts there are just on the plain side but that’s okay (and that just my opinion, fwiw). It’s the same with some of the tracts in Clairemont (92111). Both are “decent” close-in locations in the city.

LM is “decent” also. It’s just that 91941 is so old. Most of the homes there are framed in cedar or redwood and have plaster walls so they are very strong but they undoubtedly have termite damage if they are still original. You won’t really know until you replace a shower or a window. Then one thing will invariably lead to another. It could take a long time to properly remodel a house that age while working FT. In addition, there are springs running underground on some streets there so you will need a sump pump in the crawlspace (which tends to be pretty tall) to use after rainstorms. There are many interesting old homes in LM but I think they would end up costing much more than $70K to rehab properly. If you were to get lucky and obtain a gem on one of the “prime” streets near the village, I don’t think you should ever sell it.

There are other neighborhoods there at the foot of Mt Helix (off Lemon Ave comes to mind) which may have an occasional fixer-listing with good bones but I just don’t see you getting an offer accepted for $450K in that area, mainly due to the large and irregular lot sizes.

As I said, 91942 has mostly 30-50 yo larger two story homes. I don’t see any of them selling for =<$450K unless they can't be financed for some reason (structural damage?). Maybe I'm wrong and there is something there for you to consider. I haven't "shopped" online over there lately. Kris, the SF bay area is much, much worse. It is EXTREMELY expensive ($750K and up) to buy a 1000 sf (or less) home which is 55-85 years old situated on the peninsula in San Mateo County, for example. Said home may or may not be partially or fully remodeled. These homes aren't even situated in what we in SD County would consider to be an "upscale" city. Consider the likes of San Bruno, a small aging city just a few miles north of SFO, which had a massive gas pipeline burst a few years back ... due to faulty maintenance and calibration by PG&E. The explosions leveled 38 houses, damaged many more and killed 8 people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

Consider yourself lucky that you live in a more reasonably-priced coastal Cali market.

[bearishgurl]

Kris, LM is not considered “outlying.” It is a very close-in suburb directly adjacent to SD. It is only 13 miles from Balboa Park.

Those three North County cities you mentioned are considered “outlying.” Other Piggs on this board are much more knowledgeable than I on what type of “fixer” might be available in your price range in those cities, if actually listed.

You never mentioned here the size, style or age of dwelling you are looking to buy in SD for $450K.

[bearishgurl]

On second thought (I haven’t actually looked), I think you might be able to do Allied Gardens for $450K or less if you keep submitting offers and remain patient, Kris, but it will likely be a smallish house (1500 sf). Also, unless you’re going to leave that original knotty pine (LOL) in the kitchen and room divider, those houses are lacking in character (a good portion don’t even have FP’s). Of course, a lot of people today would be turned off by knotty pine. I haven’t looked to see what the flippers are doing over there but I think its a great location!

As far as LM, maybe you can get an offer accepted on a 75+ yo smallish house in 91941 near the village but I would be prepared for hidden termite damage that the seller’s pest control company doesn’t find. It’s possible that what you buy there would turn out to need far more time, skill and money for rehab than you originally envisioned. It’s a charming, walkable area with the trolley running through but you will need to budget at least $150 extra per month to run A/C at least 6 mos year. As far as 91942 goes, most of those homes are too big for your price range so I don’t think you would be able to find anything for <=$450K unless it's really beat up. And most of those homes are picked up by cash investors. I can’t comment on San Marcos, Oceanside or Vista.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec]I usually just ignore all your messages now bg, but I don’t think you “got” what I was getting at with my response…

I would say I am probably as sexist as the next guy on the street, maybe more, maybe even less…but the point is the OP is 26. 26 is very YOUNG. I had more money at that age, and if he hammers at his job and just works, will have no problem buying much any house since saying as a guy is easy.

MY POINT IS, his g/f today may or probably more likely won’t be his g/f tomorrow or when he settles down and wants a family.

