ignorance, judgment, neighbors

[Usmcsousa]

SO my wife and I bought our first MH finally!
But first lets rewind.
About a year and a half ago, we bought our first home, 2000 square ft absolutely beautiful in a quite dead end neighborhood.
I knew then i wanted two things, a flag pole to fly my usmc and american flag and a large enough driveway for a class a.
Our "wonderful " neighbors have been great up until recently.
A few months ago, i pulled our new used 34 foot gem up to our home and like with any new toy, began making it ours, wash wax rip out the old, put in the new ect.
Not even 4 hours into my endeavor, this 200+ year old lady from waaay down the road( not visible from our property ) walked up to my driveway to kindly explain to me that there are restrictive covenants in our neighborhood. Which my realtor neglected to inform us of.
She came back the next day with a print out, sure enough, no flag poles, no motorhomes, amongst 140 other ridiculous restrictions.
About a week later i moved my mh off of MY property and into storage. Even though. We have NO hoa and 3/4s of the neighborhood are not in compliance with the covenants.
I recently found a facebook page of our neighborhood where i read a lot of nasty comments from about 4 select neighbors of which I've never met, calling us trailer trash and scum, putting their childrens safety at risk ect.
I was shocked to say the least, not One of these folks actually spoke to us about their concerns, just blasted my character over the internet.
Am i crazy for wanting to sell my $200,000+ home to go live in my MH with the friendliest "trailer trash" people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting throughout our short RV'ing travels?

[wny_pat1]

There are lots of communities with neighborhoods that have covenants on home deeds, that are illegal under federal law in this day and age. The new deeds will usually say "subject to covenants of record, excluding those that are prohibited by current law". These are often covenants dealing with discrimination of given race, ethnicity, religion or social class. Once on a deed, they have to remain there until remove by a court of law.

[SolidAxleDurang]

JALLEN4 wrote:

Daveinet wrote:

SolidAxleDurango wrote:
HOWEVER, the lender is not interested in covenants. They are only interested in title chain and claims to the title.

I would disagree on this. My lender was very interested - interested in knowing I was aware of them. Since the lender retains the title, the lender is ultimately responsible for what happens on the property. They are 100% liable for any fines levied. The only reason you end up being liable is because the lender pays the fine and then goes after you. They do not want any hassle related to the property, as ultimately it costs them money and time going after you.

I think you will find you are a bit confused. The lender does not "retain" the title, they file lien on the title. They are not "100% responsible" for any fines levied on the property. Those "in title" are responsible for the fines. If in fact the person or persons in title never pay the fines, the Association can file a lien also. Clear title cannot be given to a subsequent buyer unless the lien is discharged or settled.

J, I agree with you.

Additionally.. I am repeatedly amazed at the "facts" that get passed around on this forum... Oh well...

[Old-Biscuit]

Executive wrote:

Mr.Mark wrote:

Executive wrote:
The point of my comment was in a "Short Sale" many "SHORT CUTS" are allowed. Most short sales are sold as is, in its current condition, with no guarantees, warranties or caveats of any kind...speaking strictly from California experience ..YMMV....Dennis

Dennis, with all due respect, a short sale does not mean the new owner can't follow the CC&R's of a community. I'm a board member or our California based homeowner's Association and we had to force a sale of a homeowner who was behind on his dues (3yrs.). The home is now owned by the Assc. We are hoping the mortgage co. will foreclose on us so that they will be responsible for the fees and maintenance. A short sale doesn't release the new owner of honoring the CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).

MM.

I apologize.. I wasn't referring to CC&Rs. I was simply stating that in a Short Sale situation, the new "Buyer" doesn't always get the same stuff he/she would get in a conventional sale. The title search is not as comprehensive as it is in a conventional sale.....Dennis

Except when it's VA Loan.
They want everything twice, three times with all i's dotted and t's crossed at least twice.

Wish OP would post what TITLE Company has to say about the 'documents'????????

