7 Things Renters Really Should Check on Their Lease

Whether you’re getting your first apartment or your 10th, reviewing the lease is an all-important step of the process. After all, that piece of paper is basically going to dictate your home life for at least the next year.

The problem is, your standard lease is riddled with unnecessarily big words, tiny type, and confusing legalese. If you’ve skimmed—or were simply confused by—your lease in the past, we won’t judge. We’ve been there! But now we’re here to help you master that lease by pointing you to the terms to eyeball before you sign on the dotted line.

The basics

At the very least, a lease should contain these key points:

1. The lease term: Make sure you know—down to the exact date—when you have to re-up or move.
2. Upfront fees: Security deposit, pet fee, rent paid in advance (if you paid for it, it must be listed).
3. Rent term and due date: How much you owe and when you need to pay it.
4. Late fee: How much you’ll pay if you miss the rent deadline.
5. Security deposit return: Your state puts a limit on return times, but what you should get back, and when, should be clearly spelled out in the lease.

And remember, the lease is legally binding. Once signed, your landlord can’t change anything without your written permission. If he does, say, increase the rent midlease, you have the right to sue or possibly terminate the lease.

Occupants

Beyond the basics, your lease will likely have several other clauses, like “occupants.” Sure, you’re technically an occupant, but for the purpose of the lease, you’re the lessee (aka the person the landlord can go after if something goes wrong). Typically, roommates sign on as co-lessees, so everyone is equally responsible. Spouses, children, and other family members, however, can be listed as co-lessees or occupants (meaning they live there but aren’t legally responsible for maintaining the rules of the lease).

Pet clause

If you have a pet, this one is a biggie. A pet clause tells you everything you need to know about keeping your pet at home. The clause should contain the number of pets you can have (if any), their breed, and age. It should also include what pet deposit you paid, whether that deposit is refundable, and the pet rent amount (if any).

If this section is missing or left blank, your landlord could later say he never agreed to your having a pet and terminate your lease early. Make sure it is complete!

Condition of premises

Condition of the premises has two parts. The first part says your landlord legally swears the property is being rented in habitable condition—i.e., everything works and there isn’t a known mold or rat infestation. If your landlord signs off and you move in only to find out the place is a total dump, you have the legal recourse to terminate the lease.

The second part covers you. By signing, you’re agreeing to return the rental in the condition you first rented it, minus any wear and tear. If you don’t, your landlord can deduct from your security deposit to make repairs, or sue you if the repairs exceed what you put down.

Alterations

This section basically says you can’t make changes to the rental without getting your landlord’s written permission first. Changes include everything from installing a dishwasher to painting the bedroom to even taking down your landlord’s miniblinds in some cases. So make sure you know what you’re not allowed to touch.

Addendums

Addendums are anything your landlord adds to the lease, beyond the standard protocols. Addendums can include noise level clauses, visitor stays, or who is in charge of lawn care. But remember: Your landlord can’t enforce it if the law says no. So for example, if your state has a 30-day turnaround on security deposits, your landlord can certainly say all security deposits are returned within 90 days in the lease; but if you sue to get yours back faster, the landlord will lose in court.

Termination

Termination explains how the lease will end, but be careful—it goes beyond the end date of the lease. Some leases contain an automatic renewal clause, meaning the lease renews for another year automatically if you don’t inform the landlord in writing that you want to move in advance. If you weren’t aware and go to terminate the lease after the notification period, you could be on the hook for early termination fees.

Source: Realtor.com, Angela Colley
http://www.realtor.com/advice/rent/things-to-check-on-lease/?iid=rdc_news_hp_carousel_theLatest

Buyers Beware: You May Be Under Surveillance

Surprise, home buyers: You might be on hidden camera.

You may believe you’re having private discussions about the merits of a homeowner’s wallpaper, the ugly, orange tiles in the bathrooms, or the to-die-for bay windows as you tour a residence. But what people often don’t realize is that those surveillance cameras in the hallways may be turned on, according to Bankrate.com. And that smiling teddy bear in the corner? He may be taping everything you say.

Even the not-so-neurotic sellers often want to know exactly who wants to buy their homes, what they don’t like about them, and just how far they’ve fallen in love with the residences (useful information when it comes to negotiations), say real estate agents. And what better way to find out than to play Big Brother?

“It’s not unusual to see a camera at the edge of a playroom,” says Atlanta real estate agent Jen Engel. “But people don’t realize they’re on.”

Engel once represented a seller who used a “nanny cam” to record everything potential buyers said about the seller’s home. Engel learned of it after the property sold.

“They want to know what people don’t like,” says Engel. “They want to know if there’s an issue they’re not being told about.”

The cameras are most likely legal, although the laws can vary by state, says Indiana University law professor Fred Cate.

“It’s against the law to record someone on audio or video if they’re in a situation in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, [such as in] a changing room or a locker room or a bathroom,” says Cate, author of “Privacy in the Information Age.” “But when you’re in somebody else’s house with a real estate agent, it’s a little harder to argue you really have an expectation of privacy.”

For sellers, getting that honest (if ethically murky) feedback can inspire them to make changes—such as replacing that ’70s kitchen flooring or putting in new carpeting.

It can also be valuable during negotiations to know just how much buyers want the home—and how much they said they’d be willing to pay for those properties when they thought no one else was listening.

That’s why Houston Realtor® Greg Nino cautions his Re/Max Compass clients to play their hands close their vests and not say anything that could potentially be used against them—from commenting on the family pictures on the wall to gushing about how they finally found their dream home.

“I’ve had sellers actually go and spy on buyers to see if they are the kind of people they want living in their house,” Janine Acquafredda, a Brooklyn, NY–based associate broker at House-N-Key Realty, told Bankrate.com.

But Boston real estate broker Douglas Bray of Century 21 Cityside doubts that’s common.

“What’s important is if someone is financially qualified and capable of purchasing the home,” he says.

Of course, sellers may simply feel nervous about having strangers in their home, amid their possessions, and want some measure of security.

“If the home has precious works of art [or other valuables], then by all means, I think cameras are an important part of the home-selling process,” Bray told realtor.com®. “But it’s important that people be told there are cameras present. That’s just useful in making everyone feel comfortable.”

Source: Realtor.com, Clare Trapasso
http://www.realtor.com/news/trends/buyers-under-surveillance/?iid=rdc_news_hp_carousel_theLatest

Homeowner Evicted for Not Paying HOA Dues: Can This Happen to You?