THE REAL POINT I was getting at is don’t buy real estate with a g/f (comment about putting a rock on it) or any other person who isn’t a wife. This is for most people. It could be a brother, sibling, etc…don’t buy real estate with other people, period…

This is all, of course, IMO, but a g/f is not a wife and I honestly don’t think a 26 year old knows that much in terms of the world/life/etc.

Singles can buy all the houses they want. I don’t have a thing against them.

I have lived in the city (SF) and I think it’s ghetto having to go to a laundry mat and no parking if you own a car which I have done both of. To me, it’s totally ghetto.

Maybe in a fancy “beach” town the coin laundry is worth it (which I don’t really care for…being an old grumpy fart now), it’s not “worth it” to me…but to me, it’s still ghetto to have to drop off clothes on the weekends and come back with the other pooh folks and collect it.

At 26, it’s probably less annoying like living with 3 or 5 guys in a house is “cool” at 19, but certainly, I wouldn’t want to do that now. I also think being 26, there is less of a need to be tied down to any particular area (in terms of housing) in case new job opportunities open up, but the OP seems set to be around here. To each their own of course.

Honestly, with your decent income, high savings, maxed retirement, etc etc etc…(been there at your age)…you can save buttloads of money that if you waited a few years, you can probably put loads down and live in most nicer places while waiting for a pullback. Of course, your taxes are probably crap for now…[/quote]

No problem, Joe. I just think your post painted “wives” as demanding shrews and painted “gf’s” as completely different animals who were so laid back that they would live in a tent. In fact, they are one and the same (both female human adults). The truth is that wives were once gf’s and many gf’s were once wives. And believe it or not, some wives manage to be both wives and gf’s simultaneously (let’s not go there).

And all gf’s don’t need a “rock” in order to get married.

I didn’t read anywhere from the OP or his subsequent posts that he was considering purchasing RE with anybody else but himself. The OP IS, IN FACT “single,” acc to his post. Of course, if he wanted to move his gf into his new home with him, he could continue to collect $400+ month “rent” from her to help with utilities, etc, if he wished.

If the OP “settled down” later, as you say, what’s wrong with asking his fiance/new spouse to move in his house? If she won’t for stupid reasons (someone else previously lived here with you or your dad died here), then that’s shallow. It’s especially shallow if she couldn’t even afford to rent a studio apt by herself! Beggars can’t be choosers. She should be happy she is marrying someone that had the foresight to buy a house when he was young. ESPecially in a place like SD.

Not EVERYONE needs or wants to buy a property with a spouse on title for a variety of reasons. Often, new spouses don’t have good enough credit to qualify for a mortgage (or any credit at all) and will just increase the buyer’s loan costs and percentage rate if they attempt to go on the mortgage together.

I believe that just because an adult is of the female gender, this does not excuse them from their responsibility to support themselves (and their kids, if they have any), regardless of marital status. In a family with kids, BOTH parents have the obligation to support themselves and their kids in the eyes of the law.

In CA, RE which is purchased BEFORE marriage by ONE INDIVIDUAL belongs solely to the party who purchased it, unless their spouse can prove that they contributed monies for the downpayment or monies to improve it. In that case, the other spouse’s ownership percentage is apportioned accordingly if the couple should split up. An exception is if the homeowner quitclaims his/her property to themselves AND their eventual spouse as “joint tenants” after marriage. In that case, the spouse’s portion of ownership is apportioned beginning from the date of the quitclaim in the case of divorce. Homeowners who are considering doing this should seek legal counsel before doing so due to its far-reaching ramifications (ex: even if the couple never splits up, liens from the added-on spouse’s unpaid judgments and taxes, etc would attach to the ENTIRE title and thus the original owner’s half).

