In the not so distant past, the typical homebuyer was a married couple. But today, there’s a huge increase in the number of unmarried couples who are buying a home together.

It might not sound very romantic, but it’s a good idea for such couples to think about what their financial obligations will be regarding the home, and what would happen if they were to split up at some point in the future.

For instance, you might want to consider signing a “cohabitation” or “domestic partner” agreement. This is a legally binding document that says who will pay what portion of the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, maintenance and other house-related expenses. It can also say what will happen to the property if you and your partner decide to go your separate ways.

Another way to protect yourself is to understand the different forms of property ownership. For instance, if you own real estate as “joint tenants,” then you each own 50% of the property. You can’t leave the property to someone in your will; if you die, your share of the property automatically goes to your partner.

[Read more...]

Starting October 1, 2011, large home mortgages on expensive houses are harder to get – because the U.S. government is trying to gradually play less of a role in the mortgage market.

Currently, government-related entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee or purchase the majority of home mortgages in the U.S. Lenders are much more willing to provide mortgages if they know the loan can be backed by these entities.

However, the U.S. doesn’t guarantee all mortgages – it only backs mortgages that meet certain criteria. In particular, there’s a size limit to how large a mortgage it will guarantee. That limit varies based on how expensive the housing market is in a particular area. Early this year, the limit was up to $729,750 in the country’s priciest markets.

But the government is eager to play less of a role in the mortgage arena. And one way to do that is to reduce its backing of the most expensive mortgages. So as of October 1, the government is reducing the maximum size of a mortgage that it will guarantee.

[Read more...]

A man agreed to buy a house on the Rhode Island coast for $1.2 million. He wrote a deposit check for $120,000, and signed a contract saying it was a cash deal and wasn’t contingent on his being able to arrange financing.

However, the man told the seller that he needed some time to deposit the $120,000 in his account, and asked that the check not be cashed right away.

The seller verbally agreed. After 12 days, though, the seller signed the contract and deposited the check. It bounced.

The buyer then told the seller that he had changed his mind and was walking away from the deal.

The seller sued the buyer for $120,000. A Rhode Island appeals court sided with the seller.

[Read more...]

If you’re involved in the sale or lease of commercial real estate in Rhode Island, very often you’ll be asked to sign a “letter of intent.” A letter of intent isn’t a formal lease or purchase agreement; rather, it’s a signed statement that the parties plan to negotiate a deal later that involves certain elements.

Because a letter of intent doesn’t seem like a contract – it seems more like a simple handshake acknowledgement that the parties hope to hammer out a formal agreement later – some people sign them without giving them a great deal of care.

This can be a mistake. Letters of intent are contracts in themselves, and can have serious consequences.

[Read more...]

A Rhode Island man agreed to buy a $4.5 million house, and put down a $400,000 deposit. The agreement said that the buyer had a right to conduct a radon test, and to cancel the deal if the results showed radon readings above a certain level.

The radon readings came back above that level. The sellers agreed to lower the price and to install a radon remediation system. However, while the radon system improved matters, some readings continued to be above the level in the contract.

The buyer canceled the deal and demanded his $400,000 back.

As long as a contract gave a buyer a right to cancel, his real reason for doing so was irrelevant.

The sellers, however, claimed that the buyer was acting in bad faith. They said he had told them that he wasn’t concerned about the radon, and that the “real” reason he wanted to cancel was that his wife had changed her mind and wanted to move to Connecticut.

[Read more...]