Who knew? Even if you pay your mortgage on time every month, your home can still be foreclosed on and sold from under your feet. That, at least, is what Triss McQuiston from Tomball, TX, learned recently when she was notified that she’d have to vacate her place. Why? It turns out she was evicted for not paying her HOA dues.

According to ABC13, McQuiston admits that she was guilty of procrastinating on paying her HOA fees to the Canyon Gate at Northpointe Owners Association in 2014 and 2015. Because she was opening a new business, her HOA bills slipped through the cracks, for a grand total of $1,800 in unpaid dues.

An attorney for the HOA claims that since March 2014, they’d sent McQuiston 12 notices by first-class certified mail to collect these assessments, warning her what would happen if she didn’t. When they received no response, they proceeded with the foreclosure, and sold the home at auction back in September.

Yet McQuiston argues that she’d received no warnings, and was made aware of her dire straits only when she received an eviction notice on her doorstep on May 20. She has since hired an attorney to help fight the case and remain in her home.

“I would never have thought in my wildest dreams that an HOA … would go to these lengths and they’d have this much power,” McQuiston told ABC13.

If this story has you viewing HOAs in a harsh (and terrifying) new light, we don’t blame you. And while the laws vary by state, it turns out that in most cases, HOAs really do have the power to foreclose on your home for unpaid dues, as do condo owners associations.

“Contrary to common perceptions, even if a person is current on a mortgage, the HOA or COA may foreclose,” says Bob Tankel, a Florida attorney specializing in HOA law. “What’s the moral of the story? Pay your assessments. These are not huge amounts. People apparently think that just because assessments are small there’s nothing bad that can happen. But that’s not true.”

To know specifically how your HOA or COA handles late payments, homeowners should “check the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs),” says David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. You should check not only what constitutes a late payment, but also how you’ll be penalized; additional fees could include late charges, fines, interest, as well as attorneys’ fees.

It’s also smart to check what rights and recourse you have in your state if you end up unable to pay these assessments. “Some states have enacted some procedural protections for homeowners,” says Reiss. “It’s worth figuring those out if you are not able to pay off your HOA right away.”

The bright side? Given HOA fees are fairly small compared with a mortgage, they should be fairly easy to manage with some belt-tightening. In fact, Tankel suggests, “Move payment of assessments to the top of the list of things to pay. If you can’t, you can cancel your high-speed internet or cable TV or stop eating out. None of those services are worth keeping if you can’t pay assessments.”

Take it from McQuiston, who could still stand to lose her home for a mere $1,800. She admits, “I had the money the whole time. That’s the sad part about it. I would have gladly taken care of it.”

Source: Realtor.com, Judy Dutton
http://www.realtor.com/news/trends/evicted-for-not-paying-hoa-dues/?iid=rdc_news_hp_carousel_theLatest

'Double agent?' A rift over how real estate is bought and sold reaches the California Supreme Court

Here in the Silicon Valley I can't count the number of times where I came across another agent's listing that ended up "double ending." Double ending a real estate deal is when an agent represents both the buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. I can think of a number of agents, whose name will remain nameless, who use this as their primary business model. I prefer to stay away from double ending my real estate deals because their is too much potential for conflict of interest and what-not.



When Martin Welc asks his real estate classes at Saddleback College if one agent should represent both the buyer and the seller in a negotiation over a house, the students widely disagree.

"We ask them: 'Dual agent or double agent?'" said Welc, co-chairman of the college's real estate program, in encouraging the students to play devil's advocate. "We look at all of the pros and cons. We say, 'Can this be done?'"

It is done, but the controversy over its fairness to buyers and sellers goes beyond a homework assignment. Real estate agents, lawyers and consumer advocates all have opinions about it. Now a rift involving what's known as "dual agency" has reached the California Supreme Court.

Those on both sides of the argument know the high court's decision in the case — pitting a Malibu homebuyer against brokerage Coldwell Banker — could shake up the industry.

"There is a great deal of concern about this ruling in the California real estate community," said Bob Hunt, a San Clemente agent and a director of the California Association of Realtors, of the appellate court's conclusion. "It runs counter to the way — rightly or wrongly — that agents and brokers have thought things were."

A FINE LINE

A dual agent must walk a fine line, careful not to favor the buyer or seller. There are details that cannot be shared — for example, the agent can't tell the buyer the seller is frantic to unload the house because of a divorce or job change. Nor can the agent share with the seller how much the buyer privately said she's willing to pay.

Lee Stimmel, a San Francisco attorney who opposes double-ending deals, said the rules create a conflict of interest for the lone agent, who must serve two masters as a "superhuman."

But as Hunt and many other agents see it, a dual agent, privy to what's motivating each side, is in a position to more swiftly and efficiently get a deal done.

"Hiring a real estate salesperson is not the same as buying a burger," the association says in court papers. "It is all about the relationship ... The real estate salesperson is the equivalent of a therapist, a bartender, a friend."

In California and many other states, the law mandates that a broker must have a fiduciary responsibility to clients. But laws in about two dozen states have allowed agents to act as "facilitators" or "transaction brokers" without fiduciary loyalties, according to a report on Inman, a real estate industry site, titled "Buyer and Seller Beware: Your agent may not represent your best interests."

THE CASE

At the core of the case before the state Supreme Court is a discrepancy about the size of a Malibu manse.

Hong Kong multimillionaire Hiroshi Horiike bought the Tuscan-style home overlooking the Pacific Ocean for $12.25 million in cash in 2007. A high-profile listing agent provided him with a brochure stating the house had 15,000 square feet of living space, but county records said the residence actually was under 9,500 square feet.

The difference in square footage was complicated by Malibu using a different metric than elsewhere, extending the measurements to garages and other spaces beyond the primary residence.

Both Horiike's agent and the listing agent worked for Coldwell Banker, so the brokerage was the dual agent of the buyer and seller, as confirmed in the disclosure forms Horiike signed.

A couple of years later, when seeking a permit to remodel a room, Horiike discovered the house wasn't as large as he thought. In 2010, he sued the listing agent, Chris Cortazzo, and Coldwell Banker, stating they violated their fiduciary duty to him. (He did not sue his own Coldwell Banker agent, however.)

The jury disagreed that the listing agent had a fiduciary duty to the buyer or that the broker was liable for a breach of fiduciary duty based on the agent's acts.