I was in my early twenties when I bought my first house in SD, joec. 26 isn’t too young to buy a house for a person who has been very responsible all of their working life so far and has been able to save a downpayment. The reason I didn’t suggest any “fixers” for this OP is because he only wanted to spend $450K and, even though there are “fixers” out there in SD County in that price range, they either have (costly) structural problems or the sold comps in the area they are located in will not bear a new buyer spending $70K (for labor and mat’ls) over and above his/her $425-$450K purchase price unless they could do ALL the work themselves (use $35-$50K for mat’ls) AND planned to hold the property for a dozen years or more. Here, the OP would have to be pretty handy with a toolbelt and power tools to take this kind of project on.

I didn’t check and I don’t know if there are actually any fixers with “good bones” in the cities listed in the OP.

If Kris’ rent just 2 blocks from the beach is actually only $1250, he’s “golden.” There is no way in h@ll that he can buy a “lifestyle” similar to the one he has right now for $450K (or even $550K). Lack of laundry be damned. My advice is to stay in the rental as long as his LL will keep this sweet deal going.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]As you, BG, we feel San Diego was a much nicer place to live in past years. Believe it or not, there was a time, when my wife and I were growing up here, that our families knew practically every other family in the entire city, and we’re very glad we had the opportunity to experience that amazing lifestyle.

Some say the growth San Diego has experienced is “progress,” and–because there’s no going back now–it’s take it or leave it. Although some of our friends have moved, (and we completely respect that choice) most have not, and, like us, they have decided to “take it,” because we feel we’re still living a better lifestyle here, than anyplace else we could live in the world, (water issues pending).[/quote]

I’m originally from Northern Cali, flyer, which, as you know, is a different world from here. I decided last month that, for me, it will be between Mendo, Sonoma, Contra Costa or El Dorado Counties. Back in 2009, I had decided on El Dorado County for a retirement locale and that is still in the running. I took Tehama and Shasta Counties out the running due to heat and removed Lake County due to some environmental concerns I had. I don’t want to live as far up as Humboldt County. And too much of Napa County has been turned into subdivision hell, due to poor leadership. I’m okay with a town of 15-20K population.

I’m seeing both from online and visits up there that the well-heeled SF Bay dwellers have bought up weekend/vacation homes and land in and around choice towns in Sonoma County at a rate such that the RE prices have doubled in those towns in the last few years (ex: Healdsburg and Sebastapol). There is now little or no inventory to choose from in any given week.

Santa Cruz is okay but Central Coast is too dry for me. I don’t even like Santa Barbara. I want to live among the pines/redwoods.

As soon as I get my (college-student) kid situated in more permanent housing near their campus this fall, I’ll figure the rest out.

There are still “bucolic” places left in Cali but the RE in even the lesser-known areas is getting a bit more pricey. A lot of “boomers” are probably looking for the same kind of life I am, I suppose.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]…What does this mean for “small investor(s)?”[/quote]

It means, “Caveat emptor” …. x 100.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]

It’s like buying a vehicle at a US Customs auction from a collection that has been gathering dust on a vacant dirt lot for up to TWO YEARS and none of them have even been driven since they were “detained” in secondary.

No it isn’t. It’s like buying the registration card and being told “you might be able to find the vehicle over there.”[/quote]

LOL! At least the contractors for US Customs either drive the vehicle out to their tow yard entrance in Otay Mesa (or onto your waiting tow truck if it can’t be jump-started). The only thing is, the “winning bidder’s” gotta come back another day as they remove the vehicles row by row (by appt) after the auction.

The contractors don’t advertise an auction until they have enough vehicles to fill the yard parked side by side (400-2000, depending on contractor).

They’re sorted by make for viewing and bidding.

[bearishgurl]

Of course, it’s water under the bridge now, but SoCal’s chronic water shortage is IN LARGE PART DUE to Big Development repeatedly and successfully “palming” goodies to our local (greedy) elected officials over the last ~25 years, folks. It worked!

