Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantEveryone pretty much captured it well. I lived on Cheryl Ridge, north of Calle Cristobal and paid in the rental range that AN mentioned. The home was decent and we were in a cul de sac. Of the 9 homes (I think) in the cul de sac, one of them was a rental with 4 cars in front of it. No problems to speak of. Calle Cristobal is noisy and there are usually a few accidents a year from people racing on it. However we didnt have a problem with the noise where we lived and I am really sensitive to noise in a big way. The quality of the homes are okay, not great, not crappy, at least the newer ones built after 1990. Yes the school district is the issue most people have. Overall it is not a bad area IMO. Of course some people here will badmouth it and others will not. We used to go to the park at the end of Camino Ruiz ALOT as it is a nice family park. When I worked in the tech center it was awesome driving to work in 5 minutes as well. I know the area there very well, almost as good as AN so if you do have questions just post em and I will be glad to try to answer them.
ParticipantEveryone pretty much captured it well. I lived on Cheryl Ridge, north of Calle Cristobal and paid in the rental range that AN mentioned. The home was decent and we were in a cul de sac. Of the 9 homes (I think) in the cul de sac, one of them was a rental with 4 cars in front of it. No problems to speak of. Calle Cristobal is noisy and there are usually a few accidents a year from people racing on it. However we didnt have a problem with the noise where we lived and I am really sensitive to noise in a big way. The quality of the homes are okay, not great, not crappy, at least the newer ones built after 1990. Yes the school district is the issue most people have. Overall it is not a bad area IMO. Of course some people here will badmouth it and others will not. We used to go to the park at the end of Camino Ruiz ALOT as it is a nice family park. When I worked in the tech center it was awesome driving to work in 5 minutes as well. I know the area there very well, almost as good as AN so if you do have questions just post em and I will be glad to try to answer them.
ParticipantEveryone pretty much captured it well. I lived on Cheryl Ridge, north of Calle Cristobal and paid in the rental range that AN mentioned. The home was decent and we were in a cul de sac. Of the 9 homes (I think) in the cul de sac, one of them was a rental with 4 cars in front of it. No problems to speak of. Calle Cristobal is noisy and there are usually a few accidents a year from people racing on it. However we didnt have a problem with the noise where we lived and I am really sensitive to noise in a big way. The quality of the homes are okay, not great, not crappy, at least the newer ones built after 1990. Yes the school district is the issue most people have. Overall it is not a bad area IMO. Of course some people here will badmouth it and others will not. We used to go to the park at the end of Camino Ruiz ALOT as it is a nice family park. When I worked in the tech center it was awesome driving to work in 5 minutes as well. I know the area there very well, almost as good as AN so if you do have questions just post em and I will be glad to try to answer them.
September 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM in reply to: Purchase contract for short sale legally enforceable? #459115ParticipantI didn’t take the post to mean backpayments because it was not implied at all. I took it to be HOA documentation because of what the person posted,
“For example, if they will not pay for the HOA package, would we be able to force them to pay by court order or mediation?”
To me, an HOA package to me would be the Bylaws, CCRs and previous meeting minutes.
********
No disclosure may not be an issue here but if it is HOA backpayments like you said which are incredibly common, then disclosure should be made about that. Now like you, I understand it is also incredibly common that they are not made (like never), but that doesn’t make it right. Getting it from the prelim is commonplace but once more, if we go by the letter of the contract, it SHOULD be disclosed by the seller if the seller knows about it and most sellers defaulting on HOA payments do know about it.
Once more the point of the poster to me is a complaint about adhering to the letter of the contract.
September 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM in reply to: Purchase contract for short sale legally enforceable? #459308ParticipantI didn’t take the post to mean backpayments because it was not implied at all. I took it to be HOA documentation because of what the person posted,
“For example, if they will not pay for the HOA package, would we be able to force them to pay by court order or mediation?”
To me, an HOA package to me would be the Bylaws, CCRs and previous meeting minutes.
********
No disclosure may not be an issue here but if it is HOA backpayments like you said which are incredibly common, then disclosure should be made about that. Now like you, I understand it is also incredibly common that they are not made (like never), but that doesn’t make it right. Getting it from the prelim is commonplace but once more, if we go by the letter of the contract, it SHOULD be disclosed by the seller if the seller knows about it and most sellers defaulting on HOA payments do know about it.
Once more the point of the poster to me is a complaint about adhering to the letter of the contract.
September 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM in reply to: Purchase contract for short sale legally enforceable? #459643ParticipantI didn’t take the post to mean backpayments because it was not implied at all. I took it to be HOA documentation because of what the person posted,
“For example, if they will not pay for the HOA package, would we be able to force them to pay by court order or mediation?”
To me, an HOA package to me would be the Bylaws, CCRs and previous meeting minutes.
********
No disclosure may not be an issue here but if it is HOA backpayments like you said which are incredibly common, then disclosure should be made about that. Now like you, I understand it is also incredibly common that they are not made (like never), but that doesn’t make it right. Getting it from the prelim is commonplace but once more, if we go by the letter of the contract, it SHOULD be disclosed by the seller if the seller knows about it and most sellers defaulting on HOA payments do know about it.
