Hello all!

I hope this finds you all doing well! Well, I will get right to the point today...FULL DISCLOSURE is a must when it comes to selling your house. But what exactly, does FULL DISCLOSURE mean?...

Well, technically, we don't have to disclose crappy neighbors as a reason for selling our house (or do we?!) BUT, as a seller, if you've had burst pipes in your home, or a leaky roof, walls that spontaneously opened up with new holes, or a basement that is actually a pool in the spring, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TAKEN STEPS to repair these, should be disclosed when you sell the property. Also, if you've made updates, upgrades or major improvements to the property, it is best to disclose these as well.

When you list your home, your listing agent should have a seller's disclosure for you to fill out--whether you've lived in the home or not, I'm sure you would be aware of any issues in which you had to fix--so disclose them. Why? To avoid future litigation issues.

I'll tell you of close friends that bought a house with a finished basement--the sellers had finished the basement and claimed everything was up to code. After the closing AND beginning work to modify the basement in to an apartment, they found that permits were never pulled for the upgrade work already done, and the plumbing was too close to the walls according to the local codes. The sellers claimed they didn't do that work--so it turned in to a "he said, she said" thing because nothing was in writing. Then when my friends started pulling down drywall as they ensured everything was up to code, found the drywall stamped with the year it was made...which proved the sellers had done the work--and not up to code. The sellers then had to pay to bring things up to the CURRENT code requirements.

Could this have been prevented? Maybe--they did get a home inspection, but the inspector didn't identify that these could be code violations, or an issue. Was it his responsibility? That depends on the state requirements for his licencing and what he is responsible for. In this case, he was not.

The sellers could have prevented the ENTIRE issue, though, prior to selling, by pulling the required permits before getting the work done and getting the required inspections to ensure they were up to code. It would have saved everyone a LOT of heartache.

In another instance, I had a buyer ready to buy a house, really liked the outside and the yard and called me to view the inside. When I called the listing agent to show the home, she informed me that the seller had built a garage on to the house without getting the required permits pulled...and as it turned out, he built his new garage on his neighbors property. As soon as my buyer heard about this, they didn't want to even deal with someone that couldn't follow the rules. I didn't follow up on the house, but that sellers options at the time were to take down the garage (lowering the value of his property), request a variance in the building--not easy to get when no permit was pulled to begin with, or buy the land from his neighbor. This seller could have prevented issues by pulling required permits.

SO--do you HAVE to disclose changes, or issues when it comes to selling your home? Well, gee, Wally, I guess you don't HAVE to, but golly, would it be the right thing to do? Wouldja really went to deal with all the potential litigation and lose any profits you might have gotten from selling the house?

But what about those crappy neighbors? Well--maybe they'll talk their friends (if they have any, that is) in to buying the house and they can live next door in harmony!

Until next time!

Valerie Sullivan
Realtor, GRI, e-Pro
Valerie@ValerieSullivan.net
www.ValerieSullivan.net

Hi all!

Well, it looks like the economic stimulus plan had some changes made to it--go figure!

The one that affects the housing industry the most, though, is the homebuyer credit. It was rumoured that there would be a $15,000 tax credit to ANY homebuyer this year, but that got completely nixed (there goes the new house we were going to buy this year! Of course, we hadn't thought about what we'd do with the house we're currently living in yet...)

All is not lost, though. The $7500 tax credit that went in to effect last year for First Time Home Buyers was raised to $8,000 and now it doesn't have to be paid back (the original version had to be paid back over time). You do have to live in the home for at least three years, though.  If you sell the home prior to the three year mark, you will have to pay back the credit you do receive.

The dates were changed, too, and extend now to December 1, 2009--but remember, that means the property has to close by the first of December, not just go under contract. This also means that since it is a tax credit, it affects you when you file your annual taxes--this credit does not "come off the top" when you buy the house.

So make sure you talk to your tax professional if you are a first time home buyer and you buy that home this year!

ALSO, as a reminder to those of you that purchased a home in the State of Florida during 2008 through the end of February this year. If you have not filed for your homestead exemption, you have until March 1st to do so. You'll need to bring your paperwork from your closing to the county tax collectors office. They will verify that you are eligible for your homestead exemption. And for those of you unaware, the previous $25,000 homestead exemption is now $50,000, and if you are a disabled veteran, you are eligible for another $5,000 exemption, too.

Here's to lowering your tax bill!

Have a great weekend!

Valerie Sullivan
Realtor, GRI, e-Pro
850-803-8446
www.valeriesullivan.net

Author of 7 Things Every First Time HomeBuyer Should Know to be released Spring, 2009

Hi all!

It's amazing how different perspectives can be SUCH an eye opener...

I had a conversation with a friend this last week who made that title comment. "EVERTBODY is buying real estate." And you know what, she was right! EVERYBODY is buying real estate. Those that own their house outright, they've already bought, but they're still buying...by paying the taxes and insurance on the house.

The homeowner with the mortgage (whether they owe more or less than the house is worth is irrelevant) is buying real estate. While they pay the bank a mortgage every month, and only a fraction of that payment actually goes towards that principal payment, that homeowner is buying real estate, too.

But what about the renters? They don't pay a mortgage, they pay rent. Well, actually, a renter IS paying a mortgage. While some rental properties are owned outright, the majority have a mortgage on them. So as a renter, that $1300 a month rental payment goes to the homeowner, or apartment owner, and they in turn use that money to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance, as well as maintenance, repairs and upkeep of the property. The advantage? The owner of that property gets the tax benefits of owning it. While the owner may get a cashflow (or, maybe not), depending on repairs and maintenance, they get to write off those costs. They also get a depreciation deduction--which also helps to lower that tax bill.

SO, while your entire house payment doesn't go towards paying down your principal, when you think of it, paying 5 percent on a mortgage, I think I would rather have my "rent" go towards my own mortgage payment, but that's just me.

What about you?