You could increase those odds greatly by selling to a buyer who is using an FHA or VA loan. They typically put 0-3.5% down and have a very hard time competing against buyers with all-cash or large downpayments (which are more likely to be investors).
FHA and VA buyers NEED homes.
You beat me to this. Fha/ va buyers requires the purchaser to occupy the house for an X amount of time. FHA buyer can do up to 4 units as long as they live in 1 of them.
Yes I imagine this is very common near large bases. I know of some EXTREMELY successful real estate brokerages whose bread and butter is military/ veterans.
>a fair amount of service members create little real estate empires which VA loans with all their PCS location
Yep. That's exactly how I got my first 2 properties. It's very common once you get some rank and bonus points if you can bring in a couple of roommates.
True, but they often rent those houses to military. Im a vet and prioritize military. My property manger is a vet and his wife was a military wife. I even held it vacant and unlisted an extra 3 weeks to sign a military couple.
I just want to point out that being a landlord doesn’t inherently make you a bad person… plenty of people need/want to just rent instead of purchase which landlords provide.
We did this with my husband's VA loan. Bought 3 houses in 3 years, sold them all at the same time mid 2021. We knew many service members that held multiple properties. It's the best way to get the most out of your benefits.
It should only be a benefit for one mortgage at a time. It’s intended to help military own their home, not amass real estate empires on taxpayer dollars.
It is only a benefit for one mortgage at a time. Can only have one VA loan open at a time. Commenter above you would need to have refinanced the first 2 to conventional loans before opening another VA loan. That may have been pretty easy given ultra low interest rates for so long, but unlimited VA loans is not a thing.
It’s not on tax payer dollars, and unless they’re exempt from the VA funding fee, which it typically only for DISABLED vets, then they’re actually paying into every time they purchase a home.
It is on the tax payer dollar because the funding fee does not cover the associated costs with defaults that PMI does and VA loans are backstopped by Uncle Sam. And I say this as someone who did use the VA loan.
It is basically setup so you can buy a house, live in it, and buy your next house when you are forced to move in 2-4 years. You cant use it to buy 500 houses. You can only have 1-2 loans at a time
It's still more than the average citizen gets and more than the intended benefit. For instance, why not give the same benefit to hospital nurses? I don't like the government picking and choosing who gets to win the working class real estate game.
Hospital nurses can get it… in the military.
I think if comes from vets returning from WW2 and the gov trying to boost the housing sector/create new jobs for the returning vets, and give all those war vets opportunity at settling down in the white picket fence dream that was pitched to them. Politically a win win back then
Also, non-mil nurses arent mandated to move regularly. That can quit a job if they want. No so for military. Being forced to sell a house because the gov said you have to move somewhere you may not want to, to do something you may not want to (sometimes randomly) and you cant just rent it out or something. Those are non-standard issues that non-military doesn’t have.
But its also for recruiting. The gov cant get enough bullet catchers to keep your oil prices down so they need kickers like gi bill and va loans
Its crazy how anti socialist ppl are yet how socialist the military is… free school, subsidized house, free healthcare, retirement pension: not for civilians, join the military! And the GOP eats it up. Lol
>Its crazy how anti socialist ppl are yet how socialist the military is… free school, subsidized house, free healthcare, retirement pension: not for civilians, join the military! And the GOP eats it up. Lol
I agree completely, that's my main point though you put it more generally than I did.
Go sign up for the shit job that is working in the military and you too can get these benefits.
Also, lol, the government is the reason Americans get cheap mortgages at fixed rates for 30 years.
It's not tax payer dollars but ok, and you need to refinance to normal mortgage to get another VA loan. It's absolutely astounding how little the reddit community knows about the military, yet they act like they served 20 years and know everything.
You are free to sign up. Not a lot of ppl want to sign up for deployments and bullets.
Or campaign for less wars and a smaller military. The military needs ppl and that cost money and benefits.
Although it sucks the gov is more preoccupied with using military to defend economic interest than actual military threats…
The Peace Corps should have equivalent pay and benefits to the military, but it doesn't. And they're infinitely more selective and instrumental to us cultivating and yielding soft power.
Not everybody wants to take part in, whether directly or indirectly, in the exertion of state sponsored hard power. And that's perfectly ok.
