When Realtor.com released its report last spring on the burgeoning state of the “under $200,000” market, one thing was clear: anyone looking to find a starter home in the current market may have to settle for (or revel in—depending on one’s perspective) a home that can be purchased for well short of what a home in good condition would cost: a fixer-upper.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was experienced by many investors in the real estate industry as a confounding law whose rules and incentives had an uncertain effect on the taxes they would be required to pay. Things got so confusing that the IRS saw need to clarify how, in particular, the 20 percent pass-through deduction would affect such investors.
A major piece of news in the housing sector of late has been a plan proposed by President Trump to privatize the major government-sponsored entities (GSEs) in the marketplace—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These entities, which were brought under government conservatorship in 2008 with a $191.5 billion bailout as a response to the housing crisis, have gone from being sources of concern in the market a decade ago to being quite profitable. But what might the effect on privatization be on the major modern form of home financing in the American landscape: the 30-year mortgage?
Between September 2018 and February 2019 we saw a moderate gain in home inventory prior to home shopping season, following a solid 44 months of consecutive inventory decreases. Some speculated that this perhaps meant that the number of people choosing to list their homes had at last begun to rise.
Unfortunately, this was not apparently a result of new listings going on the market—which would have indicated new sellers. Rather, the key metric at that time was that buyer demand had begun to fall off a bit due to a sustained period of rapid price growth, which resulted in a mild case of “buyer burnout” leaving housing listings on the market longer. An effect of this was a slight softening in the rise of housing prices.
The amount of mortgage debt in the United States is surprisingly low. Though the raw number of outstanding mortgages increased during the second quarter of 2019 to reach beyond the level met at the peak prior to the so-called Great Recession, according to the Federal Reserve of New York the number of outstanding mortgages relative to home values (not including home equity lines of credit) was a lower percentage of the whole than in 2009, when it reached a high of 54.7 percent. Indeed, in the first quarter of 2019 this number hovered at just around 35.4 percent. Why should this be the case, particularly when one considers the rather recent ramping-up of real estate values throughout the nation (including in the area surrounding Phoenix)?
Two things in life are certain: death and taxes. And if you don’t pay your taxes, there can be severe consequences. For example, if you fail to pay your property taxes, someone else can swoop in, pay the tax liability, and then ultimately claim title to your property.
Under Arizona law, a tax levied on real property is a lien on the assessed property. Read More
Most secured creditors have multiple options if the debtor defaults on payment. That is precisely why they require borrowers to pledge security (such as real estate) for the performance of the repayment of the debt – so that if the borrower defaults, the creditor is not limited to the borrower’s promise to repay the debt – in addition, the creditor can seek reimbursement from the sale of the secured asset.
Years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. asked: “What is the justification for depriving a man of his rights, a pure evil as far as it goes, in consequence of the lapse of time?” Several reasons exist:  our laws aim to resolve just claims within a reasonable time;  if a claimant sits on her rights for too long, relevant evidence to disprove the claim may be lost or destroyed by the passage of time; and  litigation of a long-dormant claim by result in more cruelty than justice
When it comes to real estate transactions, more often than naught, the “devil” is in the details. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, recently provided a roadmap to the rules concerning the specificity of an agreement required to obtain specific performance of an option to purchase real property.