[bearishgurl]

nybuyer, do you have your heart set on new construction? Would you consider construction +/- 20 years old up to five miles inland (coastal/semi-coastal zone) which has been gutted and remodeled and is “like new.” By limiting yourself to “new” and “near-new” construction, you are, much more often than not, limiting yourself to properties encumbered by HOAs and Mello-Roos and situated in inferior areas to the more well-established areas. The first Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) in SD County were formed 24 years ago. Since then, as more and more as time went by, it became “mandatory” for developers to assist in the formation of or join into an existing CFD when they sought to subdivide raw land for development within the county. This was/is generally the case unless the land was/is “infill,” that is, it has already been developed all around it or is replacing previous demolished residential or commercial construction at the site. In these instances, the public services for the development were already in place.

The area where you grew up (South Bay area of LA County) is very well-established, where, in general, the rights of its SFR property owners remain intact. When you purchase an HOA encumbered property, you lose part of those rights and must adhere to CC&R’s, another layer of government/bureaucracy.

SD County has MANY well-maintained public golf courses where you could regularly play for a FRACTION of what it would cost you than if the course belonged to your HOA.

You are correct in that MR in general is not tax-deductible and in the areas encumbered by exhorbitant MR ($3500+ annually), signing up for it is akin to taking out a large second mortgage (sans the mortgage-interest deduction)!

[bearishgurl]

nybuyer, do you have your heart set on new construction? Would you consider construction +/- 20 years old up to five miles inland (coastal/semi-coastal zone) which has been gutted and remodeled and is “like new.” By limiting yourself to “new” and “near-new” construction, you are, much more often than not, limiting yourself to properties encumbered by HOAs and Mello-Roos and situated in inferior areas to the more well-established areas. The first Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) in SD County were formed 24 years ago. Since then, as more and more as time went by, it became “mandatory” for developers to assist in the formation of or join into an existing CFD when they sought to subdivide raw land for development within the county. This was/is generally the case unless the land was/is “infill,” that is, it has already been developed all around it or is replacing previous demolished residential or commercial construction at the site. In these instances, the public services for the development were already in place.

The area where you grew up (South Bay area of LA County) is very well-established, where, in general, the rights of its SFR property owners remain intact. When you purchase an HOA encumbered property, you lose part of those rights and must adhere to CC&R’s, another layer of government/bureaucracy.

SD County has MANY well-maintained public golf courses where you could regularly play for a FRACTION of what it would cost you than if the course belonged to your HOA.

You are correct in that MR in general is not tax-deductible and in the areas encumbered by exhorbitant MR ($3500+ annually), signing up for it is akin to taking out a large second mortgage (sans the mortgage-interest deduction)!

[bearishgurl]

nybuyer, do you have your heart set on new construction? Would you consider construction +/- 20 years old up to five miles inland (coastal/semi-coastal zone) which has been gutted and remodeled and is “like new.” By limiting yourself to “new” and “near-new” construction, you are, much more often than not, limiting yourself to properties encumbered by HOAs and Mello-Roos and situated in inferior areas to the more well-established areas. The first Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) in SD County were formed 24 years ago. Since then, as more and more as time went by, it became “mandatory” for developers to assist in the formation of or join into an existing CFD when they sought to subdivide raw land for development within the county. This was/is generally the case unless the land was/is “infill,” that is, it has already been developed all around it or is replacing previous demolished residential or commercial construction at the site. In these instances, the public services for the development were already in place.

The area where you grew up (South Bay area of LA County) is very well-established, where, in general, the rights of its SFR property owners remain intact. When you purchase an HOA encumbered property, you lose part of those rights and must adhere to CC&R’s, another layer of government/bureaucracy.

SD County has MANY well-maintained public golf courses where you could regularly play for a FRACTION of what it would cost you than if the course belonged to your HOA.

You are correct in that MR in general is not tax-deductible and in the areas encumbered by exhorbitant MR ($3500+ annually), signing up for it is akin to taking out a large second mortgage (sans the mortgage-interest deduction)!

[bearishgurl]

I would back out of the escrow under these circumstances. Even if your unit’s PBT pipe has been replaced, it is likely NOT replaced under the slab. More owners DID NOT use their proceeds from the class-action suit proceeds dispersed in the early/mid nineties to replace their PBT plumbing than did. Buying in this complex sounds like a future headache and money drain to me – as well as unsafe. I’m suprised financing is currently available for it.

Congratulations for having the sense to carefully read the documents provided you in escrow! So many buyers of these affected units (condos AND SFR’s) become enamored of the property prior to closing on it and don’t read the fine print and then sign off their contingencies. These two items had to have been well-known by the seller and should have also been listed in your Transfer Disclosure Statement, provided to you upon your accepted offer. If this info was not and your sellers were NOT REO lenders, then they were trying to hide these material facts from a potential buyer.

There are many properties currently on the market and you will find another one to buy.

[bearishgurl]

I would back out of the escrow under these circumstances. Even if your unit’s PBT pipe has been replaced, it is likely NOT replaced under the slab. More owners DID NOT use their proceeds from the class-action suit proceeds dispersed in the early/mid nineties to replace their PBT plumbing than did. Buying in this complex sounds like a future headache and money drain to me – as well as unsafe. I’m suprised financing is currently available for it.

Congratulations for having the sense to carefully read the documents provided you in escrow! So many buyers of these affected units (condos AND SFR’s) become enamored of the property prior to closing on it and don’t read the fine print and then sign off their contingencies. These two items had to have been well-known by the seller and should have also been listed in your Transfer Disclosure Statement, provided to you upon your accepted offer. If this info was not and your sellers were NOT REO lenders, then they were trying to hide these material facts from a potential buyer.

There are many properties currently on the market and you will find another one to buy.