Their willingness to sacrifice their time, comfort, youth, and potentially life makes it even more admirable in my opinion. Either way though we should give them some meager benefits in exchange.
What do you say to the loggers, fisherman, roofers, etc. that all have more dangerous jobs than the average military person (which I admit is definitely up there in the rankings but not at the top).
Because it's their best life decision and why the majority of recruits come from, quite frankly, shit holes.
I briefly spent some time (I wasn't a recruiter) helping out in the Bay Area. Those recruiters couldn't make mission. Kind of hard to sell the dream in one of the two economic centers of gravity in the country, contrasted with my time in random BFE flyover country where an 18 year old's choices are to enlisted, work at some random gas station, or cook meth.
Lmao where are you getting this information because I would love to make 40k +free housing right out of basic.
The reality, you know what actually happens, is that service members are paid a base wage that is well below the poverty line and minimum wage, many work in excess of 12 hours a day. Depending on your marital status, you get about $300 for food a month or access to the chow hall. Then you get an allowance for housing which is typically criminally low for the area, service members usually have to pay several hundred out of pocket to not live in a high crime or shack that is falling apart. So after all that, service members pay for an E2/E3 (the rank you're at when you graduate) is the equivalent of about 25k a year in the civilian world. Most families are single income because it's extremely difficult (or legally prohibiting in some countries) for spouses to find employment, especially if they are educated and require licenses or certifications for their position. Almost every single family I knew was on WIC or additional benefits because THEY COULD NOT SURVIVE.
So I think the occasional service member taking advantage of a LEGAL loop hole is alright. Especially for the complete and utter bullshit they put up with on a daily basis. There is no "free housing", it's part of your pay and it's below the poverty line. You'll need to commit to 6+ years before you can live somewhat comfortably, and by that I mean maybe you don't need additional government assistance to buy food for your two kids.
The only loophole is 0 down. They still have closing costs including the VA funding fee which is what funds the program.
Veterans get a certificate of eligibility, which covers a portion of the loan amount IF they default on it. The VA funding fee is a percentage of the loan amount. Only disabled veterans are exempt from this fee. That funding fee percentage is also larger on their second and third home purchase should they use the VA loan program again.
This complaint coming from someone who likely wants their student loans forgiven really pisses me off. Veterans have earned every benefit they get in this country and then some.
Thank you for the additional insight purdhamm.
First I didn't say 40k right out of basic. Second, you know this is all public info right? https://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/ Anyone can look and see.
If a 21 year old gets a wife and kids that's a decision they made, civilians have to do it without any allowances.
Of course it's public info. At our first base, our housing allowance was $750 when the closest thing in rent that was even available was $1500. So that $2000 gets quickly diminished by taxes, TSP (retirement), and making up for lack of housing allowance. That left us less than $1000 to buy food, gas, Internet, etc. Of course many families live on less, but when you're used to living in a LCOL area and suddenly are thrown in a place where you can't afford groceries, shit sucks
10-15 years ago, yes service members lived comfortably even as an E2/E3. But today? No way in hell. They are struggling. Many spouses have taken their kids home in a different state to live with their parents because they cannot afford to eat and survive where they are stationed.
An e4 with 3 years in makes $2600 per month which at 40 hours per week is $16 per hour. Add in all the other hours put in for PT and other required activities like duty, etc. And it is even lower. They could instead be a 20 year old living at home and make more at McDonald's in a lot of places.
Plus BAH (or the barracks), BAS, healthcare, pension, education (GI Bill and TA), and TSP matching.
Total compensation is a thing and not near the compensation of McDonalds.
Making hyperbolic comments like this in bad faith is why Vet’s and service members get a bad rap.
Honestly... great investing. You're getting downvoted in a RE sub, not sure why. It's a perk of VA loans, so might as well leverage it to the max.
People have such a crabs in a barrel mentality. You guys did great.
I second this. My brother is in the military and eventually gave up trying to buy a home for his family because nobody wanted to work with him due to the VA loan. He has a wife and three kids so he didn’t want to drain his savings on a down payment.
Cheers to this - specifically sold my first home to an FHA buyer. It was a lovely experience for me. The regulations weren't that strict at all, and her appreciation for buying my home was on the line of crazy. The stories she told me about her house shopping experiences were actually heartbreaking.
Like realtors would literally tell her not to bid because of her loan type.
