April 22, 2011
Mark Weisleder
More people are trying to sell their homes by themselves, either through sale by owner systems or by using an agent to post their information onto the MLS system for a fee and then not using the agent for anything else. One question is whether these private sellers can take advantage of the many bidding wars, especially in the Toronto area, that are diving selling prices above asking. Private sellers wonder whether they can create the same atmosphere. I think the answer is no.
I suspect that sellers who successfully sold their home after a bidding war were represented by a real estate agent. Here’s why:
1.Agents have marketing strategies, designed to create excitement about a property. For example, a property may be advertised, but no offers considered until after a specific date, to let as people as possible see the home. This recently occurred at a home for sale at 30 Yorkshire Rd., in Toronto.
The property was listed for sale by Brenda Seymour of Sutton Group Heritage Realty on April 7, 2011. The offer price was $325,000. On the MLS system it said: “Offers gratefully accepted at 7 pm on April 11, 2011. Please register all offers by 5 pm. Deposit certified cheque/Bank Draft requested.
On April 11, 13 offers were received and the property sold that night for $360,000. Private sellers have a very difficult time creating this type of marketing demand.
2.Many agents will recommend home staging, to make the home appeal to the widest number of potential buyers. Private sellers often mistakenly believe that their own personal style and taste is enough.
3.When an agent handles the bidding, they have strict confidentiality requirements. No offer price can be shared with other buyers. There is an equal chance for buyers to succeed. A private seller does not have this obligation. They can show a buyer’s offer to anyone else. As a result, buyers are very wary of competing on this type of property.
4.An agent will often recommend that the seller sign a disclosure statement about the condition of the property or do a pre-listing home inspection and make the report available to interested buyers. This demonstrates integrity and assists in putting the buyers’ mind at ease that they will not discover problems with the home after closing. Private sellers are often told by their lawyers that they should not sign any type of disclosure statement about the condition of their properties as it might entangle them in litigation. What the lawyers don’t explain is that when you make no disclosure, buyers will not trust the seller and thus either shy away from the property or more importantly, offer less money. In addition, they will be hesitant to participate in any bidding war.
When you sell by yourself, you may in fact save money on real estate commission. Yet if your net price is less than what you could have received if the property was properly marketed, then is this really a good deal for you? What many sellers have always known is that when you use the right agent to sell your property, your chances of obtaining more money is much higher.
If you have sold a property by yourself and were successful in selling your property for over the asking price through a bidding war, I would like to hear from you and find out how you did it.
Also read:
Buying a home: 10 things to know
Is selling you home by yourself a good idea.
Mark Weisleder is a lawyer, author and speaker to the real estate industry. If you have any questions about real estate issues, email mark at mark@markweisleder.com
Showing posts with label Mark Weisleder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Weisleder. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
This tenant paid $400 to settle a dubious $1,050 charge
April 11, 2011
Mark Weisleder
An issue that comes up frequently is what are a tenant’s responsibilities, when they vacate a unit.
The law says tenants are responsible for ordinary cleanliness of their unit and any damage caused by their willful or negligent conduct. But a clause that says that a tenant must leave the apartment in “move-in condition,” which implies a greater level of cleanliness, will usually not be enforceable.
I received an email from Christina who rented an apartment in Barrie for three years. Her lease had a clause which said she had to leave the apartment “in a move-in condition” with a charge for cleaning (including fridge and stove) and/or damages incurred if applicable.
Christine lived there alone, had a steady job and did not have any pets or frequent guests. Before she left, she cleaned the apartment and took pictures. The landlord then sent her a bill for $1,050 for costs to repaint the apartment, to clean the carpets and for general cleaning. She didn’t pay and after 30 days, the landlord turned the file over to a collection agency, which started a small claims court action for the money. The credit bureaus were also notified, which damaged Christine’s credit rating although no claim had yet been proven.
Christine settled the matter with the collection agency for $400 in order to have her credit rating restored, although she did not feel she owed the money. In this case, without seeing pictures of the apartment on the day Christine left, it is hard to tell whether the landlord was justified, but in my opinion, they would have had a hard time proving this if it actually went to court. I can understand why Christine settled this case to be finished with the matter and restore her credit rating, but I feel that sometimes you need to stand up for your rights and fight. Many landlords request that tenants sign a form called a rental unit condition statement when they move into their apartment, so that both parties clearly agree on the condition of the apartment when the tenant moves in. The landlord will then refer back to this document when the tenant vacates to compare whether any new damage was done during the tenancy. I have no objection in principle to the use of this form. Think of the last time you rented a car. The company also checked the car with you to see whether there were any existing dents or scratches so that you understood that you would be responsible for anything that happened during your rental. If you are asked to sign this form, be very careful and detailed to make a note of every scratch in the hardwood, cracks in the tiles, stains in the carpet or sink and take pictures of the apartment when you move in as well. Make sure you test all of the appliances, faucets and electrical outlets. Then keep your copy in a safe place. This will protect you from any unwarranted claims for damages to your unit when you move out.
