102

COMMENTS

PRINT

TEXT SIZE:

A A A
BackflipApparently, developers feel they haven't been getting theirs. With new home development stalling, developers seem to think that the only way they can increase profitability is to build it into their work. Behold then, the latest financial scheme from the housing industry: a flip tax that gets paid to the developer every time the home gets sold.

Not surprisingly, developers are embracing the private transfer fee -- a sort of lien attached to a newly built house (or land), reports the Washington Post. Every time that house is sold over a 99 year period (thank God we're not talking about 100 years!!), 1 percent of the price gets kicked back to the original developer and, in some cases, is shared with their investor partners. When you figure that the average homebuyer these days keeps a house for about 6 years, that's one hell of a revenue stream for developers and their investors!

Reportedly, a New York company, Freehold Capital Partners, is signing up developers for this fee scheme left and right, though it refused to tell the WashPo just how many clients it now has. It's Web site, however, claims the owners of $300 billion in real estate projects have now gone into business with it.

And as if we haven't learned a lesson about slice-and-dice packaging of mortgages, Freehold Capital apparently wants to "securitize" pools of transfer fees that can then be spun off and sold to investors.

Now this is, as you might imagine, controversial. So much so, some states have apparently either limited or banned these "private transfer fees." OK, I should have known you'd want to know which ones: Kansas, Oregon, Florida and Missouri, just plain ban the practice, according to the paper, while Texas and California have some restrictions on it.

But most states do not address the issue of these fees at all, so it is something you the potential home buyer should look for before signing a contract for a new home. That's vital because the fees (which are paid by the seller) are not subject to negotiation. If you end up selling a house one day that has one of these private transfer fee deals attached to it, you either pay a trustee at closing or, sorry, no sale!

Developers think this is a swell concept because they can, over years, get back some of the initial upfront costs of the project without having to have the first buyer of the property cough up the entire amount. However, others argue that, in the long run, homes with transfer fees attached will actually become more difficult to sell, which, if you happen to be the current homeowner, is not such a good thing!

If you think you may be able to fight this in court someday, think again. Not so easy, apparently.

On the PR Newswire this past weekend, one expert on private transfer fees delivered a commentary of sorts. Says attorney RJon Robins, a member of the Florida Bar's Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section, "...absent a specific statutory prohibition, a well-crafted private transfer fee covenant will likely be enforceable, particularly when undertaken in connection with a real estate development project."

Charles Feldman is a journalist, media consultant and co-author of the book, "No Time to Think-The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle." He has written about real estate related issues for several years.
Add Your Comment

Tags: covenanted mandate, developers, Freehold Capital Partners, hidden fees buying house, private transfer fees

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)

1. Sandra on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:17:PM said...

How on earth are people able to get away with this? It can't possibly be legal. A permanent lien on a property for no justifiable reason?

2. Helena on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:51:PM said...

I suppose that they don't have enough to keep them busy...they lay in bed at night thinking of ways to cheat people!!
My finance company has been trying for months to get me to refinance...I wonder why?? I even got something from UPS the other night from them (Citi)
I wouldn't refinance right now for anything...it would take 2 lawyers and a judge to understand what I would be signing.
My interest rate is 6.5% and they want to give me an interest rate of 5.75%...can't figure out why they would want to put more money into my pockets???

3. kermit on Monday, Mar 8th at 03:02:PM said...

If a transfer fee can be viable for up to 99 years then, the warranty on a new home should last the same 99 years

4. marie on Monday, Mar 8th at 04:54:PM said...

the seller cant do anything, its the developer. seller and buyer beware original developers

5. SPE on Monday, Mar 8th at 05:20:PM said...

Helena,

Depending upon the size of your mortgage, you could save a lot of money by refinancing from 6.5% to 5.75%. Now, that said, 5.75% is not a particularly good rate at the moment but that would be entirely dependent on your credit rating, LTV, etc (I am closing on a REFI this week at 5.175% with no closing cost or points, but I have a FICO score of 800+). I would recommend that you find a local mortgage broker (one recommended by someone you trust) and ask them to provide an evaluation of your situation.

For illustration: A $150,000 mortgage at 6.5% would have a payment of $950, or so. A $150,000 mortgage at 5.75% would have a payment of $875. That is a potential savings of $75 per month ($900 per year)! Just be very careful about how much money you must pay "out-of-pocket" in order to REFI. Divide that total amount by the monthly savings to see how long it will take to pay for itself (in months).

6. George on Monday, Mar 8th at 08:34:PM said...

Where is this going to stop, its going to open a pandoras box for others to do the same. How about buying a new car and have to pay the dealer every time you sell? .
Ilike to get paid commission every time i sell a home and then every time after some one else sales it, what an Idea.

IT SHOULD NEVER NEVER BE ALLOWED , IT COULD SNOWBALL IN TO OTHER SALES.

7. Tom on Wednesday, Mar 10th at 07:28:AM said...

Actually, this is a real benefit to buyers in new neighborhoods. The first homebuyer pays ALL the cost for roads, utilities, etc even though they may only live in the house a few years. Heck, my son's utility taxes are $200 a month. This allows developers to spread the cost of these items out over the useful life of the property.

