To the occupant, “Land Contracts” are probably the most rent-like alternatives to actual rent.
I would draw a big target on institutional investors, by jacking property taxes through the roof, while issuing “homestead” exemptions to owner occupants. As soon as we do that, every landlord (who doesn’t live on the property) is going to get hit with a massive tax bill…
OR
… they are going to find some way to make their “tenant” qualify as the “owner”.
Here’s where “Land Contracts” come in. These are a form of seller financing. They are recorded by the county, much like a deed. The “buyer” is considered the owner.
With a land contract, you pay a fixed monthly payment, much like a mortgage. That payment normally doesn’t change for the life of the contract: You aren’t going to face a steep rent hike every year.
For the first three years, you are free to walk away from the property, just like leaving a rental. Ownership simply reverts to the seller.
After three years, your previous payments are considered the “down payment” on the property. The contract converts to a traditional mortgage. You continue to make the same payments, but now, you have equity in the home.
So, you can get the short-term flexibility of renting, but if you realize you’ve settled down, you’re already well on your way to ownership.
Landlords get a way to claim that the property is occupied by the “owner”, and avoid the massive tax hike.
Adopting this, the only properties that will remain “for rent” will be the spare units in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, where the landlord occupies one of the units.
Land Contracts and Contracts for Deed aren’t considered mortgages so they lack tax incentives as well as legal protections for buyers and sellers, but yes I do agree that a long term contract beats a monthly rental agreement in terms of locking in a rate.
Sometimes you can get trapped in a contract that would disqualify all your payments up to that point if it doesn’t have terms about cashing in your equity unless you pay the full amount due via selling to a third party or getting a bank loan with which you can repay via renting or selling your property like some sort of sick landlord carousel.
I definitely don’t know if I would “recommend” this route for people who aren’t well-learned in matters of real estate, if they do go this route then I absolutely insist they have a trustworthy attorney act as intermediary for the transaction.
To the occupant, “Land Contracts” are probably the most rent-like alternatives to actual rent.
I would draw a big target on institutional investors, by jacking property taxes through the roof, while issuing “homestead” exemptions to owner occupants. As soon as we do that, every landlord (who doesn’t live on the property) is going to get hit with a massive tax bill…
OR
… they are going to find some way to make their “tenant” qualify as the “owner”.
Here’s where “Land Contracts” come in. These are a form of seller financing. They are recorded by the county, much like a deed. The “buyer” is considered the owner.
With a land contract, you pay a fixed monthly payment, much like a mortgage. That payment normally doesn’t change for the life of the contract: You aren’t going to face a steep rent hike every year.
For the first three years, you are free to walk away from the property, just like leaving a rental. Ownership simply reverts to the seller.
After three years, your previous payments are considered the “down payment” on the property. The contract converts to a traditional mortgage. You continue to make the same payments, but now, you have equity in the home.
So, you can get the short-term flexibility of renting, but if you realize you’ve settled down, you’re already well on your way to ownership.
Landlords get a way to claim that the property is occupied by the “owner”, and avoid the massive tax hike.
Adopting this, the only properties that will remain “for rent” will be the spare units in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, where the landlord occupies one of the units.
Land Contracts and Contracts for Deed aren’t considered mortgages so they lack tax incentives as well as legal protections for buyers and sellers, but yes I do agree that a long term contract beats a monthly rental agreement in terms of locking in a rate.
Sometimes you can get trapped in a contract that would disqualify all your payments up to that point if it doesn’t have terms about cashing in your equity unless you pay the full amount due via selling to a third party or getting a bank loan with which you can repay via renting or selling your property like some sort of sick landlord carousel.
I definitely don’t know if I would “recommend” this route for people who aren’t well-learned in matters of real estate, if they do go this route then I absolutely insist they have a trustworthy attorney act as intermediary for the transaction.
Thank you for expanding this discussion.