All Forum Posts by: Andy B.

I was going to start a thread titled "I'm Andy, Andy, Andy!" but I don't think it would be as good.

(sorry, just thought it was funny that your name is Rich and you were posting about being rich -- I did enjoy the post though)

That is really the reason for my post -- I have heard this guy's story from multiple groups and almost everyone thought he actually owned the house for $16. People were even talking about going out and doing it themselves. All because the media reported it as "fact" and blasted the story out in all the hype and glory available to the media outlets. Then the follow-up (like the article I posted) is just simply printed and never gets any traction.

Just to give the rest of this story (in case anyone was thinking of trying this) - the guy lost the house and there are people being prosecuted for trying this stunt.

From the AP:
FLOWER MOUND, Texas (AP) — After paying $16 to file a one-page claim to an empty, $340,000 home in an upscale Dallas suburb, Kenneth Robinson moved in furniture, hung a "No Trespassing" sign in the front window and invited television cameras inside for a tour.

He quickly turned into something of a local celebrity, creating a website, http://16dollarhouse.com , where he sold an e-book and offered training sessions for would-be squatters. And while real estate experts and authorities say he's misusing the law, Robinson appears to have inspired dozens of imitators who moved into Dallas-Fort Worth area homes — some of which were still occupied by their owners.

But Robinson's time in the house ran out Monday.

Bank of America wants possession after foreclosing on the home last month, and a judge on Monday gave Robinson until Feb. 13 to appeal or move out. Rather than wait to be evicted, Robinson slipped out before sunrise Monday, skipped a morning court hearing and refused to say where he was moving next.

"It's been a huge learning experience," he said in a phone call with reporters.

Robinson hasn't been charged with a crime but police said they responded to several calls from his neighbors.

On his website, Robinson describes himself as a savvy investor who's part of a "paradigm shift" in which people have taken over abandoned homes. Last June, under a law known as adverse possession, he filed a claim in court promising to pay taxes and homeowners' association fees while living in the house. He kept the lawn outside mowed, and the front clean.

Robinson spoke to The Associated Press last week while standing at the front door of the two-story, 3,200-square-foot home with a backyard pool. He declined to discuss his background or say how much money he made from book sales or seminars related to his takeover.

He said he started his website — which describes him as "poised, measured, insightful and wise" — to keep the media and others from misleading the public about his story.

"They think some bum off the street came and paid $15 to get a $300,000 house by filing a piece of paperwork," Robinson said. "That is not the case. That is the sum of what happened."

Robinson's website says he's not a lawyer and isn't offering legal advice but has done real estate research.

Real estate experts say he's got the law just plain wrong.

Adverse possession statutes can be found in most states, said Brian C. Rider, a real estate lawyer and professor at the University of Texas. Someone who has openly taken charge of abandoned land for an extended period of time — using a driveway on a neighbor's property, for example — could try to claim that land later, he said.

But it takes a long time to establish those rights, typically 10 years in Texas. Until then, anyone trying to stake claim to a piece of property owned by someone else is just a squatter, Rider said.

Arlington, Texas real estate attorney Grey Pierson said the law is often used to resolve disputes between homeowners over driveways, lawns or other property with shared boundaries — not to take someone's house.

It's not clear how long the home was empty before Robinson moved in. Its last owner, William Ferguson, bought the house for $332,000 in 2005 and appeared to run into trouble making payments about three years later, according to county records. Ferguson did not have a listed phone number, and the records don't indicate where he moved.

County clerks in North Texas said they have seen such a spike in adverse possession filings that they've stopped accepting the claims without prosecutors' approval. In a handful of cases, squatters entered homes that weren't abandoned, but left empty for a few days.

"We just had people making bad decisions, taking a portion of the law and applying it in a way that was not legal," Tarrant County clerk Mary Louise Garcia said.

In one case, an Arlington travel nurse came home in September to find her locks changed and two TVs missing, according to a police report. Authorities say Anthony Brown came to the front door and told her that he had claimed the home and she was trespassing.

When the nurse asked Brown for his paperwork, he offered to return the home for $2,000, police said. Brown, who was arrested in October, does not have an attorney listed and did not respond to messages left on his cellphone.

County constable Clint Burgess said authorities have interviewed a handful of people claiming "adverse possession" who said they spoke to Robinson. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Robinson attended a December eviction hearing for two charged with burglary. Robinson said then he was attending to show support for the couple.

He says now that he doesn't want to be an example to others.