Horiike prevailed on appeal. The justices found that Cortazzo "did not add a handwritten note of advice to hire a qualified specialist to verify the square footage of the home" to a visual inspection disclosure, as he had done with a previous prospective buyer.

"A trier of fact could conclude that although Cortazzo did not intentionally conceal the information, Cortazzo breached his fiduciary duty by failing to communicate all of the material information he knew about the square footage," the justices wrote in their decision.

They also stated, "When a broker is the dual agent of both the buyer and the seller ... the salespersons acting under the broker have the same fiduciary duty to the buyer and the seller as the broker."

And they cited a finding in another case about confusion in the industry:

"Salespersons commonly believe that there is no dual representation if one salesperson 'represents' one party to the transaction and another salesperson employed by the same broker 'represents' another party to the transaction. The real estate industry has sought to establish salepersons as 'independent contractors' for tax purposes and this concept has enhanced the misunderstanding of salespersons."

FRIENDS OF THE COURT

Some compare a dual agent to an attorney representing opposing sides in a legal claim, which is not allowed.

"Use common sense ... you have fiduciary duty to both. How do you do that? Could you be a lawyer for both?" said Stimmel, the San Francisco lawyer.

Besides, he said, it gives the real estate industry a bad reputation: "Most real estate agents are honest, and I don't think they understand how much their integrity is undermined by dual agency."

Hunt maintains that a real estate deal isn't necessarily adversarial; instead of winding up with a winner and a loser, as in a court proceeding, the goal is to satisfy both sides.

Other agents add that often the seller can benefit because a dual agent will reduce the commission; the standard 6 percent doesn't have to be split with a buyer's agent.

The National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents, which opposes double-ending deals, has filed an amicus — or friend of the court — brief before the state Supreme Court. The California Association of Realtors has filed its own brief, asking the court to reject the appellate ruling and uphold the jury's verdict.

As both sides watch closely, "It is certainly possible that dual agency, as it is now commonly practiced in California, will become untenable," Hunt wrote in an article for RealtyTimes, a trade site.

The high court could add further rules or disclosure requirements. But, noting that the state generally has been strict about matters involving fiduciary duty, Stimmel hopes the argument over double ending doesn't end there.

"If any state is going to stop it," he said, "it's going to be California."

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Marilyn Kalfus
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29839736/double-agent-rift-over-how-real-estate-is

When Do You Really Need a Real Estate Lawyer?

Price-conscious consumers are constantly looking for ways to snag savings. Be it a do-it-yourself bathroom backsplash or self-help legal documents, the current trend in real estate is shying away from enlisting a perceived-as-pricey professional. However, some projects are too complex, valuable, or regulated to take on as a layperson — and the result is often a frantic call to the local plumber or electrician.

In the legal realm — particularly the transfer of real estate — there are definitely times when an attorney is not necessary, and the transaction will most certainly process without the assistance of a real estate lawyer. However, certain states mandate attorney involvement (or at least prohibit non-attorney over-involvement), making it unlawful to participate in a real estate settlement without a licensed attorney presiding. And certain transactions are too complicated, costly, or stressful to go it alone.

Here are four situations when you should consult a real estate lawyer.

When it’s mandatory

A handful of states unequivocally mandate the involvement of a licensed attorney in a real estate transaction. These states take a dim view of non-attorney staff members preparing and conducting real estate settlements, calling such acts an “unauthorized practice of law.”

This phrase actually derives from the rules of professional conduct (i.e., ethics) that govern attorney practice, and can result in sanctions against an attorney-supervisor for allowing this unauthorized practice with minimal oversight.

Currently, Delaware, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina require attorney involvement, oversight, and direction in all aspects of a real estate transfer, from title review to signing documents. In Alabama, a non-attorney can perform a title search and issue title insurance, as long as a licensed attorney drafts all legal documents (e.g., deeds, mortgages and promissory notes).

In all these states, the buyer has the unequivocal right to choose his or her legal representation; realtors, brokers, and lenders are not generally permitted to force a buyer to work with a certain attorney.

When it’s complex

For buyers in other states, working with a real estate attorney may still be advisable if the situation involves a complex or unique issue, such as:

• Oil and gas rights
• Riparian rights (i.e., access to water)
• Beachfront property
• Any property subject to an easement
• Adverse possession claim
• Historical property
• Preserved property (i.e., farm preservation)
• Zoning and/or land use disputes

When any of these issues arise at the outset of a real estate transaction, working with an attorney will inevitably be more cost-effective than dealing with a major conflict or claim later. In addition, the attorney can help review the title and ancillary documentation to ensure all documents comply with state and federal laws.

When it’s high value

Likewise, working with an attorney in a high-value residential transaction can be extremely important, particularly given the extent of the investment. When making a major real property purchase, buyers should ensure that the property is in prime shape — and demanding a full home inspection is one of the most important aspects of this process.

Not only can an attorney work with the home inspector to ensure the property meets the buyers’ expectations, but the attorney can help negotiate with the seller if any issues arise.

Also, high-end real estate may be subject to several liens, encumbrances, or judgments. A proper title search by an experienced real estate lawyer is the best way to ensure that these issues do not pass to the buyer on settlement day.

When it’s high stress

Lastly, not all real estate transactions are positive experiences, particularly if the seller is in a financial bind or the property is being sold from the estate of a recently deceased individual.

When an air of emotion permeates the process, parties are apt to make rash decisions on price, contingencies, or conditions. And when a residential home sale feels “forced,” tempers may flare at the settlement table.

By invoking the help of a legal professional to work through the process, buyers and sellers can participate in the transaction with confidence and a full understanding of what is happening, from the initial contract execution to the final closing.

Source: Zillow Blog, Stephanie Reid
http://www.zillow.com/blog/when-you-need-real-estate-lawyer-193664/

U.S. Supreme Court leaves San Jose housing law in place

The City of San Jose has a requirement in which builders of new construction have to allocated 15% of their units for below market rates - for low income buyers. If the builder doesn't want to allocate some of their units for low income buyers, then the builder has a fee, which works out to be over $100K. Naturally builders/developers are upset about this and took the issue to the California Supreme Court which upheld San Jose's law, so then it went to the US Supreme Court but they didn't want to hear the case.

This issue is kind of a big deal. It may affect the future of the real estate market here in numerous ways that only the time will tell. Great article below from the San Jose Mercury news.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a legal challenge to a San Jose affordable housing law, leaving intact the city's effort to address the exploding cost of housing in Silicon Valley.

