"Owning" and "Renting Property/House

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by teguy, Dec 5, 2004.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Billy T

    Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    In Maryland, at least 20+ years ago, Land and houses were sold at public auction when a few years of un-paid taxes had accumulated. Usually for price greater than the total tax due, if house was desirable or land alone was. There were a lot of costs, ads in some news papers, the auction company fees, etc. so the owned was badly damaged in many cases as only got what was left over. The buyer of the house got a clean title, as part of the reason for many weeks of newspaper announcement was to surface any home secured loans etc. However, the former owner had year in which he could buy his old house back from the new owner for price paid by new owner (plus interest set by law, I think) so new owner would be wise not to repair / improve house in the first year.

    I went to a few auctions, after first looking at the property soon coming up for public sale, and got the impression at the auctions, that many real estate people were "regulars" - knew each other, etc. so concluded if I did bid and buy anything, it was almost surely a bad deal with problems. I.e. I never bid on any thing, in part as you had to have certified check for something like a 1/3 of the price - County, officially doing the sale did not want to do it again soon just because some "dead beat" had given the highest bid and his check bounced.
     
    Billy T, Sep 17, 2013
    #21

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    @teguy
    If you are a tenant, you never own the property legally.
    On the other hand, people who have a long lease on a property commonly talk of owning their home,
    and no-one would contradict them.

    Renting land to build your own house.
    Then you would own the house, but not the land.
    Never heard of this in the UK for housing, but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be legal here.
    I think it is used for mining.
    Not a good idea for the lessee unless the lease of land is for longer than the probable life of the house.
    A great deal for the lessor, as they can lease the same land many times.
    The contract may put you to extra expense when it finishes,
    say if there is a clause making you restore the land to its original condition.

    Did you read this article about leasing on wiki?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lease
     
    Captain Kremmen, Sep 17, 2013
    #22

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus

    Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,401
    It is not uncommon in the UK for developers to only lease the land that they subsequently develop. Land is often owned by the state, or an estate, and the owners might not wish to give up full ownership of the land, but also don't expect to ever use it themselves in their lifetime and don't want to develop it themselves. So they lease the land, for 50, 100+ years or so, and the developer builds the housing.
    As long as the development remains profitable, such land-leases are usually renewed, but when the developer (and subsequent owners) sell those properties, they do so only with a fixed term remaining on the land-lease, which nearer the expiry date greatly reduces the sell-on value of the property.

    It's not common, I don't think, for private individuals to lease land for development, but rather they prefer to buy it outright, and so anything they build is wholly in their own control.
     
    Sarkus, Sep 17, 2013
    #23

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    In the USA there are many mobile home parks. In some of them the resident owns the land on which his mobile home is located, but in others all the land belongs to an owner (usually a corporation or a partnership because most individuals don't have enough money to own that much land--some of them are utterly gigantic with hundreds of lots) and the resident pays rent while owning the actual mobile home.

    It's a cliché that the parks that feature resident ownership are nicer than the ones in which residents pay rent. It's the usual rationale: People take better care of something that belongs to them than of something that belongs to someone else.

    Mobile homes fall under a special section of the law, since they have wheels and are, at least theoretically, indeed mobile. They are licensed as vehicles and generally the taxes are lower than on a "real" house. Many of them are constructed as well as or better than "stick houses," although they tend not to be quite as well insulated so energy costs may be higher.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Sep 18, 2013
    #24
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page