Common Sense

A short sale I've been working on for the past 120ish days just reached a critical point.  The cash buyer had reached an initial agreement with Chase on a price.  Both parties expecting a deal moved forward and an appraiser was sent in to examine the house for deficiencies and required work to bring the property up to code in the neighborhood.  More than $30,000 worth of repairs would be required.

In addition there were two outstanding permit violations that the sellers had not been told about when they purchased the house nearly a decade earlier.  The Title was not harmed by the permit and code violations, but at closing the new buyers would have to sign a document holding the seller (and the lender) harmless.  Considering that the buyer would have $30,000 in repair work, a $110 permit expense was acceptable.

The buyer countered the Chase acceptance with a lower offer.  We're awaiting the response.

At the same time I made another excursion into the public records where I found a property which the owners had acquired following the divorce of the previous occupants.  Purchased in 1993 the owners took title  once the divorced property winner signed an affidavit declaring their right to sell the property in her own name.  Her married name had been changed back to her birth name causing a significant risk of cloud on title.  In this case the owners did things almost perfect from the point of conveyance through a significant sequence of events including three second mortgage and a series of home repairs over the past 17 years of ownership.

Take a look at their redacted record:

The common denominator of these to situations is the lack of the Land Trust Conversion.  In the case of the former, the benefit of the land trust to the seller begins to take shape in the complaint that were filed by Miramar.  Such code and permit issues can be compounded.  In other words the owner of the property had other properties in minor code violations with little or no fines to be imposed, but the city found all of these violations under the individual's name, both penalties, liens and fines could be imposed.  And if the second property owner had simply converted his property in 1993 he would have reduced the risk of liability having his name exposed in the public record has created against him.

Florida's Land Trust act is a common sense law that traces its history back nearly 500 years.  It is amazing that neither of the parties in my two investigations were ever explained the benefits of Florida's Land Trust.  It was just common sense then and it is even more common sensible today.