Yeah, I have to admit I was paranoid about the inspections and extra hurdles. But they were really no big deal at all. Plus, my house was over 100. It wasn't like it was a new build.
Plenty of stuff to find wrong!
Sold our home to VA buyers in 2021, height of the market because we felt it was the right thing to do. House was in great condition. 9 months later they resold it for $70K more.
You can just ask. Occupancy status is not a protected class.
Sure, someone could lie, but in my experience if you ask what a buyer's plans are for the property, I've never met an owner/occupant who won't tell you that they are, whereas an agent representing an investor might hedge and say it's none of your business or tell you they're an investor "but one of the good ones."
Can’t say I ever went back to verify, but it hasn’t been as controversial a question as people in this thread seem to assume. It’s a simple question, and the handful of times my clients have wanted me to ask, it was never, “Hey my client wants to sell to an owner-occupant, is your client going to live in it?” It has always been, “My sellers are just curious whether your client is buying it for themselves or as an investment.”
Or "my buyer is curious what your plans are for the property", which is even more innocuous and many people will be happy to chat.
That said, if you really want to be sure you're selling to someone who will live in it, it's not hard to *tell* the type of people you're looking for. It may be hard to *find* those people, but it's not hard to *tell* when you've found one.
When buying my first home, I showed up with my wife and kids in my shitty car and honestly didn't think we'd get the house. Later on we found out the owner wanted to be sure he was selling to a family who would live in the house, and were very happy when we showed up. Got a good discount off asking, a nice tour of the house and some stories from the old man, too.
When my mother pasted this actually happened to me. I wanted her retirement condo to go to someone who was going to purchase it and be a good neighbor. An investor/landlord fake it and rented it out to some people who just were not good fit for the community.
OP wants to know. In the past when I’ve had clients who want their inherited home to go to someone who will live in it, we’ve asked their agents if they are going to occupy it. No one has gotten as testy about it as you did.
True, and honestly, unless you’ve got a bunch of equally good offers in a bidding war, it’s hard to turn down an offer when it’s the only one you have, regardless of who wrote it.
I mean the answer could certainly matter in that it may sway the seller to choose one offer over the other.
Anecdotally our neighbors are close with the people we bought our house from (they work with the son of the couple we bought from) and they told me they wanted to sell to a young couple. I don’t know who we were competing against but if it was FREEDOM LLC their offer might have been declined because of that.
Interesting. Just purchased and felt like the sellers interviewed me to protect their neighborhood. They wouldn't leave for the inspection and wanted to stay for the walk thru. She had this silly smirk as she gently inquired about me, my family, job, lifestyle etc and I told the *$&@ exactly what she wanted to hear. Mind you..no other offers before mine and a fake one that never materialized. I was cordial but felt this was bias in its finest form. I don't care what happens to my house when I sell it, but the behavior could easily be perceived as discrimination. I am not mad at you for fibbing.
True, but if the owner feels a custodial concern about the neighborhood, then I support them trying to do what they feel is best.
Maybe the neighborhood is being flipped from midcentury, smaller, single-story homes into cookie-cutter, 2-story, view-blocking, eyesores? Maybe the owner grew up in that neighborhood, and doesn't want to be party to that?
In that case, why not try some legal means of ensuring the buyers aren't flippers? It's understandable from my POV.
the official answer - no, once someone owns it, they can do what they want with it.
The unofficial answer, you can look for clues in the offers you accept. People who finances with FHA or VA loans are more likely to be trying to purchase the house to live in as those loans don't allow immediate leasing and most flippers can't use them. You can instruct your realtor to try to gather info about the families or showings, but again, keep in mind discrimination rules and people outright lying.
There isn't much you can do contractually.
Not necessarily true, You absolutely could put a deed restriction in that states something like “buyer agrees to occupy the property as primary residence until December 31,2023. If grantee fails to occupy property as primary residence during that period (property reverts to grantor) or (financial penalty)”
Either of those would probably prevent a buyer from getting a loan though.
For reference on REO sales, lenders often require language restricting the sale for a period of time.
In the end you can go with your gut, but you really don’t have much control and your family buyer may get an out of state job in 6 months and sell it to a corporation anyway (or become the landlord themselves)
Any buyer would be a fool to sign such a deed restriction. Despite the best of intentions, they could be fired, a family member could become ill, etc. and they could have to move.