Yes, we elected them and what do we have to show for our (misguided) votes now? Massive “master-planned communities” and “subdivision hell” as far as the eye can see with much of the units built on substandard lots in order to cram double the amount of residents into one acre (w/your local gubment’s blessing). As a result, we now have severely clogged fwys … even gridlock on several roads every morning and evening and ugly “Big Box” stores everywhere.

“Econobox,” indeed (picked that term up from joec :))

flyer, I don’t even recognize SD County today. It isn’t anything like the SD I remember and once loved. Imho, Cali’s (at least SoCal’s) glory days have long passed and this is a dirty shame. Cali had/has more variety in nature to offer than any other state in the country. Much of it has now been infringed upon by Big Development and/or not properly maintained due to severe govm’t budget cuts resulting from (drumroll) …. unfunded mandates due to expanded entitlement programs as a result of “too many people.” Not people who are contributors to society but people who cannot or will not meet their own basic needs. How did all these people get here? WELL, have you ever heard the mantra, “Build it and they will come?” Yeah. That’s how I believe a lot of them got here. I see it everywhere. After these “newcomers” lost their homes to FC, etc, thousands upon thousands of them found a way to stay (on your dime).

Sorry for the rant. As you may surmise, it’s probably well past time for me to finally move … :={

[bearishgurl]

I want to know if the “winning bidders” receive the original loan application for the defaulted-upon mortgage(s), copy of defaulted upon note(s) and copy of any mods with all terms the homedebtors signed up for from FNMA at the conclusion of the auction and winning bid payoff. Signed, sealed and delivered. I also want to know if the “winning bidder” receives the homedebtor’s entire loan history showing any periods of forbearance and any instances of waivers of back interest, etc, made by the servicer.

Essentially, the entire package on the homedebtor(s).

[bearishgurl]

Why would a small investor be interested in this?

It’s like buying a vehicle at a US Customs auction from a collection that has been gathering dust on a vacant dirt lot for up to TWO YEARS and none of them have even been driven since they were “detained” in secondary.

A prospective vehicle buyer has 3 hours before the auction to line up single-file through the lot with all the hoods raised and take a look underneath. He/she can’t get under the vehicles or between them (they’re parked side mirror to side mirror) or even look inside the vehicles except through the windshields of “wing windows” at an angle. Often the tires have been taken off by customs to search inside for contraband, then confiscated and the vehicle replaced with bald tires and/or retreads. They can’t look in the trunk and can’t possibly drive it. The dash may have been crowbared by Customs in secondary or by thieves who got into the govm’t lot during the months/years the vehicle was stored there. The reason those vehicles are there in the first place is because the owners couldn’t afford to get them out of secondary storage in the first place after they were detained and searched. Does anybody think these owners could afford to maintain them properly while they owned and drove them??

The last time I attended one of these auctions, opening bids were $200 – $700 and the new buyer had to secure a new license plate from the DMV (extra fee). Many of these vehicles also turned out to have salvaged titles, as well and a bidder couldn’t examine any vehicle documentation before the auction.

It’s the same scenario with these loans, people. Will these TD’s have an opening bids of pennies on the dollar? These properties FNMA now wants to “auction off” or “dump” on Joe Schmuck Investor have the most recalcitrant hard-core squatters living in them who have likely been “working the system” for 3-6 years! And “the system” made them who they are!

When Joe Schmuck Investor (the “winning bidder”) tries to foreclose, the fmr homedebtors/occupants will just file for BK during the proceedings (if they’re still eligible – to obtain more months of squatting). When Joe S.I. finally figures out what he’s doing a few weeks/months later and obtains a release of these deadbeats automatic (BK) stay to continue the foreclosure process, the deadbeats will leave all their non-running vehicles (w/no paperwork, to make it very hard to dispose of them) on the property and dump spoiled food, garbage, weeds, tree branches, discarded household effects and clothing mixed up together all over the property (inside and out) and the curb by the time the sheriff’s dept arrives to evict them and change the locks.