Mark Weisleder is a lawyer, author and speaker to the real estate industry. If you have any questions on landlord/tenant or real estate issues, send
them to mark@markweisleder.com
Mark Weisleder
An issue that comes up frequently is what are a tenant’s responsibilities, when they vacate a unit.
The law says tenants are responsible for ordinary cleanliness of their unit and any damage caused by their willful or negligent conduct. But a clause that says that a tenant must leave the apartment in “move-in condition,” which implies a greater level of cleanliness, will usually not be enforceable.
I received an email from Christina who rented an apartment in Barrie for three years. Her lease had a clause which said she had to leave the apartment “in a move-in condition” with a charge for cleaning (including fridge and stove) and/or damages incurred if applicable.
Christine lived there alone, had a steady job and did not have any pets or frequent guests. Before she left, she cleaned the apartment and took pictures. The landlord then sent her a bill for $1,050 for costs to repaint the apartment, to clean the carpets and for general cleaning. She didn’t pay and after 30 days, the landlord turned the file over to a collection agency, which started a small claims court action for the money. The credit bureaus were also notified, which damaged Christine’s credit rating although no claim had yet been proven.
Christine settled the matter with the collection agency for $400 in order to have her credit rating restored, although she did not feel she owed the money. In this case, without seeing pictures of the apartment on the day Christine left, it is hard to tell whether the landlord was justified, but in my opinion, they would have had a hard time proving this if it actually went to court. I can understand why Christine settled this case to be finished with the matter and restore her credit rating, but I feel that sometimes you need to stand up for your rights and fight. Many landlords request that tenants sign a form called a rental unit condition statement when they move into their apartment, so that both parties clearly agree on the condition of the apartment when the tenant moves in. The landlord will then refer back to this document when the tenant vacates to compare whether any new damage was done during the tenancy. I have no objection in principle to the use of this form. Think of the last time you rented a car. The company also checked the car with you to see whether there were any existing dents or scratches so that you understood that you would be responsible for anything that happened during your rental. If you are asked to sign this form, be very careful and detailed to make a note of every scratch in the hardwood, cracks in the tiles, stains in the carpet or sink and take pictures of the apartment when you move in as well. Make sure you test all of the appliances, faucets and electrical outlets. Then keep your copy in a safe place. This will protect you from any unwarranted claims for damages to your unit when you move out.
Mark Weisleder is a lawyer, author and speaker to the real estate industry. If you have any questions on landlord/tenant or real estate issues, send
them to mark@markweisleder.com
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Is it too hard to evict lousy tenants?
This is only one question answered by Mark Weisleder a trusted source of real estate information for Realtors. Check out Mark's interesting Blog.
Mark Weisleder is a lawyer who teaches many of the RECO and Ontario Real Estate Association courses. He also authors a weekly column in the Toronto Star on real estate issues..
Mark Weisleder is a lawyer who teaches many of the RECO and Ontario Real Estate Association courses. He also authors a weekly column in the Toronto Star on real estate issues..
Why rent increase rules may be an election issue
March 11, 2011
Mark Weisleder
Toronto MPP Cheri DiNovo wants to make changes to the way residential rents can be increased that will make it almost impossible for a landlord to raise the rent above the guidelines without the approval of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
DiNovo, who sits for the NDP in Parkdale-High Park, has introduced a private member’s bill that proposes three key changes to the existing law. As it stands now, a landlord can increase the rent by 0.7 per cent, or $7 for every $1,000 this year, in most cases. The landlord has to give you 90 days notice of the increase and it can only be increased once every 12 months.
There are some key exceptions to these rules:
• If the unit becomes vacant, the landlord can increase the rent as he wants as long as he find someone willing to pay it. This is why in some buildings, one apartment is rented for double than what a similar sized apartment is renting for in the same building.
• If the building was built after November 1, 1991, the rent can also be raised higher than the guideline, as long as the 90 days’ notice is given and it is at least 12 months after the prior rent was charged.
• If the landlord is providing a new service, such as parking or storage, then the landlord and tenant can agree to a fee for this service and it can be above the guideline; and
• A landlord can apply to the Board for an increase above the guideline if he can prove extraordinary increases in property taxes, utilities or if they make eligible capital improvements to the property.