"The truth is I don't want people to think that they should go out there and do anything based on what I did," he said last week.

This sounds shady to me.

The problem with a quit claim deed is that it doesn't give any protection. A quit claim basically says "I'm selling you whatever I own, but I am not stating that I own anything in particular".

So, this guy will sell you whatever he owns (which could be nothing since the bank now owns it). Also, if the bank is gone, the "assets" of that bank went somewhere - government or another bank or whatever - so they have the rights to the property.

If you want to do the deal, you would need to do a lot of background research to be certain you are actually buying something of value.

just my $0.02

if it is a 1 bedroom place, it is not that likely that you will be getting a family with small kids. You might check with other landlords in this area to see if they are getting young children living in 1 bedroom places.

That being said, I think a shower is sufficient (it might help weed out the single mother with an infant as well - which I understand are some of the most likely to not pay rent). The extra expense will not greatly increase the renter pool for a 1 bedroom, so I do not think you will recover that expense.

I have had good results from the bait stations (used various types). To be effective, you have to find the "trail" of ants and put the station in the trail.

Also, when you find a trail, spray it with Windex or some other solution. The way my exterminator explained it is that the ants leave a scent along the trail which is how they find their way back and this spray will eliminate the scent and the ants will search somewhere else.

Also, try to figure out what they are going to -- it is usally water or food. Check for a leak of some sort that may be attracting them or for food left out. Eliminate this and they won't come back.

I agree - don't do a quit claim. A warranty deed and a quit claim take the same amount of time to prepare and the warranty deed does not come with title issues that could hold up a future sale.

According to the Seller, there have been no issues - they claim they didn't even know it was a flood zone. The owner that died lived in the house since it was built (1968 if I remember correctly - don't have the listing in front of me).

Also, looking at the property, I just don't feel concerned about flooding - maybe it is because of the drought here currently, but the creek is bone dry and it really doesn't look like it carries much water in normal times. But that is just my opinion.

I am trying to come up with a purchase offer for an estate sale house that happens to be in a flood zone. The neighborhood has a small creek that runs through a portion and happens to be in the back yard of the subject house. The problem is that there is a flood zone along this creek and it only impacts 5 or 6 houses, so none of my comps are in the zone.

Of course, I would get an elevation survey to see if the structure was actually in the zone, but I am pretty certain it is. So, how do I account for the zone and its impact on re-sale?

For numbers -- the ARV in the neighborhood is $160,000; rehab is $50,000; and holding costs will be about $15,000. So, without the flood zone, I would want my offer to be in the $75,000 range but I assume that should be reduced to account for the less desirable flood zone status (unless having a creek in the back yard makes the place more desirable?).

Also, according to the FEMA website, the flood insurance is estimated to be around $1600 per year.

Should I just take that $1600 and deduct it from the mortgage to determine what a buyer would want to pay - sort of use the "what is the total monthly payment" idea or is there another way to factor in flood zone impact? Or should I just pass altogether since a flood zone house will be difficult to sell?

Thanks for the advice.

I don't have enough info to give a full detailed answer (one very important bit of info - is the lease covering 100% of the building or is this a shopping center with multiple tenants?) and Jon and Kevin have covered much of it anyway, but in answer to your specific questions:

1. Normally a Tenant in a commercial space is required to repair all aspects of the space itself. This is usually looked at as a good thing since the Tenant will repair the A/C rather than sending notice to Landlord and waiting for Landlord to get around to it (but I usually deal with national tenants who have dedicated repair departments).

2. My clients usually get 5 year leases and sometimes 10 year leases. It all depends on the parties involved, so I would not say that any particular lease term is "standard" - I have seen anything from one month to 20 years.

3. Most likely the lease is requiring property insurance (this will cover Tenant's fixtures and personal property -- Landlord should be carrying property insurance on the structure, unless Tenant is occupying 100% of the building) and liability insurance (this covers slip and fall accidents and other similar problems). This is standard and I would not want to do business with a Tenant that did not carry both of these. Of course, the amount of the policy is negotiable, but I usually see requirements of $2,000,000 for liability and 100% of replacement value for property.

4. Heirs becoming liable under the lease is not standard and I would never agree to it. Of course I deal almost exclusively with corporate entities so this is not an issue for me, but when I have seen it, it almost always says that death of the Tenant results in termination of the lease. As a Landlord, I would not want heirs to take over the lease - I would only want the tenant I researched to be in control of my property.