[Executive45]

Mr.Mark wrote:

Executive wrote:
The point of my comment was in a "Short Sale" many "SHORT CUTS" are allowed. Most short sales are sold as is, in its current condition, with no guarantees, warranties or caveats of any kind...speaking strictly from California experience ..YMMV....Dennis

Dennis, with all due respect, a short sale does not mean the new owner can't follow the CC&R's of a community. I'm a board member or our California based homeowner's Association and we had to force a sale of a homeowner who was behind on his dues (3yrs.). The home is now owned by the Assc. We are hoping the mortgage co. will foreclose on us so that they will be responsible for the fees and maintenance. A short sale doesn't release the new owner of honoring the CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).

MM.

I apologize.. I wasn't referring to CC&Rs. I was simply stating that in a Short Sale situation, the new "Buyer" doesn't always get the same stuff he/she would get in a conventional sale. The title search is not as comprehensive as it is in a conventional sale.....Dennis

[JALLEN4]

Daveinet wrote:

SolidAxleDurango wrote:
HOWEVER, the lender is not interested in covenants. They are only interested in title chain and claims to the title.

I would disagree on this. My lender was very interested - interested in knowing I was aware of them. Since the lender retains the title, the lender is ultimately responsible for what happens on the property. They are 100% liable for any fines levied. The only reason you end up being liable is because the lender pays the fine and then goes after you. They do not want any hassle related to the property, as ultimately it costs them money and time going after you.

I think you will find you are a bit confused. The lender does not "retain" the title, they file lien on the title. They are not "100% responsible" for any fines levied on the property. Those "in title" are responsible for the fines. If in fact the person or persons in title never pay the fines, the Association can file a lien also. Clear title cannot be given to a subsequent buyer unless the lien is discharged or settled.

[Mr_Mark1]

redsb3 wrote:

Mr.Mark wrote:

Executive wrote:
The point of my comment was in a "Short Sale" many "SHORT CUTS" are allowed. Most short sales are sold as is, in its current condition, with no guarantees, warranties or caveats of any kind...speaking strictly from California experience ..YMMV....Dennis

Dennis, with all due respect, a short sale does not mean the new owner can't follow the CC&R's of a community. I'm a board member or our California based homeowner's Association and we had to force a sale of a homeowner who was behind on his dues (3yrs.). The home is now owned by the Assc. We are hoping the mortgage co. will foreclose on us so that they will be responsible for the fees and maintenance. A short sale doesn't release the new owner of honoring the CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).

MM.

You might want to rethink that foreclosure. Here in AZ, the mortgage company, (bank or otherwise) won't pay the fees or maintain the property, in fact, they usually turn the utilities off and have the property winterized. Not much you can do to force them to pay up either, their pockets are a lot deeper than any associations. We have had to deal with 3 abandoned and then foreclosed on houses, all a stones throw from my house. If it is owned by the association, why not try and sell it?

Banks are required to pay in California (at least in our assc.). They are responsible for the property due to the CC&R's, that's why we have them. We have three foreclosures that are fully maintained by the bank because it's their legal responsibility and they are up to date on the fees. These particular homes are $2M, $3M and $5M dollar property's.

The home that the assc. owns will be sold if the bank doesn't foreclose. The owner is still in the house and has a court order to leave which will happen soon. The courts move slow. Our assc. can afford to keep the house and maintain if needed but hopefully the mortgage company will take over soon.

MM.

[redsb3]

Mr.Mark wrote:

Executive wrote:
The point of my comment was in a "Short Sale" many "SHORT CUTS" are allowed. Most short sales are sold as is, in its current condition, with no guarantees, warranties or caveats of any kind...speaking strictly from California experience ..YMMV....Dennis

Dennis, with all due respect, a short sale does not mean the new owner can't follow the CC&R's of a community. I'm a board member or our California based homeowner's Association and we had to force a sale of a homeowner who was behind on his dues (3yrs.). The home is now owned by the Assc. We are hoping the mortgage co. will foreclose on us so that they will be responsible for the fees and maintenance. A short sale doesn't release the new owner of honoring the CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).

MM.

You might want to rethink that foreclosure. Here in AZ, the mortgage company, (bank or otherwise) won't pay the fees or maintain the property, in fact, they usually turn the utilities off and have the property winterized. Not much you can do to force them to pay up either, their pockets are a lot deeper than any associations. We have had to deal with 3 abandoned and then foreclosed on houses, all a stones throw from my house. If it is owned by the association, why not try and sell it?