Under Dinovo’s proposed Bill 112, things would change:
• Any building built after November 1, 1991 will also be required to comply with the rent guidelines;
• If a rental unit becomes vacant, the landlord must still use the prior rent as the basis for charging rent to any new tenant; and
• No rental increase can be made above the guideline based on an increase in utilities.
Here’s an example of how things can go.
In 2002, Marissa Price was paying rent of $179 per month. Her landlord raised the rent to $250 per month, without giving her 90 days’ notice. Two years later, Price applied to the Board for a return of the rent that she felt had been illegally charged,
In the original decision, the Board refused her application it came more than one year after the rent was increased. However, on appeal, the Ontario Divisional Court held that since it was proven that the required 90 days’ notice of rent increase was not given, then the increase was void to begin with, so Price could bring the application.
Even though the rental amounts in this case were relatively small, the principle is very important. It establishes a precedent where a tenant can challenge a rent increase even after the one year limitation period expires, in certain circumstances.
This case highlights the fact that anyone thinking about buying a rental property should make sure that:
• All rents have been lawfully increased;
• The 90 days’ notice has been given in each instance;
• Interest on all last month’s rent has been paid or added to the last month’s rent amount; and
• That the tenants have no existing claims against the landlord.
The buyer should ask for a signed statement from every tenant on the property confirming this.
Many landlord advocates argue that if this Bill 112 is passed into law, it will discourage new rental housing accommodation. This may also cause landlords to stop investing in their buildings, due to a limited ability to increase the rents if investments are made.
The City of Toronto has the highest concentration of tenants in the Province. Rest assured that the position of all political parties on the issue of how rents can be raised going forward is sure to become a key election issue in October, 2011.
Mark Weisleder
Toronto MPP Cheri DiNovo wants to make changes to the way residential rents can be increased that will make it almost impossible for a landlord to raise the rent above the guidelines without the approval of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
DiNovo, who sits for the NDP in Parkdale-High Park, has introduced a private member’s bill that proposes three key changes to the existing law. As it stands now, a landlord can increase the rent by 0.7 per cent, or $7 for every $1,000 this year, in most cases. The landlord has to give you 90 days notice of the increase and it can only be increased once every 12 months.
There are some key exceptions to these rules:
• If the unit becomes vacant, the landlord can increase the rent as he wants as long as he find someone willing to pay it. This is why in some buildings, one apartment is rented for double than what a similar sized apartment is renting for in the same building.
• If the building was built after November 1, 1991, the rent can also be raised higher than the guideline, as long as the 90 days’ notice is given and it is at least 12 months after the prior rent was charged.
• If the landlord is providing a new service, such as parking or storage, then the landlord and tenant can agree to a fee for this service and it can be above the guideline; and
• A landlord can apply to the Board for an increase above the guideline if he can prove extraordinary increases in property taxes, utilities or if they make eligible capital improvements to the property.
Under Dinovo’s proposed Bill 112, things would change:
• Any building built after November 1, 1991 will also be required to comply with the rent guidelines;
• If a rental unit becomes vacant, the landlord must still use the prior rent as the basis for charging rent to any new tenant; and
• No rental increase can be made above the guideline based on an increase in utilities.
Here’s an example of how things can go.
In 2002, Marissa Price was paying rent of $179 per month. Her landlord raised the rent to $250 per month, without giving her 90 days’ notice. Two years later, Price applied to the Board for a return of the rent that she felt had been illegally charged,
In the original decision, the Board refused her application it came more than one year after the rent was increased. However, on appeal, the Ontario Divisional Court held that since it was proven that the required 90 days’ notice of rent increase was not given, then the increase was void to begin with, so Price could bring the application.
Even though the rental amounts in this case were relatively small, the principle is very important. It establishes a precedent where a tenant can challenge a rent increase even after the one year limitation period expires, in certain circumstances.
This case highlights the fact that anyone thinking about buying a rental property should make sure that:
• All rents have been lawfully increased;
• The 90 days’ notice has been given in each instance;
• Interest on all last month’s rent has been paid or added to the last month’s rent amount; and
• That the tenants have no existing claims against the landlord.
The buyer should ask for a signed statement from every tenant on the property confirming this.
Many landlord advocates argue that if this Bill 112 is passed into law, it will discourage new rental housing accommodation. This may also cause landlords to stop investing in their buildings, due to a limited ability to increase the rents if investments are made.
The City of Toronto has the highest concentration of tenants in the Province. Rest assured that the position of all political parties on the issue of how rents can be raised going forward is sure to become a key election issue in October, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)