[bearishgurl]

I would back out of the escrow under these circumstances. Even if your unit’s PBT pipe has been replaced, it is likely NOT replaced under the slab. More owners DID NOT use their proceeds from the class-action suit proceeds dispersed in the early/mid nineties to replace their PBT plumbing than did. Buying in this complex sounds like a future headache and money drain to me – as well as unsafe. I’m suprised financing is currently available for it.

Congratulations for having the sense to carefully read the documents provided you in escrow! So many buyers of these affected units (condos AND SFR’s) become enamored of the property prior to closing on it and don’t read the fine print and then sign off their contingencies. These two items had to have been well-known by the seller and should have also been listed in your Transfer Disclosure Statement, provided to you upon your accepted offer. If this info was not and your sellers were NOT REO lenders, then they were trying to hide these material facts from a potential buyer.

There are many properties currently on the market and you will find another one to buy.

[bearishgurl]

I would back out of the escrow under these circumstances. Even if your unit’s PBT pipe has been replaced, it is likely NOT replaced under the slab. More owners DID NOT use their proceeds from the class-action suit proceeds dispersed in the early/mid nineties to replace their PBT plumbing than did. Buying in this complex sounds like a future headache and money drain to me – as well as unsafe. I’m suprised financing is currently available for it.

Congratulations for having the sense to carefully read the documents provided you in escrow! So many buyers of these affected units (condos AND SFR’s) become enamored of the property prior to closing on it and don’t read the fine print and then sign off their contingencies. These two items had to have been well-known by the seller and should have also been listed in your Transfer Disclosure Statement, provided to you upon your accepted offer. If this info was not and your sellers were NOT REO lenders, then they were trying to hide these material facts from a potential buyer.

There are many properties currently on the market and you will find another one to buy.

[bearishgurl]

I would back out of the escrow under these circumstances. Even if your unit’s PBT pipe has been replaced, it is likely NOT replaced under the slab. More owners DID NOT use their proceeds from the class-action suit proceeds dispersed in the early/mid nineties to replace their PBT plumbing than did. Buying in this complex sounds like a future headache and money drain to me – as well as unsafe. I’m suprised financing is currently available for it.

Congratulations for having the sense to carefully read the documents provided you in escrow! So many buyers of these affected units (condos AND SFR’s) become enamored of the property prior to closing on it and don’t read the fine print and then sign off their contingencies. These two items had to have been well-known by the seller and should have also been listed in your Transfer Disclosure Statement, provided to you upon your accepted offer. If this info was not and your sellers were NOT REO lenders, then they were trying to hide these material facts from a potential buyer.

There are many properties currently on the market and you will find another one to buy.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]…They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure….[/quote]

I meant to say, “They will not be able to come after you for the difference . . .

meaning: collect from you the difference . . .

Correcting this due to English not being your first language.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]…They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure….[/quote]

I meant to say, “They will not be able to come after you for the difference . . .

meaning: collect from you the difference . . .

Correcting this due to English not being your first language.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]…They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure….[/quote]

I meant to say, “They will not be able to come after you for the difference . . .

meaning: collect from you the difference . . .

Correcting this due to English not being your first language.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]…They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure….[/quote]

I meant to say, “They will not be able to come after you for the difference . . .

meaning: collect from you the difference . . .

Correcting this due to English not being your first language.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]…They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure….[/quote]

I meant to say, “They will not be able to come after you for the difference . . .

meaning: collect from you the difference . . .

Correcting this due to English not being your first language.

[bearishgurl]

If your in-laws recently filed a trust deed to secure their $200K note, it will be second in line to be paid should you sell. That party will receive whatever sale proceeds are available after your 1st TD holder is paid off and closing costs. This may or may not be $200K.

The above statement is only relevant if you and your ex wife did NOT take out any HELOCs or 2nd TD’s in the interim, that is, before your in-laws recently filed their 2nd trust deed. In this case, you in laws would be third in line to be paid upon sale.

If the $200K was purchase money (that is, used to purchase the condo), then your former in-laws must accept whatever proceeds paid to them in a foreclosure sale. They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure.

If you list the property for sale and any of the lienholders refuse to sell short, the sale will not go through.

It sounds to me like you kept the condo in your dissolution because of an emotional attachment to it. That’s not such a good idea under those circumstances, IMO. In your Marital Settlement Agreement, you apparently agreed that your ex would not be liable to help pay her parents back but yet she signed the note and IS legally liable to pay it back.

If I were you, I would consult a better attorney on this thorny problem than the one that represented you in your dissolution.

[bearishgurl]

If your in-laws recently filed a trust deed to secure their $200K note, it will be second in line to be paid should you sell. That party will receive whatever sale proceeds are available after your 1st TD holder is paid off and closing costs. This may or may not be $200K.

The above statement is only relevant if you and your ex wife did NOT take out any HELOCs or 2nd TD’s in the interim, that is, before your in-laws recently filed their 2nd trust deed. In this case, you in laws would be third in line to be paid upon sale.

If the $200K was purchase money (that is, used to purchase the condo), then your former in-laws must accept whatever proceeds paid to them in a foreclosure sale. They will not be able to after you for the difference in this instance, but in order for them to be forced to legally accept less, you will have to let it go into foreclosure.

If you list the property for sale and any of the lienholders refuse to sell short, the sale will not go through.

It sounds to me like you kept the condo in your dissolution because of an emotional attachment to it. That’s not such a good idea under those circumstances, IMO. In your Marital Settlement Agreement, you apparently agreed that your ex would not be liable to help pay her parents back but yet she signed the note and IS legally liable to pay it back.

If I were you, I would consult a better attorney on this thorny problem than the one that represented you in your dissolution.

[Author]

Posts