I hunted through half a dozen articles and couldn't find any information about the tenant. It seems like they are the real winners here. I am wondering why the previous owner didn't just give them...
I hunted through half a dozen articles and couldn't find any information about the tenant. It seems like they are the real winners here. I am wondering why the previous owner didn't just give them the house, but this arrangement might be even better. They don't have to pay for taxes or maintenance, but they have a fixed rent abd a fuaranteed right to stay. It must be a real albatross for the heirs.
I suppose if one purchased a 1.5M home for 500K, one could pay the tenant off pretty handsomely and still come out ahead. Or perhaps, more cynically, someone could explore all the legal avenues to oust the tenant with almost no downside.
It sounds like it's all built into the contract and is likely estate planning for someone disabled or elderly. It's interesting I suppose. Maybe if you're a real estate holding firm or whatever?
It sounds like it's all built into the contract and is likely estate planning for someone disabled or elderly. It's interesting I suppose. Maybe if you're a real estate holding firm or whatever?
The short blurb doesn't provide any more than that I wanted to hear about why it's sloppy estate planning and what would be less sloppy. :/
We then talked to an attorney specializing in landlord tenant law.
"For some reason, they gave this person a 30-year right of possession. I've seen that before. It's kind of a sloppy way of estate planning. 'I want to leave some security to this person so they don't have to worry about where they are going to live.' They can do it that way. I think they should have done it a different way," said attorney Steven MacDonald.
The short blurb doesn't provide any more than that
I wanted to hear about why it's sloppy estate planning and what would be less sloppy. :/
Doing some reading, not to say that the tenant can't be bought out of the agreement, based on the listing for the home -...
Doing some reading, not to say that the tenant can't be bought out of the agreement, based on the listing for the home - https://www.parknorth.com/homes-for-sale-details/30-NORTH-VIEW-COURT-SAN-FRANCISCO-CA-94109/424035906/7/ - the current tenant is likely the disabled child of the previous owner and I'd wager got this 30 year lease as part of the will or proceedings of, but is also selling the house as a way to transfer ownership of it, get an injection of funds, and not have to be the one responsible for upkeep, taxes ($17k/year at present), etc.
SF protected tenant class is reserved for persons over 60 that have been in the house for more than 10 years or are "catastrophically ill" and lived in the house for more than 5 years. They cannot be easily evicted under normal circumstances such as the owner wanting to terminate the lease and move in themselves, as it requires going through the court system, paying the tenant relocation expenses, and has to offer another vacant home, owned by the same person, for the tenant to move into.
So if all the legal docs are in order, and I'm guessing they likely are, this is a "long term investment" property as every other comparable house is selling for $1-1.5M in the area and all of those are in seemingly less desirable areas.
Brave of these prospective buyers to assume the home will be even insurable in 30 years. How will they get mortgage on this kind of deal, cash buyers only? They specifically said the building is...
Brave of these prospective buyers to assume the home will be even insurable in 30 years. How will they get mortgage on this kind of deal, cash buyers only? They specifically said the building is as is where is: meaning it could become uninsured and burned down by the tenant or go through 30 years of squatting / drug house or worse, some kind of permanent environmental factor that cannot be remediated. And in that case the buyer would still be responsible for clean ups wouldn't they?
That's way too much money for essentially worse than an empty lot you can't build on.
I hunted through half a dozen articles and couldn't find any information about the tenant. It seems like they are the real winners here. I am wondering why the previous owner didn't just give them the house, but this arrangement might be even better. They don't have to pay for taxes or maintenance, but they have a fixed rent abd a fuaranteed right to stay. It must be a real albatross for the heirs.
I suppose if one purchased a 1.5M home for 500K, one could pay the tenant off pretty handsomely and still come out ahead. Or perhaps, more cynically, someone could explore all the legal avenues to oust the tenant with almost no downside.
It sounds like it's all built into the contract and is likely estate planning for someone disabled or elderly. It's interesting I suppose. Maybe if you're a real estate holding firm or whatever?
The short blurb doesn't provide any more than that
I wanted to hear about why it's sloppy estate planning and what would be less sloppy. :/
Yeah perhaps a lawyer hanging around would have thoughts
Doing some reading, not to say that the tenant can't be bought out of the agreement, based on the listing for the home - https://www.parknorth.com/homes-for-sale-details/30-NORTH-VIEW-COURT-SAN-FRANCISCO-CA-94109/424035906/7/ - the current tenant is likely the disabled child of the previous owner and I'd wager got this 30 year lease as part of the will or proceedings of, but is also selling the house as a way to transfer ownership of it, get an injection of funds, and not have to be the one responsible for upkeep, taxes ($17k/year at present), etc.
SF protected tenant class is reserved for persons over 60 that have been in the house for more than 10 years or are "catastrophically ill" and lived in the house for more than 5 years. They cannot be easily evicted under normal circumstances such as the owner wanting to terminate the lease and move in themselves, as it requires going through the court system, paying the tenant relocation expenses, and has to offer another vacant home, owned by the same person, for the tenant to move into.
So if all the legal docs are in order, and I'm guessing they likely are, this is a "long term investment" property as every other comparable house is selling for $1-1.5M in the area and all of those are in seemingly less desirable areas.
Brave of these prospective buyers to assume the home will be even insurable in 30 years. How will they get mortgage on this kind of deal, cash buyers only? They specifically said the building is as is where is: meaning it could become uninsured and burned down by the tenant or go through 30 years of squatting / drug house or worse, some kind of permanent environmental factor that cannot be remediated. And in that case the buyer would still be responsible for clean ups wouldn't they?
That's way too much money for essentially worse than an empty lot you can't build on.