8. dennis r. ferree on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:25:PM said...

This is just another legal way of robbing people of their hard earned money, and this has to stoppppppppppp

9. Tom on Monday, Mar 8th at 03:06:PM said...

If enough people would tell the builder "I will mot buy this house unless you remove this rip off reseller tax" then they will have to remove it or not sell it. Since there are more houses out there than carter has liver pills, I think the consumers can nip this one in the bud. Be sure you have a good lawyer to look for stuff like this. Remember, screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me. You do not have to buy a house, you choose to buy a house. Negotiate accordingly. If they say no, move on. Some builder will give in if he is desperate enough and has more houses than money.

10. john david on Monday, Mar 8th at 05:15:PM said...

it's kind of like the credit companies now charging a fee to pay off your balance every month or jacking your rates up to the utmost, all these people are doing is trying to squeeze the people that can least afford it.

11. Gary Busby on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:29:PM said...

Can anyone tell me is this rip off is going on in all ststes?

12. Brian Janzig on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:45:PM said...

It is legal since each buyer signs the agreements, usually begrudgingly. They give into the blackmail because they want the property.
The way to stop this is either make it illegal or write lots of articles informing as many people as possible of their scheme and encouraging people to NEVER buy a piece of property with this fee attached. Tell the developers you absolutely will not buy unless they take it out of the contract.
That will devalue every property with this ridiculous fee.

13. Brad on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:51:PM said...

What a great country we live in. Developers can now reach into the future and take more money for something they've already sold. How about car dealers getting their fair share. I think every time clothes are donated to Goodwill the manufacturers should get a tax break.... not the people who bought them and are donating them.
Ah, America.... you've done it again!

14. FuzzyWuzzy on Monday, Mar 8th at 02:52:PM said...

Here we go again. This whole country is becoming like a giant snake feeding on itself.

15. Mary Brown on Tuesday, Mar 9th at 06:55:PM said...

Sound the alarm! The Obama administration should make this process illegal. Once a home is purchased no one should have to pay an extra fee just to sell it simply because the builder, who is long forgotten, wants to make more money! Wall street and the business community has received far too much latitude! This is a no brainer and should be illegal! HELP!

16. Susan on Monday, Mar 8th at 04:42:PM said...

Alert Obama! Are you kidding? He'd triple the fees and add more!

17. DukeNukem on Saturday, Mar 13th at 12:37:PM said...

Susan - It's not Obama. Remember, he's just a puppet on a string. It's Geitner (only because he's the current currency goat), Pelosi (just because she's so fabulously funny) and down stream senate and house reps that need their head torqued a bit. If perhaps the banks had not been feeding them with pocket money to do as they wish, we wouldn't have had the money problems we currently have or these little "fees" for developers, or all these things that are making the American public so happy with their elected officials. We need to purge the house and senate of the money grubbers first before real change can be made.(and there is no need to prosecute either political party, just both of them!)

18. tracy on Monday, Mar 8th at 03:08:PM said...

this sounds alot like what has been happening in the UK for hundreds of years now, you buy a house but its actually considered a 99 year lease as the house officially still belongs to someone else.. not exactly sure what the details are or how it works but I know enough to know it happens.

I think this is rather a silly idea as I sure know I would never purchase a house that has any sort of lien on it when I can purchase one from another builder or an older home that has no such lien. Developers can try this, but the public sure doesnt have to buy their homes. Resale on places like that would be so much harder. It would become a selling point.. no 99 year lean.

19. Sandra on Monday, Mar 8th at 09:12:PM said...

Builders reading this: listen up. You won't get away with it. May as well not even start.

20. Amanda on Monday, Mar 8th at 03:17:PM said...

Thats why you need to read the fine print. If your not reading it then you have no one else to blame for it happening to you. I've bought 2 homes and sold one in the last 2 years (relocated due to husbands job) and we read every page and what ever we didnt understand we high lighted and called our realtor and a legal rep and asked questions. If you dont do your own reasrch then you have no one to blame but your self for getting screwed on something. We are fully aware that people are trying to scame in every which way possible. So why wouldnt you read the fine print?? or every page?? We read all the fine print before we sign anything for any reason (credit card, house, cars, investments, time share etc) and guess what I'm 26 years with a great credit score, all our bills are paid off on time, never have late fees and have low APRs on the credit cards we do have as well as our house. Its honestly worth the 30 min or how ever long it takes to read the legal terms on everything your about to do.

102 Comments / 6 Pages

 

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog post. First-time comment? Enter your name and e-mail address, and you'll receive an email confirming your comment and issuing you a password. Your name will be displayed with your comment, but your email address will not. To create additional comments, use that same password. Comments may contain up to three live links; line breaks and paragraphs will automatically be converted to HTML.

Poll

Rob Hahn asked, now you get to answer: What is your attitude towards owning a home vs. renting longterm?
Owning a home is still a great way to invest for the long term - it's still at the center of the American Dream9126 (66.2%)
Ownership can be overrated. It's better to rent long term than extend yourself financially just for the sake of owning a home.4659 (33.8%)

Most Popular Stories

Follow Us

Local Homes for Sale