Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Edward Schenkel

Edward Schenkel has started 7 posts and replied 168 times.

Post: Ask An Attorney Anything About Real Estate Law

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199
Originally posted by @Remigio M.:
Originally posted by @Edward Schenkel:
Originally posted by @Remigio M.:

No problem I totally understand.
Here’s a copy of my original post

I have a question regarding purchasing at foreclosure sale. I know most properties around here have 2nd liens and 3rd liens but if it is the 1st lien holder that is brining the foreclosure action.
When it goes to sale what happens to other liens in CT? If I buy at the sale an I getting a lien free title? What about city tax and water liens that I believe are in a senior position to the first lender. Do those debts become assumed by me if I’m a buyer at the foreclosure sale?

I’m in a position to buy at foreclosure but just want clarity so I don’t screw up!

Thanks 
Remigio

 If I read your post correctly, you are asking about what if there are liens prior in right to the bank's mortgage foreclosing on the property? The answer is that if there is a lien prior in right to the foreclosing bank, and it goes to sale and you end up being the successful bidder, you will take title with the liens that were prior in right. In other words, if there is a tax lien prior in right to the bank, you are taking title with that tax lien. 

Ed, thanks for the reply.

I'm clear on the order and priority of liens. I also know that when the Committee conducts the foreclosure sale, there is usually language around the "liens not being foreclosed".

Assuming those other liens aren't Tax/Water liens that would be in prior right to the first mortgage, what happens to those?

Do those liens become unsecured junior liens, with no rights/claims to the property? My understanding is that normally the 2nd lien would have to make the senior lien whole to preserve it's rights, which I don't see happening in properties without even enough equity to satisfy the first lien/mortgage debt.

Based on your response it sounds like I'm taking title without any of those liens, but want to double check. Is there anything that I need to do to ensure I won't have a problem when I need to convey title upon resale? I just want to factor any quiet or other title work I may need to do when purchasing a house at foreclosure.

Thanks,

Remigio

 @Remigio M: Perhaps you can give me a call to discuss the details as I am not quite clear on your question. However, if there is a lien that is prior in right to the mortgage (appears on the title search as being recorded prior to the mortgage being recorded), those liens will remain after the foreclosure sale auction (or strict foreclosure if there is no equity). Only liens that are subsequent in right (recorded after the mortgage was recorded) will be "foreclosed out" so to speak. In other words, those liens subsequent to the mortgage are extinguished after the foreclosure judgment has been entered and the foreclosure is finalized. 

Usually, if they are somewhat recent, they are on the judicial website. However, you are correct - sometimes a recent case does not appear on the website. This could be for several reasons. Error of the court clerk. Someone filed a motion to seal. Or alien intervention. Who knows!?

Post: Ask An Attorney Anything About Real Estate Law

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199

Here is a legal issue that I have seen come up in property management. Let us say you own a two family house in Connecticut. Obviously, in Connecticut it snows during the winter. A client has asked me before whether it better to ask my tenants shovel the driveway and walkways (and offer a slight discount on rent) or should I hire a company to do it myself to make sure it gets done properly?

There are pros and cons to each choice but from a liability standpoint, if you can have your tenants be responsible for shoveling the driveway / walkways, you have a better argument that you should not be liable for any slip and falls that occur on the driveways and walkways. The tenant was responsible for shoveling so if he slips and falls, it is his fault for not shoveling. Of course, clever lawyers can always make clever arguments why the landlord could still be liable, but if the tenant has the responsibility of shoveling the driveway and walkways, you have some more protection as the landlord. 

Of course, another layer of protection is that if you defined the leased area to include the driveway and walkway, you can also argue these areas were leased to the tenants and the landlord did not have possession and control over these areas. I had a previous post about this. 

As discussed by many others, holding the property in a LLC is also smart so that if there is a lawsuit, the maximum exposure is what the LLC owns - the house.

It is not uncommon for the snow removal to be the landlord's responsibility. The positive is that you are in control and you can make sure it is done right and hopefully prevent and injuries that a lazy tenant may cause if he doesn't timely shovel. So the big positive is that you maintain control. But since it is your responsibility, you are going to be on the hook if it is not done properly and someone gets hurt. 