[Mr_Mark1]

Executive wrote:
The point of my comment was in a "Short Sale" many "SHORT CUTS" are allowed. Most short sales are sold as is, in its current condition, with no guarantees, warranties or caveats of any kind...speaking strictly from California experience ..YMMV....Dennis

Dennis, with all due respect, a short sale does not mean the new owner can't follow the CC&R's of a community. I'm a board member or our California based homeowner's Association and we had to force a sale of a homeowner who was behind on his dues (3yrs.). The home is now owned by the Assc. We are hoping the mortgage co. will foreclose on us so that they will be responsible for the fees and maintenance. A short sale doesn't release the new owner of honoring the CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).

MM.

[Executive45]

The point of my comment was in a "Short Sale" many "SHORT CUTS" are allowed. Most short sales are sold as is, in its current condition, with no guarantees, warranties or caveats of any kind...speaking strickly from California experience ..YMMV....Dennis

[Francesca_Knowl]

Sully2 wrote:



So whats a "short sale"??

In simplest terms, it's a sale of a property where the proceeds are likely to fall "short" of the money that's already owed on it. It's usually done to forestall an imminent foreclosure, though sometimes can be the result of one.

Sounds like the O.P. bought in at the right time from somebody else who bought in at the wrong time.

[Sully2]

Executive wrote:

Francesca Knowles wrote:
HEADS UP- THE O.P.HAS POSTED A CLARIFIER!
See quote below

Restrictive covenants begun in 2006 to run with the land for 25 years with a possible 5 year extension...

Shoulda turned up in the Title search: go after the Title Insurance company, O.P.!

Assuming of course you bought Title Insurance-?

Did you miss the part where he bought the home "SHORT SALE" ..:h...
different rules apply to short sales.....Dennis

So whats a "short sale"??

[Daveinet]

SolidAxleDurango wrote:
HOWEVER, the lender is not interested in covenants. They are only interested in title chain and claims to the title.

I would disagree on this. My lender was very interested - interested in knowing I was aware of them. Since the lender retains the title, the lender is ultimately responsible for what happens on the property. They are 100% liable for any fines levied. The only reason you end up being liable is because the lender pays the fine and then goes after you. They do not want any hassle related to the property, as ultimately it costs them money and time going after you.

[SolidAxleDurang]

Francesca Knowles wrote:

SolidAxleDurango wrote:

I guarantee a title search was required by the lender.

HOWEVER, the lender is not interested in covenants. They are only interested in title chain and claims to the title.

A lender would certainly examine the Title for any encumbrances that may affect the lender's interest- restrictive Covenants may/may not do so.

That's not the same thing as a full search, and it certainly doesn't mean that Insurance is purchased in behalf/name/benefit of the borrower.

That protection has to be purchased by the buyer, and in that transaction the full Title search conducted is meant to turn up ALL encumbrances affecting the property's Title, and that includes restrictions on its use.

You are correct. My statement was just to reiterate that a title search was done... And as you point out, title insurance was likely required to be purchased by the lender....

However I don't agree that the lender would have examined covenants as it relates to specific allowed use (beyond applicability to single family residence)... And if they discovered covenants, that they would line them out to the borrower at closing..

As with all products/items being purchased (regardless of size or value) It's up to the buyer to determine if the item being purchased is suitable for its intended use.

Some buyers (ok, more like too many buyers) do not understand this, and they get caught off guard after the fact.

More than once, I have written into the contract, a contingency based upon my review and acceptance of any restrictions (my actions must be completed prior yo closing of course)...

[Francesca_Knowl]

SolidAxleDurango wrote:

I guarantee a title search was required by the lender.

HOWEVER, the lender is not interested in covenants. They are only interested in title chain and claims to the title.

A lender would certainly examine the Title for any encumbrances that may affect the lender's interest- restrictive Covenants may/may not do so.

That's not the same thing as a full search, and it certainly doesn't mean that Insurance is purchased in behalf/name/benefit of the borrower.

That protection has to be purchased by the buyer, and in that transaction the full Title search conducted is meant to turn up ALL encumbrances affecting the property's Title, and that includes restrictions on its use.