The justices declined to hear the building industry's appeal of a ruling last year by the California Supreme Court upholding San Jose's law. In a brief opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas observed that the law on the issue remains "unsettled" and needs Supreme Court guidance, but agreed with the vote to reject the appeal because the San Jose case had technical legal problems that may prevent reaching the core questions.

In its appeal, the building industry argued that San Jose's law and others like it across California violate federal constitutional protections against the "taking" of private property. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative Sacramento group representing the industry, pressed the fight to the nation's high court.

"The rights of all property owners were dealt a blow today, as San Jose's punitive treatment of homebuilders was allowed to stand," said foundation attorney Brian Hodges. "It is disappointing that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold San Jose's inclusionary building mandates."

San Jose city officials welcomed the conclusion of the legal fight.

"(The) Supreme Court ruling could not have come any sooner for the thousands of families in our community who are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing rents, and we look forward to implementing this policy as quickly as possible," San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling in June written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, determined that San Jose's affordable housing program is within the law, observing: "These problems have become more and more severe and have reached what may be described as epic proportions in many of the state's localities."

The case involved a legal challenge to a San Jose law that would require housing developers to include affordable, below-market priced units for low-income buyers on any new projects within the city. The building industry sued to block enforcement of the so-called "inclusionary housing" law several years ago.

The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, which backed San Jose in the case, estimate about 170 local governments have put versions of the law in place to deal with the state's shortage of affordable housing, considered an acute problem in Silicon Valley and around the Bay Area.

The state building industry, backed by groups such as the California Association of Realtors, considers such legislation a strong-arm tactic that in the long run will drive up already exorbitant housing prices. They maintain such laws will force developers to simply pass along the cost of subsidizing below-market units to new homebuyers.

In particular, the industry argues the law is an unconstitutional "taking" of property and that San Jose has not established a connection between the building of new housing and the affordable housing problem. Cities, they argue, make that case in forcing developers to pay fees to cover the impact of new housing developments on things such as local schools and parks, but haven't done so for affordable housing.

San Jose's law would require developers to offer 15 percent of units in new projects of 20 or more units at below-market rates. Developers could opt out of building affordable units by paying a fee, which the housing industry estimates could run about $122,000 per house.

Housing advocates warned of dire consequences if the Supreme Court invalidated San Jose's affordable housing regulation. California has been considered a model for such laws, designed not only to provide more low-income housing but also to get it built in a larger cross-section of neighborhoods.

Source: Mercury News, Howard Mintz
http://www.mercurynews.com/real-estate-news/crime-courts/ci_29576352/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-san-jose-housing.html

HOAs Behaving Badly—and How Homeowners Can Fight Back

I've had a few bad experiences with HOAs that I'll write about in a future blog post perhaps. Below is a great article from Realtor.com about some crappy HOAs and the shenanigans the play.



If you own your home, you may be king or queen of your domain. However, if it’s part of a planned community or complex, you’ll probably need to kowtow to a homeowners association. And you may wind up feeling a bit more like a serf.

The HOA, which enforces community rules and maintains common areas, can be quite useful—but sometimes it can come across more like Big Brother. Read about HOAs that put neighborliness aside all in the name of rules, and how you can cope if yours does the same.

Changing its tune on a change of paint color

The color blue is supposed to be calming, but in October 2015 it got some neighbors seeing red. According to news site KHOU.com, newlyweds Keely and Peter Dubrova had decided to paint their home in Atascocita, TX, a vivid shade of teal—with permission from their HOA. A week and a half later, the same board demanded the Dubrovas repaint after an online photo of their so-called Smurf house sparked an uproar, and even threats to “to hang them.”

Expert advice: “The HOA cannot legally revoke approval after the homeowners have relied on the approval and spent money on it,” says Mike Hunter, an attorney with Horack Talley in Charlotte, NC, who focuses on community and condominium law. So, the Dubrovas should stand their ground; but if they’re open to repainting, the HOA should foot the bill.

Not making a concession for a disabled kid

Due to a disability that meant their daughter needed to use the bathroom frequently, Gary and Renee Kuhn of Keizer, OR, needed a fully-appointed RV to drive her to and from doctor appointments. Yet in January, KATU News reported that the McNary Estates Development’s HOA wouldn’t allow the Kuhns to park said RV in their own driveway, citing bylaws that ban the vehicles. Instead, the HOA suggested the parents park the RV in a lot a few miles away because, hey, why make things easier for parents of a disabled child?

Expert advice: “The federal Fair Housing Act guidelines require HOAs to make ‘reasonable accommodations’ to persons with disabilities to allow them full use of their home,” says Hunter. “So in this case, law in this area leans heavily in favor of the homeowner.” It’s no wonder, then, that the Kuhns are now suing their HOA.

Cooking the books, casino-style

HOA managers handle tons of cash without much oversight.  A cynic could ask: How hard could it be for some of those managers to skim a bit off the top for themselves? Well, that’s what Susan Marie Lambert decided to do as an officer of the Woodlake Homeowner Association in San Mateo, CA, bilking the group of almost $3 million over six years.

According to the Daily Journal, Lambert and a contractor billed phony invoices, then the two split the cash for work that was never performed. Homeowners finally noticed something was off in January when Lambert made an ATM withdrawal at a casino using an HOA card. Brilliant!

Expert advice: Hunter advises HOA members to set up security measures to protect HOA funds.

“Keep track of who has signature authority on accounts,” says Hunter. “Require two signatures on checks, including at least one board member. Avoid credit cards in the HOA’s name, and require a fidelity bond covering any person or company that’s handling the HOA’s finances.”

Retroactively banning roommates

In December, the Idaho-based Buffalo Junction HOA kicked out condo renter Collin Wheeler and his roommate when the organization charged that they did not meet the requirements of a “family.” The HOA board wrote a letter stating that the term “is defined to include parents (or single parent) and children and other dependents.” But according to news outlet TVN, this rule didn’t exist when Wheeler moved in—it was added, seemingly, to boot young renters like him.

Expert advice: In this case, Hunter questions whether the HOA can legally impose a new rule and make it retroactive. In any case, Wheeler has found a new place—one with no HOA, he hopes.

Charging a fee to keep the nearby golf course afloat

You buy a home next to a golf course managed by a separate company. But if that golf course threatens to close due to low membership, who pays? In Rancho Mirage, CA, the Morningside HOA thinks all the residents who live along the course need to start yelling, “fore!” According to the Desert Sun, the HOA added a mandatory club membership fee at $250 a month on top of the $1,050 HOA dues.