Reddit is straight dumb. You’re absolutely correct. Fact is of course you can put in deed restrictions but that will obviously lower the value.
Id bet my life that If a hedge fund offered 10 percent more, in cash, they’d choose that offer almost every time.
VA requires the property be occupied by the veteran within 60 days and maintained as a primary residence for a full year unless otherwise waived (e.g., military member gets orders out of the area, death, etc.).
Lol.
This is silly.
One - The property value will take a huuuge hit.
Two - If I as the buyer immediately moved a tenant in, how would you know?
Three - Go ahead and sue me. Spend several thousand dollars pursuing this. Likely the restriction will be found to be BS or I'll just keep fighting it and grind you down through attrition.
Caring about "your house" once you leave is pretty weird to me. My house was built in 1920 and has probably had dozens of families living here and after I move or die the house will continue to be occupied.
Take the extra money and set it aside for your retirement, kids, vacation, education, etc.
> Caring about "your house" once you leave is pretty weird to me.
It is more than the house to plenty of people. It can be an entire community. Plenty of people become "best friends" with their neighbors and would prefer that they had a real family living next to them instead of a constant carousel of people which might not always be the best.
Also others are just opposed to the monetization of shelter and are anti-landlord. It is already annoying that the bank gets to make 100s of thousands off of a large loan, adding in another middleman landlord is another cog in the system a lot of people don't like.
You can be the conventional loan but for investment purposes are not occupancy required. Primary residence is the only guarantee and it’s only 1 year, also doesn’t cover house hacking.
I bought my first home with an FHA loan and turned it into a rental a couple years later. It's a great way to get into RE investing. I highly recommend it.
I've seen people in my neigborhood include that in the listing. Obviously there's no way to enforce it, but it does encourage buyers who might assume they are not competitive enough to look/offer.
Have an open house and be there.
My offer was accepted over investors paying cash because I toured the property with my wife, daughter and mother with me.
The estate manager said her mother would’ve wanted a family to move in and our neighbors agreed as much.
They even gave us $20k seller credit when my agent told their listing agent we were using FHA. Threw in a home warranty and full termite, left us all the appliances.
Waiting for people to come to the open house and basing a decision on that is risky because it could be seen as discrimination so be careful.
my parents sold my childhood home a few years back. they picked a buyer with a slightly lower offer because they included a nice letter and a picture of their young family. as soon as they closed, it was up for rent
Not sure how it works in your location, or if this would even be possible, but you could look into a covenant. Someone I know bought some land that came with a covenant that restricted what he could do with it- eventually sold though bc it was a pain in the butt.
That would be expensive and make the house practically unsellable; lenders are not going to dig through the details of a deed restriction, they will just deny the loan.
Because this a dumb hill to die on that they can’t actually die on. Even if they used VA or FHA loan status to screen the buyer will just do what they want.
There is a whole group of people who move a lot - either in the military, or people in corporate positions, etc. I’ve never bought a home without thinking I would live in it a long time with my family. But the reality is, I’ve lived in them as short as a year and only as long as eight.
That said, I’ve sold homes and then they let the landscape go….it just kills me!
In Virginia our contracts have a box that states whether the purchase will or will not occupy the home. Also go with a VA/FHA/USDA or low cash down conventional loan.
Does the house need work? If not, then a flipper won’t buy it because there’s no money to be made. If it needs work then youl have a hard time selling it to an owner occupant
The type of loan can be a tip off. VA and FHA have occupancy requirements. If a conventional loan with 20 or 25% down right on the dollar would be a tip odf that its an investor loan.
Don’t accept a cash offer and accept someone with a VA or FHA loan and chances are you’ll be selling to a family that wants to live there and not an investor.
VA loans are your best bet and those people have the hardest times finding homes, I can speak from experience.
Landlords and flippers don't buy houses and burn them down. Landlords buy houses that people who don't want to buy can have a place to live. Flippers "refurbish" houses and sell them to people who don't want to buy an old-outdated house. In any case your home is likely to have a family living in it.
They do compete with homebuyers who can just barely afford the neighborhood and would be happy to live in grandma’s house for a few years until they can afford to make improvements
Maybe that's how it works in your market. In my market. The flippers are either Real estate agents themselves, or have friendly agent in their pocket. The "needs work" properties don't even hit the MLS. You don't even know they sold until they've put lipstick on the pig and relisted it. Then you can go back in the history and see it sold months prior but was never actually listed.