If, as landlord, you do take responsibility for the snow removal and contract it out to a snow removal company, be sure to use a very good and reputable company. If you can, get a contract with the snow removal company and see whether you can get an indemnification provision in there so that if someone does slip and fall, the snow removal company will pay your legal fees if you are dragged into the lawsuit (which you likely will be if the slip and fall occurs on your property!).

I hope this tip is useful!

Regards,

Ed Schenkel, Esq. 

Post: Ask An Attorney Anything About Real Estate Law

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199

Happy Friday everyone. Is anyone interested in hearing a lease tip? Perhaps a tip on legal issues to watch out for when buying foreclosures? Let me know what you want to hear!

Regards,

Ed Schenkel, Esq.

Post: Attorneys and CPAs for Self-directed IRAs in CT

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199
Originally posted by @Bryan Dorsey:

My partner and I are considering converting our traditional IRAs to self-directed IRAs to help fund our real estate ventures moving forward. Anybody in CT have experience with this, or know of any good attorneys or CPAs that could provide guidance on the process and what the potential benefits will be?

Thanks.

 @Ted Lanzaro could be of assistance. He specializes in accounting / tax solutions for real estate investors. 

Post: Investing in brick multifamilies

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199

Is there any disadvantages / advantages to investing in brick multifamilies v. the more traditional types of multifamilies? I am wondering about maintenance, value over time, etc.

Post: Ask An Attorney Anything About Real Estate Law

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199
Originally posted by @Mat O'Grady:

@Edward Schenkel

Do you know of any cases or have you ever sued a seller for specific performance? 

@Mat O'Grady: I have a lot of experience litigating these types of things including claims for specific performance. If you would like to talk about this in more detail, feel free to give me a call. My number is in my profile.

Ed

Post: Ask An Attorney Anything About Real Estate Law

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199

Hey guys, someone posted a great question in a different forum about what type of agreements between owners and neighbors or owners and tenants are binding on future owners. It is a great legal question. I think it would be beneficial to copy and paste here so here it is:

Originally posted by @Edward Schenkel:

Originally posted by @Filipe Pereira:
Originally posted by @Gretchen Place:

We are closing on a duplex in the next few days. When I called to switch utilities to my name I discovered that apparently the duplex shares a water and sewer meter with a neighbor. The meter is on the property I am under contract for so it didn't show up on the inspection. A search of public records shows that the seller sold the neighboring house 11 years ago, and I discovered there is some agreement in place, but the seller has not produced the agreement, and I have no idea what the agreement could be. The utility company wouldn't tell me who pays the bill. The contract states the seller should disclose off-record items. He did not. The title company is not aware of this agreement, nor is our lender. It is a deal breaker, but I do not want to loose earnest money. Am I under an obligation to honor an agreement the previous owner made?

I think you have a pretty reasonable case here to walk away without losing your EMD, especially if the seller knew about this and chose not to disclose - that alone should suffice. However, I am not an attorney, and try not to play one either.

Perhaps @Edward Schenkel can help here.

@Gretchen Place and @Filipe Pereira, this is a good question. As mentioned in an earlier response, certain types of agreements "run with the land" and certain types of agreements are personal in nature. Agreements that run with the land are binding on future owners, and typically consist of things like easements, leases, covenants, and so forth. For example, if there is an easement that gives your neighbor the right use your driveway, typically the next owner of your home will also be required to allow your neighbor to use your driveway. Also, another legal term from "running with the land" is "touching and concerning the land."

If the agreement does not run with the land, it is considered personal in nature and is not binding on any future land owner and is only binding on the parties that enter into the agreement. For example, if you have a contract with the plow guy down the street to shovel your driveway each winter, this is generally personal in nature and will not be binding on the family you sell your home too.

