[UCGal]

I don’t think doing a refi or HELOC triggers a reappraisal – but completing permitted work can. And a lot of people do refi’s or HELOCs to buy themselves additions fancier kitchens.

We had a HELOC for part of our companion unit funding… it was paid off before we got occupancy. The HELOC never triggered a tax change. Getting occupancy definitely did. We’ve refi’d since then (no cash out, though.) and that didn’t trigger anything.

A friend had a similar situation – did an addition on their house – got hit with a tax bill once it passed final inspection.

[UCGal]

I don’t think doing a refi or HELOC triggers a reappraisal – but completing permitted work can. And a lot of people do refi’s or HELOCs to buy themselves additions fancier kitchens.

We had a HELOC for part of our companion unit funding… it was paid off before we got occupancy. The HELOC never triggered a tax change. Getting occupancy definitely did. We’ve refi’d since then (no cash out, though.) and that didn’t trigger anything.

A friend had a similar situation – did an addition on their house – got hit with a tax bill once it passed final inspection.

[UCGal]

I don’t think doing a refi or HELOC triggers a reappraisal – but completing permitted work can. And a lot of people do refi’s or HELOCs to buy themselves additions fancier kitchens.

We had a HELOC for part of our companion unit funding… it was paid off before we got occupancy. The HELOC never triggered a tax change. Getting occupancy definitely did. We’ve refi’d since then (no cash out, though.) and that didn’t trigger anything.

A friend had a similar situation – did an addition on their house – got hit with a tax bill once it passed final inspection.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Ah. Hey, I’m a guy! Since when did we ever pay attention?
[/quote]

LOL. That sounds like a line my hubby would use.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Ah. Hey, I’m a guy! Since when did we ever pay attention?
[/quote]

LOL. That sounds like a line my hubby would use.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Ah. Hey, I’m a guy! Since when did we ever pay attention?
[/quote]

LOL. That sounds like a line my hubby would use.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Ah. Hey, I’m a guy! Since when did we ever pay attention?
[/quote]

LOL. That sounds like a line my hubby would use.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Ah. Hey, I’m a guy! Since when did we ever pay attention?
[/quote]

LOL. That sounds like a line my hubby would use.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

Allan –
They lost the La Cresta home – and are under threat of losing the Sherry Lane home (the one they bought to live in while building the La Cresta mansion.)

I think it’s the “temporary” home she’s fighting to keep.

[UCGal]

Allan –
They lost the La Cresta home – and are under threat of losing the Sherry Lane home (the one they bought to live in while building the La Cresta mansion.)

I think it’s the “temporary” home she’s fighting to keep.

[Author]

Posts