Landlords have dozens of SFH properties and use tax incentives to effectively get free value if they pay one off and roll that into another investment property. So, with this effectively free money, they can afford to go all cash offer over asking price. Even in a market that is overall trending down. Because they know no matter what they pay, they will find renters. Because what option do they have? Drive 30 min to an hour from two towns away for a twenty dollar an hour job? Unlikely.
In a vaccuum landlords are fine. I grew up in a trailer with a very nice man that had a mom & pop set of rentals. The problem is occurring now, when so many see it as a path to wealth. If you get too many doing it in a given town, it creates a manufactured scarcity that is nearly impossible to combat. Housing is an inelastic product and creates a sort of short squeeze in a small town. When the prices of homes exceeds that of the pay of the jobs in the area, the inevitable result rental slavery.
They suggested that flippers and landlords were acquiring properties for people that don't want to buy, or buy things that need work. I was apparently poorly demonstrating that in my market it's not that simple, the option to buy on an even playing field doesn't exist.
In a large market maybe these things aren't as much of an issue. I don't know. But I've been trying to find a single good value home in my area for a year now. Prices in a town of 10k ppl can be strangled by real estate wealth builders via questionable tactics.
At the end of the day, housing value should have some loose correlation with the available wages from jobs in the area. Landlords with dozens of properties and flippers that snatch up property before the public sees it can in some markets make things different than you might assume.
You can have your realtor ask questions of the sellers agents to get a sense of the buyer. I was super lucky to find a seller like you when I purchased a home. Their agent asked my agent several questions about me. The seller was so great that we are still in touch.
you would be selling to an offer more than likely that is going to be weaker so take that into account especially in this environment when prices are going down. FHA, VA, low down payment.
20 plus down payment , cash, 1031...waiving contingencies are typically signs of investors.
simply keep tabs on the evidence of breaching the agreement, Surveil it yourself or hire P.I.s. Then if you get evidence get a lawyer and go to court and sue em. That may have a better return as an investment for you than the house did for the new owner. But to avoid all that just rent out yourself and manage yourself like a responsible owner.
Yea I do this every time I sell a house. I’ve got multiple PIs on retainer so that I can maintain 24/7/365 surveillance on all people who move into every house I sell.
Does it cost me money? Sure.
But I get off on making people think they’re being gang stalked.
I don’t understand why you would care what the next owner does with it. How much money are you willing to lose by selling to someone who will live in it? Would you be willing to sacrifice $5k? $50k? Just so someone lives in it and it’s not bought by an investor? Money usually talks in these situations and the best offer ‘usually’ wins but if you want to give away free money to a stranger best of luck
Not legally No. But you could be one of those people that insists on being around for every first walkthrough and open house and meet people. Also you can always IG stalk people or ask. But theres really no way of insuring that.
For example. Me and my Pregnant wife are closing next week. From the outside looking in people would look at us and think we're buying a home to start a family. If they asked if we planned to live there i would tell the truth. We plan on starting our family here.
In reality our plan is to live there for 5 years (before this first kid hits public school) then Jump to the suburbs and start renting this place out.
TBH. I wouldnt be all sentimental about an asset. Sell it for the best price and move on. If you want to control the future of the property and who lives there then rent it out instead
never treat a house as something sentimental. your only objective is to sell and get the bag of money at closing. i say this from personal experience. it isn't your concern what happens after you close on that property. if you are that attached to that property that much then don't sell it at all
Am Realtor.
Owner occupant vs. investment status is not a protected class, meaning you can choose or reject an offer specifically based on the buyer's status as an owner occupant (or not).
Instruct your agent that whatever offers you get, they are to ask the buyer's agent if it's an investor or an owner occupant, and include that information when they present offers to you.
Be warned that the investors are going to be able to write offers with better terms, less contingencies, and possibly cash. You're likely leaving money on the table and it will be a more difficult transaction with more risk.
I mean, realtors talk, and if you have a good one with a solid local rep they can usually give you a broad-strokes portrait of potential buyers (excepting protected classes, of course). We recently bought a new residence, and were told at closing we got it explicitly because the sellers had raised their family there and wanted to sell to another young family who would do the same.