With that being said, the question you ask is really - how do you tell if an agreement runs with the land (such as a driveway easement) or is personal in nature (such as the plow guy contract to shovel snow)? There is a test, and it might vary slightly state to state, but it really depends on the intention of the parties, the nature of the agreement, and how it impacts the property's value. Here is an excerpt (edited slightly by me) from an Appellate Court case in Connecticut that discusses the test:

"If an agreement is personal, it cannot be said to have run with the land and thus cannot have bound the future grantee....For purposes of the distinction between real covenants (running with the land, or touching and concerning the land) and personal covenants, a covenant may run with the land or may be a matter between only the purchaser and grantor. If the covenant does not touch or concern the occupation or enjoyment of land, it is the personal obligation of the grantor or lessor and does not run with the land. 21 C.J.S. 359–60, Covenants § 32 (2006). A covenant that touches and concerns the land can be one that either calls for doing either physical things to the land, or refraining from doing physical things to the land. 21 C.J.S., supra, p. 359. Whether a promise with respect to the use of the land is real (runs with the land) as compared with personal depends upon the intent of the parties and the promise, to be determined in light of the circumstances. If it touches the land to the extent it materially affects the value of that land, it is generally to be interpreted as a covenant that runs with the land. A covenant in a deed which restrains the use to which the land may be put in the future as well as in the present which might very well affect its value, touches and concerns the land..."

As you can see, it is fact specific but generally the court looks to the intention of the parties, the impact of the agreement on future use, and whether it impacts the value of the property. With that said, I do not think there is any clear answer to your question whether the utility agreement runs with the land or is personal in nature, but typically these types of agreements are more akin to a maintenance agreement and are personal in nature and do not run with the land. You should try to review a copy of the agreement before the closing. For example, if the agreement says that it is the intention of both parties for this agreement to run with the land, then there is an argument it does. As stated earlier, agreements that run with the land are typically recorded (or perfected, is the legal term) and some states may have requirements that something must be recorded to run with the land. In Connecticut, although that is the general rule, there are some exceptions, so it is not a set in stone requirement.

I think if the utility agreement is not a deal breaker then you should proceed with the closing. If you can, perhaps try to get an indemnity agreement from the seller saying that the agreement is personal in nature, and will indemnify and hold you harmless if in fact you try to terminate the agreement with the neighbor and the neighbor will not allow you to claiming it runs with the land. If you cannot get this, then it is your call whether to proceed with the closing (and this may or may not be grounds to get out of the contract - ask your lawyer) but it sounds like it will not be a deal breaker. I also agree with a previous post that a credit is another option to consider.

I think this is a great question generally - what type of things run with the land and do not run with the land. This post will hopefully educate the biggerpockets community on this issue and I hope it was helpful. If anyone has any follow up questions, let me know.

Originally posted by @Silas Avilez:

Hello everyone,

I will soon be making my way back to Connecticut after my time of service in the military and will begin real estate investing outside of North Carolina.  I am writing this post to connect with any investors in Connecticut looking to talk about the local market, share knowledge, or even have a partnership for anyone looking to tackle this market together.  Feel free to PM me or even shoot me an email (easiest way to contact).  Thanks!

-Silas

 @Silas Avilez, feel free to hit me up for legal questions re real estate in CT. I started a good forum here too. 

Ed

Post: Ask An Attorney Anything About Real Estate Law

Edward SchenkelPosted
  • Attorney
  • Norwalk, CT
  • Posts 179
  • Votes 199
Originally posted by @Remigio M.:

No problem I totally understand.
Here’s a copy of my original post

I have a question regarding purchasing at foreclosure sale. I know most properties around here have 2nd liens and 3rd liens but if it is the 1st lien holder that is brining the foreclosure action.
When it goes to sale what happens to other liens in CT? If I buy at the sale an I getting a lien free title? What about city tax and water liens that I believe are in a senior position to the first lender. Do those debts become assumed by me if I’m a buyer at the foreclosure sale?

I’m in a position to buy at foreclosure but just want clarity so I don’t screw up!

Thanks 
Remigio

 If I read your post correctly, you are asking about what if there are liens prior in right to the bank's mortgage foreclosing on the property? The answer is that if there is a lien prior in right to the foreclosing bank, and it goes to sale and you end up being the successful bidder, you will take title with the liens that were prior in right. In other words, if there is a tax lien prior in right to the bank, you are taking title with that tax lien.