Expert advice: These residents can most likely lay down the clubs and refuse to pay up.

“The homeowners should examine their governing documents for increasing assessments and consult with an attorney,” Hunter advises.

Great place for the Grinch

Residents of Mesa, AZ, didn’t have a very merry Christmas in 2015, due to a letter sent from the HOA instructing them to take down holiday decorations outside their homes.

Expert advice: Sure it sounds mean-spirited, but in this case HOAs might determine that they have little choice in the matter, Hunter says.

“If the board allowed Christmas wreaths, they would stand accused of discrimination if they later denied other decorations like a pentagram, distasteful pictures, or political signs,” he points out.

To avoid this “slippery slope,” Hunter allows that like-minded owners could “propose an amendment to the condo’s governing documents that would allow holiday decorations for a finite number of days.”

Source: realtor.com, Margaret Heidenry
http://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/hoas-behaving-badly/?iid=rdc_news_hp_carousel_theLatest

The Feds Want To Track Secret Home Buyers

In my career as a Realtor, I've had my share of All Cash real estate transactions. Most agents love them because they generally are less headaches than a buyer who is purchasing with a loan. Sellers are generally more likely to accept an all cash offer in a multiple offer situation (which we are currently seeing allot of in this market in the Silicon Valley) as opposed to one with financing.

Well, now it has come to light that perhaps not all of these all cash real estate transactions are on the level. In certain housing markets here in the U.S. there is a growing number of buyers who are purchasing high-end properties with all cash under a shell company to mask their identity.

Naturally the U.S. government is concerned that these secret buyers could be anything from drug lords looking to use their real estate holding launder money to terrorist. This is not to say that all such transactions are shady, the government has reason to believe that fair percentage of them are. 

So in two of the most suspect real estate markets where this is apparently going on, Miami Florida and Manhattan, title companies may soon be responsible to getting to bottom of who really owns these shell companies before escrow is to close and then report that information to the feds. Realtors may be required to help get to the bottom of these questionable transactions as well.

The federal government has grown so concerned about high value properties ($3M and above) being purchased by unknown individuals using shell companies, that the FBI has apparently hired extra agents who will be dedicated to investigating these issue. 

Whether or not the feds will expand this practice to every real estate market is unclear at this time.

U.S. Will Track Secret Buyers of Luxury Real Estate

Concerned about illicit money flowing into luxury real estate, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that it would begin identifying and tracking secret buyers of high-end properties.

The initiative will start in two of the nation’s major destinations for global wealth: Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. It will shine a light on the darkest corner of the real estate market: all-cash purchases made by shell companies that often shield purchasers’ identities.

It is the first time the federal government has required real estate companies to disclose names behind cash transactions, and it is likely to send shudders through the real estate industry, which has benefited enormously in recent years from a building boom increasingly dependent on wealthy, secretive buyers.

The initiative is part of a broader federal effort to increase the focus on money laundering in real estate. Treasury and federal law enforcement officials said they were putting greater resources into investigating luxury real estate sales that involve shell companies like limited liability companies, often known as L.L.C.s; partnerships; and other entities.

Future investigations, they said, will focus increasingly on professionals who assist in money laundering, including real estate agents, lawyers, bankers and L.L.C. formation agents.

Officials said the new government efforts were inspired in part by a series last year in The New York Times that examined the rising use of shell companies as foreign buyers increasingly sought safe havens for their money in the United States. The investigation found that real estate professionals, especially in the luxury market, often do not know much about buyers. Until now, none of them have been legally required to.

The use of shell companies in real estate is legal, and L.L.C.s have a range of uses unrelated to secrecy. But a top Treasury official, Jennifer Shasky Calvery, said her agency had seen instances in which multimillion-dollar homes were being used as safe deposit boxes for ill-gotten gains, in transactions made more opaque by the use of anonymous shell companies.

“We are concerned about the possibility that dirty money is being put into luxury real estate,” said Ms. Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury unit running the initiative. “We think some of the bigger risk is around the least transparent transactions.”

The department will focus on sales that are both paid for all in cash and conducted using shell companies.

The government is requiring title insurance companies, which are involved in virtually all sales, to discover the identities of buyers and submit the information to the Treasury.

The government will put the information into a database for law enforcement.

The Treasury’s program will affect billions of dollars in real estate transactions.

In Manhattan, the initiative requires buyers in sales of more than $3 million to be reported; in Miami-Dade County, it requires reporting on sales of more than $1 million. In Manhattan, 1,045 residential sales cost more than $3 million in the second half of 2015, worth some $6.5 billion in aggregate, according to PropertyShark, a real estate data company.

In addition to starting in only two markets, the requirement runs from March through August. If Treasury officials find that many sales involved suspicious money, Ms. Calvery said, they will develop permanent reporting requirements across the country.

A senior Federal Bureau of Investigation official, Patrick Fallon, said the anonymity possible under existing shell companies had stymied investigations and the Treasury initiative would help trace illicit money.

“We fully intend to encourage expansion of it, so, not only to different geographic areas but as far as the time frame as well,” said Mr. Fallon, chief of the bureau’s financial crimes section. “We think it’ll prove its worth.”

In its investigation, The Times found that nearly half of homes nationwide worth at least $5 million are purchased using shell companies. In Manhattan and Los Angeles, the figure is higher.

In New York, The Times examined a decade of ownership at a prominent condominium complex near Central Park, the Time Warner Center, and found a number of hidden owners who had been the subjects of government investigations. They included former Russian senators, a former governor from Colombia, a British financier, and a businessman tied to the prime minister of Malaysia, who is now under investigation.

In Florida, The Times uncovered a condominium in Boca Raton tied to Mexico’s top housing official, who recently stepped down and is now a leading contender for the governor’s office in the southern state of Oaxaca.

Ms. Calvery said the findings helped convince the Treasury that more scrutiny of high-end buyers is needed.

“It’s easier to talk about it with people who aren’t specialists in our area when they read about it in the newspaper,” she said.

Indeed, last spring, New York City’s Finance Department began requiring shell companies buying real estate to report their members to the city. That rule, however, is less far-reaching than the Treasury action.

Real estate is becoming a larger target for law enforcement as well. According to two people with knowledge of cases at the Justice Department, lawyers there have begun to shape cases directly around money laundering in real estate deals rather than adding such transactions to other cases.