When Joe S.I. investor finally gets possession of the joint, he will notice that every single wall and door has been punched in and several fixtures and appls stripped, the fence broken down, the garage torn up and full of disgusting biohazard and other toxic waste, and he needs to fill a min of 3-30 ft rollaways (at $5-6K)to recover his “shell” of a house. At this point, Joe S.I. may as well knock it down to the studs and start over!

Sorry, but a homedebtor who has been “squatting” off and on for half a decade or more isn’t going to go “quietly and neatly.”

Nobody in their right mind is going to agree to being “forced” to “make a deal” with career-squatters who have already had way too many chances to p___ or get off the pot and failed at all of them (by design).

I’ve seen enough over the years to know that we all pay for exactly what we get in this life. I agree with spd. Prospective “investors” should just buy direct from FNMA or a lender who has cleaned up the property (at least broomswept) and caught up the taxes on it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]They’re essentially selling the debt to other banks which will either modify the loans, negotiate short sales, or foreclose, same as FNMA is doing itself. For small investors looking to buy properties, no difference, except that the properties that were foreclosed will end up on the new loan owner’s sites instead of on Homepath.com.

In order to gain a rentable property, this will involve going through the entire pre-foreclosure and foreclosure process. Better to buy an REO, short sale, or sheriff’s sale after someone else has gone through the legwork.[/quote]

The article is pretty vague as to “why?”

I don’t understand why FNMA hasn’t foreclosed on ALL these deadbeats by now and haven’t/aren’t marketing these properties on their homepath website. They’ve been pretty successful dumping properties from all over the nation on Homepath.

I’ve seen at least a dozen FNMA assignments recorded by various lenders since the new year in my “local research.” Two I know for a fact were mods, taken from previous years which could easily be failed mods by now.

Why wouldn’t FNMA just foreclose on their servicers’ failed mods? The homedebtors taking out these mods were just “buying time” to reserve the opportunity for more months in the future to “squat.” They never intended to adhere to the terms of the mod. It’s a joke and “working with delinquent home `owners'” is also a joke on the taxpayers.

Has FNMA not yet learned anything from this debacle of epic proportions?

I don’t believe the any of the moratoriums were extended into 2015 in CA so we should be back to the 111-121 day non-judicial foreclosure process.

What gives?

spdrun??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec]Yeah, since this is your “g/f” and not even your wife and you don’t even feel the money paid is combined, I’d probably not even bother buying much of anything. Just seems like a problem and more to think about unless you plan to put a ring on it…As others have mentioned, most wives would never want to stay in your bachelor pad or if someone else picked the place, they definitely won’t want to stay there (too many memories).

I don’t see many benefits for young, unmarried people to buy if they are renting a cheap price place.

Buying makes more sense to me to diversify (if you are wealthy with tons of other assets like stocks) and you hate renting.

As others have said, living blocks to the beach will be impossible to buy at the same price point so it’s not really a fair comparison. Of course, you have no garage or laundry which feels like living in the ghetto…Just depends where you are in your life/relationship and what you want. No way you can do a “fair” comparison I feel and I’d assume your place is pretty old, etc…

Plenty of my neighbors rent for 3800/month in an econobox with kids and wife and seem quite happy to pay that…

For those people, it probably makes more sense.[/quote]

Joe, there are just as many or almost as many “single homeowners” in CA as there are owners who took title in joint tenancy (usually married co-owners) or tenants in common (not generally married co-owners). Whether this occurred due to death of a joint tenant, post-death title transfer, divorce or the single person simply purchased their own residence by themselves (this happens quite often, btw), the truth is that single people want (and deserve) to be homeowners just as much as married people do.

I could care less if the new partner I moved in with had another spouse/gf/sick mom/kids or second cousin at one time living with them in their house … or even if one of their parents died there.

I don’t look at RE that way.

[Author]

Posts