Once more the point of the poster to me is a complaint about adhering to the letter of the contract.
September 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM in reply to: Purchase contract for short sale legally enforceable? #459714ParticipantI didn’t take the post to mean backpayments because it was not implied at all. I took it to be HOA documentation because of what the person posted,
“For example, if they will not pay for the HOA package, would we be able to force them to pay by court order or mediation?”
To me, an HOA package to me would be the Bylaws, CCRs and previous meeting minutes.
********
No disclosure may not be an issue here but if it is HOA backpayments like you said which are incredibly common, then disclosure should be made about that. Now like you, I understand it is also incredibly common that they are not made (like never), but that doesn’t make it right. Getting it from the prelim is commonplace but once more, if we go by the letter of the contract, it SHOULD be disclosed by the seller if the seller knows about it and most sellers defaulting on HOA payments do know about it.
Once more the point of the poster to me is a complaint about adhering to the letter of the contract.
September 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM in reply to: Purchase contract for short sale legally enforceable? #459910ParticipantI didn’t take the post to mean backpayments because it was not implied at all. I took it to be HOA documentation because of what the person posted,
“For example, if they will not pay for the HOA package, would we be able to force them to pay by court order or mediation?”
To me, an HOA package to me would be the Bylaws, CCRs and previous meeting minutes.
********
No disclosure may not be an issue here but if it is HOA backpayments like you said which are incredibly common, then disclosure should be made about that. Now like you, I understand it is also incredibly common that they are not made (like never), but that doesn’t make it right. Getting it from the prelim is commonplace but once more, if we go by the letter of the contract, it SHOULD be disclosed by the seller if the seller knows about it and most sellers defaulting on HOA payments do know about it.
Once more the point of the poster to me is a complaint about adhering to the letter of the contract.
ParticipantI don’t think having a second or not has anything to do with when a foreclosure goes up for sale. Obviously making sure the home is ready for sale is the first thing, tenant/owner eviction etc… Other more obscure things like IRS right of redemption would be another. There is a 120 day right of redemption. Any other legal matters may delay the home going to market as well. Finally there may be issues like open permits that need to be dealt with and the investors that now own the property may not want to deal with them at present. So beyond those sorts of issues all of them should theoretically go for sale. Now it is improbable this happens so why some go and some do not at that point is a good question but doubtful that a previous second had anything to do with it.
ParticipantI don’t think having a second or not has anything to do with when a foreclosure goes up for sale. Obviously making sure the home is ready for sale is the first thing, tenant/owner eviction etc… Other more obscure things like IRS right of redemption would be another. There is a 120 day right of redemption. Any other legal matters may delay the home going to market as well. Finally there may be issues like open permits that need to be dealt with and the investors that now own the property may not want to deal with them at present. So beyond those sorts of issues all of them should theoretically go for sale. Now it is improbable this happens so why some go and some do not at that point is a good question but doubtful that a previous second had anything to do with it.
ParticipantI don’t think having a second or not has anything to do with when a foreclosure goes up for sale. Obviously making sure the home is ready for sale is the first thing, tenant/owner eviction etc… Other more obscure things like IRS right of redemption would be another. There is a 120 day right of redemption. Any other legal matters may delay the home going to market as well. Finally there may be issues like open permits that need to be dealt with and the investors that now own the property may not want to deal with them at present. So beyond those sorts of issues all of them should theoretically go for sale. Now it is improbable this happens so why some go and some do not at that point is a good question but doubtful that a previous second had anything to do with it.
ParticipantI don’t think having a second or not has anything to do with when a foreclosure goes up for sale. Obviously making sure the home is ready for sale is the first thing, tenant/owner eviction etc… Other more obscure things like IRS right of redemption would be another. There is a 120 day right of redemption. Any other legal matters may delay the home going to market as well. Finally there may be issues like open permits that need to be dealt with and the investors that now own the property may not want to deal with them at present. So beyond those sorts of issues all of them should theoretically go for sale. Now it is improbable this happens so why some go and some do not at that point is a good question but doubtful that a previous second had anything to do with it.
ParticipantI don’t think having a second or not has anything to do with when a foreclosure goes up for sale. Obviously making sure the home is ready for sale is the first thing, tenant/owner eviction etc… Other more obscure things like IRS right of redemption would be another. There is a 120 day right of redemption. Any other legal matters may delay the home going to market as well. Finally there may be issues like open permits that need to be dealt with and the investors that now own the property may not want to deal with them at present. So beyond those sorts of issues all of them should theoretically go for sale. Now it is improbable this happens so why some go and some do not at that point is a good question but doubtful that a previous second had anything to do with it.
September 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM in reply to: Purchase contract for short sale legally enforceable? #458994ParticipantAgain, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.
So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments.
In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.
On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off! However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.
I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.
-
AuthorPosts