The F.B.I. has in recent months created a new unit to focus on money laundering, and real estate will be one main focus. The unit, which has 10 agents, will help the Justice Department delve into shell companies and the people involved in money laundering, F.B.I. officials said.

“We’re going after the facilitators of the money laundering,” Mr. Fallon, of the F.B.I., said. “They’re the bankers, they’re the accountants, lawyers, folks who are setting up L.L.C.s, they are setting up foundations, folks who are setting up nonprofits, real estate investment trusts, etc.”

The new scrutiny is likely to increase headaches for the real estate industry, in part because shell companies are not easy to penetrate. Buyers often mask their identities by layering companies on top of other shell companies. Buyers also commonly fill out L.L.C. formation papers using the names of lawyers or other place holders, often called “nominees,” instead of their own names.

The Treasury is looking for the actual owners behind shell companies, often referred to as the beneficial owners. “We’re not looking for nominees,” Ms. Calvery said.

In its order, the Treasury defined beneficial owners as “each individual who, directly or indirectly, owns 25 percent or more of the equity interests” of the entity that bought the property. Once title companies identify those people, they are required to copy driver’s licenses or passports and also pass the individuals’ names to the Treasury Department.

Stephen Hudak, a spokesman for the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said any title companies or purchasers who provided false information could face penalties. The American Land Title Association said in a statement that it would help its members comply with the Treasury’s new naming requirements.

Under the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the Treasury is already authorized to require real estate companies to scrutinize real estate buyers, but the department has in the past faced fierce lobbying against issuing such rules. The department already requires mortgage lenders to scrutinize buyers. But cash buyers have been a big hole in the government’s oversight of the market, Ms. Calvery said.

“Repeated anecdotal information where we see criminals of different stripes putting money into real estate all suggest to us that this is an area we need to pay attention to,” she said.

Source: Ny Times, Louise Story

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/us-will-track-secret-buyers-of-luxury-real-estate.html?_r=0

Related: Feds Want to Know Who's Behind Purchases in #1 Cash Real Estate Market Miami

What I Didn’t Know When My Landlord Kicked Me Out

In real estate, things often don’t turn out the way you’d expect. In this new series, we’re going to take a look at how people’s real-life experiences differed from their expectations. First up, a tale from the world of renting.

Confession: When I was younger, I got kicked out of my apartment by possibly the worst landlord ever. Four months after moving in, I found myself standing on the front lawn at 9 a.m., neighbors staring, fighting with my landlord at top-decibel levels.

Spoiler: The landlord won. I promised to be out by the end of the week.

It sounds like an episode of some trashy (and not particularly fun) reality TV show, but this was real real life, folks. I fled in three days, leaving behind my security deposit, prepaid cleaning fee, pet deposit, and a full month’s rent.

Looking back, I often wonder what I did wrong and how I could have avoided getting fired from my lease (or at least gotten some money back). So I asked an expert to break down my case.

Most lease terminations don’t happen in a day. To understand what happened (and where I started messing up), we have to start at the beginning, the day I signed the lease.

The scenario: When I moved in, I had a puppy, which was destined to rapidly grow into a big, slobbering adult dog. I told the landlord about the pooch, but when it came time to sign the lease, there was no mention of the pet. When I questioned this, the landlord said it was a standard lease form and not to worry. I did worry, but I also chickened out and signed. As you’ll see below, this small thing became a not-so-small flashpoint.

Experts say: I never should have moved in without a pet agreement.

“First of all, you should have requested [the pet] be memorialized into the lease,” says Casey Schwab, co-founder of ResolutionTable.com, an online mediation service for tenant and landlord disputes. “Absent that, an email or text to your landlord about the pet would have supported the theory that your landlord consented.”

The scenario: About a month after moving in, my landlord started snooping. Neighbors would tell me they’d seen him looking in the windows. Creepy! I wrote down the dates and times in some vague attempt to cover myself.  Then one night I heard barking while I was in the shower. Wrapped in a towel, I came out to see my landlord standing inside my apartment! I knew his presence was illegal, so I asked him to leave and then dropped the issue, fearing he would make my life miserable in the apartment if I pushed.

Experts say: I should have manned up. “After the first whiff that your landlord was entering your apartment or spying on you, you should have notified him in writing of the violation,” Schwab says.

The scenario: Not long after asking my landlord to leave, things started to go south fast. My landlord started showing up a lot, saying the neighbors were suddenly complaining about the dog. When I didn’t take the bait and fight back, the landlord said I’d have to keep the dog outside, chained up.

Experts say: As a tenant, you should document everything, Schwab says. Even if the pet wasn’t on the lease, the landlord was acknowledging that he knew I had a pet, and I could have used that in my defense later.

The scenario: Things really hit the fan one morning after my landlord arrived to find that my dog was not chained outside (like I was really going to do that). He banged on the door, shouting like a crazy person. He said things. My mother, who happened to be in town, said things. The neighbor who came out to see what the fuss was said things. I mostly stared in horror until I found myself agreeing to move in three days.

Experts say: “The front lawn brawl is really never a good move,” Schwab says. I would have been better off to nod, pretend to agree, and get inside as soon as possible. “But the moment he left, you should have written down everything you could remember—from start to finish—that your landlord could have possibly done wrong,” he says.

The scenario: I planned to move as agreed. I spent two straight days looking for an apartment while the devil—sorry, the landlord—texted me hateful comments and childish threats. I ignored them, found another place, and moved out.

Experts say: “Those texts were IOUs that you never cashed. The potential of a judge or mediator seeing these texts would have scared any rational landlord into returning your rent and security deposit,” Schwab says.

The scenario: After paying for movers and taking time off work, I was financially strapped and just brave enough to ask for my deposit back. I even cleaned the apartment I was getting kicked out of! But the landlord said no, and I never tried to follow up. I was afraid that I didn’t have the grounds to file suit or seek professional help, since I’d been asked to leave early.

Expert say: Leaving a lease early doesn’t always mean you’re not entitled to your security deposit. According to Schwab, I had the right to sue my landlord for all kinds of things, including invasion of privacy and harassment. And even though I didn’t get my money back, the landlord should have provided a detailed invoice of what was deducted from the security deposit and why. When I didn’t get my deposit—or a deduction notice—back, I should have written a stern letter stating the reasons the landlord was at fault and demanded that my deposit be returned, Schwab says.

From there, I could have filed a suit against my landlord or reached out to a lawyer for mitigation. Instead I folded like a house of cards. Live and learn, right?

If you find yourself straining to deal with your landlord, don’t do the same. Take notes, take pictures, take control. And when the time comes, get your money (and peace of mind) back!

Source: Realtor.com, Angela Colley
http://www.realtor.com/advice/rent/what-i-didnt-know-when-landlord-kicked-me-out/?iid=rdc_news_hp_carousel_theLatest

REALTORS®' Top Concerns Heading into 2016

REALTORS®' Top Concerns Heading into 2016

An improving job market, still-low interest rates, and recent measures to make credit more accessible are all offering help to the housing market’s recovery, but several challenges prompting closing delays remain.

The latest REALTORS® Confidence Index conducted in November reveals some of the top concerns on real estate professionals' minds. The survey is based on more than 2,500 responses from members about local market conditions.

Here are some of the most common concerns that REALTORS® raised in the latest survey:

1. New mortgage disclosure rules: The implementation of the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulations on Oct. 3 has been delaying closings and having an impact on sales, according to members. About 47 percent of respondents reported longer closing times compared to a year ago, up from 37 percent in the October 2015 survey.  It typically took another 40 days to close a sale, up from 35 days in July 2015.

2. Condo financing: REALTORS® continued to report difficulty in obtaining financing for condominium unit purchases because many condominiums are not FHA or GSE eligible. Read more.

3. Tight inventories: A smaller number of homes for sale across the country are limiting choices for buyers and pushing prices up, decreasing housing affordability. REALTORS® particularly reported low inventory of properties in the lower price range and for those that are move-in ready.

4. Tight credit: Stringent credit standards continue to affect sales, particularly for first-time home buyers who are still struggling to qualify for financing, according to the REALTORS® surveyed. “Credit profiles that fail to meet tighter underwriting standards are conditions that continue to work against first-time home buyers,” according to the report.

5. Appraisal issues: “Late” and “low” appraisal valuations was also cited by REALTORS® as being problematic in transactions.

Source: National Association of REALTORS
http://www.realtor.org/reports/realtors-confidence-index

Important Clauses In Your Real Estate Contract

You have just found your dream house, and would like to buy it. What to do now?

When dealing with real estate matters, the law is clear: everything has to be in writing. Thus, you will need a sales contract, which will spell out all of the terms, conditions and special requirements you may (or will) need in order to conclude the transaction and go to closing (settlement) on the house.

If there is no real estate agent involved, your attorney should be able to assist you in preparing the contract offer. If there is a real estate agent, you can get a form sales contract from the agent. In fact, the agent should be able to assist you in preparing the document for presentation to the seller, although your attorney should review it before you sign.

Typically, the buyer makes a written offer to the seller. The seller has three alternatives:

1. The contract can be accepted;

2. The contract can be rejected in its entirety, or

3. The contract offer will be countered, with different terms.

It is rare that the seller will opt for alternatives one or two; in most cases, the potential buyer will receive a counter-offer. Then, the buyer has the same three alternatives.

There are certain things which must be included in any sales contract.

• The property must be clearly identified, preferably by street address.

• The contract must be contingent upon your obtaining financing. You should allow yourself some time -- usually 30-45 days -- in which to make application from a mortgage lender and get a written commitment that you have been approved for the loan. Under the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), it will take more time, so you may want to give yourself up to 60 days in which to finalize the deal.

• Unless you are an experienced contractor, it is advisable that you make the contract contingent on your obtaining a satisfactory home inspection. You should give yourself 5-7 days after the contract is signed to have the property inspected. If you are not satisfied for any reason after you receive a written report from the inspector, you should have the right to terminate the contract, and get back your earnest money deposit.

• How much earnest money should you put up when you sign the sales contract? There is no magic formula and no law dictating a certain percentage of the purchase price. When you sign a contract, in order to make it a valid, legal document, the buyer should put up some money as a good faith earnest money deposit. These funds will be held by the real estate broker or the settlement attorney until settlement takes or until either the buyer is entitled to a return of the deposit (because the contingencies cannot be met) or the buyer is in breach of the contract, in which case the moneys would go to the seller.

Real estate agents and brokers usually ask that the buyer put up 10 percent of the purchase price as this earnest money deposit. However, buyers can put up more or less, so long as the seller agrees with the amount. Indeed, in many real estate contracts, the earnest money deposit consists only of a promissory note signed by the buyer, to be redeemed at the settlement itself.

Buyers should understand that although everything in real estate is negotiable, the earnest money should be large enough to convince the seller you are seriously interested in going forward with the purchase. I usually recommend this deposit be approximately five percent of the purchase price.

• Finally, the contract should be contingent upon the buyer obtaining -- no later than the date of settlement -- a "termite" letter. This is a report from a licensed pest inspection company indicating that the house is free and clear of termites and other wood-boring infestation. Some contracts require the seller to obtain and pay for this report; other contracts put the burden on the purchaser. Either way, this is a critical report which all buyers should receive -- and carefully review -- before settlement is completed. Obviously, in a high-rise condo, such a termite letter would not be required.

Many of these contingencies are time-sensitive. You -- as buyer -- have so many days in which to get financing and so many days in which to complete the home inspection. Mark your calendar with these due dates, and make sure you act on these contingencies before the time has expired. Otherwise, it will be too late and you will be legally bound to comply with the terms of the contract, and proceed to settlement.

Source: RealtyTimes, Benny L. Kass
http://realtytimes.com/consumeradvice/buyersadvice1/item/40804-20151211-important-clauses-in-your-real-estate-contract

Mark Zuckerberg moves closer to trial over property dispute

Not sure what to make of this one. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO is in another dispute over his private property in Palo Alto. I know in the past there was a little bit of a controversy when he first bought the land on which his property sits because he then started buying up neighboring properties for "privacy reasons." 

Now it it seems that a real estate developer who owned a property adjacent to Mark agreed to sell it at less than market value in exchange for Mark introducing him to his high powered Silicon Valley contacts (I guess for the referrals, future business for his real estate business, etc.). 

So what happened? Mark failed to introduce the developer his high powered contacts and now the developer is suing for fraud and breach of contract.



Mark Zuckerberg moved closer to a trial over a developer's lawsuit alleging the billionaire committed fraud by reneging on a promise to introduce him to Silicon Valley's elite as part of a land deal.

A state judge in San Jose, California, on Thursday denied Zuckerberg's request to throw out claims that he didn't keep his word in a $1.7 million deal that ended plans for a mansion with a view into the 31-year-old Facebook Inc. founder's bedroom. Superior Court Judge Patricia Lucas said at a hearing she'll consider Zuckerberg's arguments before making a final decision on a breach-of-contract claim.

Zuckerberg's backyard privacy showdown took another dramatic turn when the lawyer for the developer confirmed during the hearing that he's seeking to withdraw from the case. Attorney David Draper, who represents developer Mircea Voskerician, didn't disclose why he wants off the case just weeks before it's set for trial. He declined to comment on it outside of court.

Patrick Gunn, a lawyer for Zuckerberg, said Draper has a conflict with his client and made the request to withdraw in court filings that don't describe what the conflict is. It's "not clear" why Draper wants to withdraw, Gunn said in an interview, noting that the judge has scheduled a hearing on the matter next Thursday.

Gunn declined to comment on the judge's ruling.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Joel Rosenblatt
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_28907899/zuckerberg-must-face-fraud-claims-property-dispute-trial

Calif. Ordered to Repay $331M Housing Fund

A court has ruled that the state of California must return the $331 million earmarked to help troubled home owners that lawmakers used instead to help repair the state's budget.

Read more: California Sued for Diverting Housing Funds

State court judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled that state lawmakers improperly appropriated a portion of the money California received in 2012 as part of a $25 billion nationwide settlement with the nation's largest banks over mortgage servicing improprieties. The lawsuit had been filed by three nonprofit groups who offer counseling to home owners, who first charged that the state had misappropriated funds away from helping home owners avoid foreclosure through counseling and other educational services. Instead, they charged, the state allocated the funds for other purposes from 2012 to 2014, such as retiring debt issued by low-income housing authorities. 

California's share of the nationwide settlement was $350 million. Judge Frawley ruled that the government had misused $331 million of that settlement for other purposes than what was intended. He ordered the state to return the amount to the special home owner fund "as soon as there is sufficient appropriation 'reasonably' and 'generally' available for such purpose."

Similar lawsuits against states misappropriating funds from the national mortgage settlement also are likely, says Robert Gnaizda, general counsel to the National Asian American Coalition – one of the three groups that served as a plaintiff on the lawsuit, along with the COR Community Development Corp. and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

"We've identified about a dozen states where it might be appropriate to take action," Gnaizda told The New York Times. "We decided not to go forward with other actions until this case was decided."

Source: RealtorMag Online

http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2015/06/18/calif-ordered-repay-331m-housing-fund?om_rid=AAFmZk&om_mid=_BVgxU6B9C1GCyO&om_ntype=RMODaily

The Homeowner’s Guide to Land Use Laws

The Homeowner’s Guide to Land Use Laws
Thinking of setting up a backyard chicken coop or building a guesthouse? Make sure local laws allow it, or you could be looking at a hefty fine.

Land use law is a huge library of legal doctrine dating back centuries, covering everything from water and mineral rights to real estate planning and zoning. But how do these laws impact the average urban, suburban or rural homeowner, and what sort of liability could someone face if they accidentally or purposefully violated local land use laws?

What exactly is land use law?

The term refers to the body of real estate law that regulates the development and conservation of privately owned land. Government properties are not subject to land use restrictions.

Land use laws are controversial because the U.S. Constitution guarantees our liberty, which has always been interpreted to include the free use and control of one’s land. However, land use regulations have become increasingly necessary to curtail the environmental impact of growing populations, and to maintain order in certain urban and suburban areas.

What is an example of a land use law?

While many land use regulations are complex, interwoven labyrinths of local, state and federal laws, planning and zoning legislation is one type of land use law familiar to most people. These laws ensure that businesses are built in one area, residences in another — and that gentlemen’s clubs stay on the outskirts of town.

Are land use laws different from deed restrictions?

Land use laws are imposed by the government, whereas deed restrictions are defined by community associations. However, the two sets of laws can, and should, overlap on common issues, with deed restrictions possibly imposing greater regulations than the local government.

A violation of local land use laws could result in criminal fines or penalties, while a deed restriction violation is a purely civil matter.

What should urban residents know about farming and land use regulation?

Urban farming has become a hot topic within the realm of land use law, and local zoning laws are of significant importance when planning an urban farm. Depending on the location and size, an urban farm may be as small as a patio garden or as large as a city block, and it may encompass both produce and animal production.

The first type of zoning ordinance an urban farmer should consider pertains to the commercial aspect of urban farming. In other words, can the urban farmer sell crops, meat or eggs for money and, if so, where?

Secondly, farmers must be aware of zoning regulations related to raising animals, primarily those rules concerning neighborhood safety, noise ordinances and cleanliness standards.

Every local jurisdiction maintains its own unique set of zoning laws and conditional exceptions to those laws. For urban farmers interested in starting a community project, the first step is to meet with the local zoning and planning board to present your ideas and determine whether urban farming is feasible in your neighborhood.

Am I allowed to add a mother-in-law suite to my home?

A mother-in-law suite, or an accessory dwelling unit, will likely require a permit from the local municipality prior to construction. In many jurisdictions, this suite is actually considered a separate dwelling unit and, as such, requires issuing notice to the community prior to assembly. While some jurisdictions require a simple explanation of the proposed building, others need to see official building plans prior to approval.

Failure to obtain the proper permit to add an accessory dwelling unit can result in major fines — up to $500 per day or more — for each day the building remains unapproved.

What does the term ‘attractive nuisance’ mean?

An attractive nuisance is any sort of structure, manmade or natural, on your property that may entice children to trespass and play, putting them at risk of injury.

To avoid injuries, many localities have enacted attractive nuisance ordinances to prevent landowners from leaving swimming pools, ponds, trampolines or other known attractions open for danger.

Nuisance abatement ordinances generally impose common-sense regulations on homeowners, including mandatory fencing around pools, safety measures around wells or excavations, and rules against abandoned or vacant buildings.

What are the penalties for ignoring land use laws?

For violators of land use laws, local governments can impose daily fines ranging from a few dollars to several hundred dollars. If the violation presents a major safety issue for neighboring residents, the city may also seek an injunction, or legal order, against the property owner.

If fines and penalties add up past a certain point, the city may initiate a civil lawsuit against the homeowner, which could result in the loss of the property by government reclamation — a drastic, but realistic outcome in certain circumstances.

Source: Zillow Blog, Stephanie Reid, Avvo attorney and NakedLaw contributor
http://www.zillow.com/blog/all-about-land-use-laws-176374/