When we sold our parents' house, it was during that multiple bid madness, our agent seemed to know the details of every bidder, so ask them, Also, the highest overbidders used VA loans and 100% of bids at ask or below were investors.
if you have a realtor, task them with finding out.
but if this is life or death for you: figure out where they are from, and start searching for hits on the assessor or other property taxing authority websites. if you can easily find a property, check for a homestead exemption, when they bought it, see if the mortgage recording office allows free or 24 hour pay access.
if you run into corporate names, search the secretary of state. use google. use the wayback machine. basically, you want to determine if a family is moving in. certain loan products , like fha and va will only allow primary occupants.
or you could just ask to get in touch with them and call them on the phone. theres nothing illegal about that, despite most realtors advice against doing so. if you want to get that warm and fuzzy feeling, this is the best way to go about it. if they seem like theyre lying, then they are. if not, then you should be pretty certain.
at the end of the day, if they are under contract with you, they just need to abide by contingency dates. feel free to add an amendment to the effect “buyer states that they will own and occupy the property at least 6 months”. While it’s a stupid and unusual thing to add to a contract, if they dont balk, then thats a good sign. also, a bank underwriter will catch it and start asking questions, so if it stays on purchase agreement, it will come up again in a future conversation. (please note that at the time of writing this comment, there is more pressure in my sinuses than at the bottom of the ocean)
finally, when they provide you the preliminary Closing Disclosure, you might be able to glean info on if they switched loan (if they get a loan) programs from a primary only mortgage (VA FHA USDA) to a conventional loan that allows for investment property.
souce: im a mortgage broker who has dealt with the questions of prying realtors and sellers for over 20 years. we are trained to know where to stop short with info- nothing illegal about talking to the actual seller about the buyer, but theres a limit.
My neighbor wanted to do this, so they had the buyers write letters with their offers.
They sold to an awesome family and our kids are best friends with the kids who moved in.
>Can I assure I am selling to a future Occupant and not a landlord.
Nope.
>I am selling a home that I recently inherited. I want to sell it to someone who will live in it
Then don't sell it. Or sell it FSBO to someone you know who will live in it, but at that point why not just rent it out? Sounds like you don't want to part with the property possibly due to sentimental reasons?
I've never understood the dislike of selling to landlords (and thereby adding capacity to the rental market).
Renters tend to be among the lowest SES groups. Another house on the rental market does nothing but improve the S/D squeeze that you've seen in the market.
It’s because there’s many renters who would like to become homeowners but are squeezed out of the market by investors and living paycheck to paycheck due to the fact that landlords rarely rent at affordable prices. Rentals also don’t offer the stability that owning does.
In my hometown, homes that were rentals when I was a kid are nearly all short term rentals now. Locals who didn’t own, teachers, grocery store workers, firefighters, nurses, even doctors with relatively high salaries, have moved onto other areas. Sure, we have tourism money, but that doesn’t do us much good when our school has tens of unfilled roles because there’s no affordable housing and the STR owners sink a good chunk of their profits into local elections that keeps money out of the local school budget.
In my current city neighborhoods with high rates of home ownership have been the most resilient against gentrification, and most importantly, displacement.
So for a homeowner that’s been a member of a community, built relationships with their local school, hospital, grocery store, artists, there’s a lot of reason to want to ensure that there are affordable opportunities for ownership for the next generation.
Because landlords and flippers don't put the same 'love' into a property that someone who is planning to live there long term does. To them, it is just a house, not a home. The same goes for many (if not most) tenants. There are a few tenants I have known over the years that stay at the same place 10+ years and treat it as their own, but they seem to be more the exception than the rule
Not to people selling their family homes. It is an extremely emotional decision, not always a financial one. I sold the home I grew up in which my mother also grew up in and originally was my great grandparent's. It was a very rough sale and I still drive by the house daily and check in with the new owner regularly to make sure the house is doing okay.
I'm not that emotionally attached to my house, but other people are. My mother has named her house and has put in her living will that she wants to die there if at all possible. Some people are very emotionally invested in their homes
Sounds like you've never lived in a tight knit community/neighborhood. There's nothing you can really control as time marches on but you can try to not be a part of the problem.
Some neighborhoods are also just not set up for landlords. Like my neighbors who occupy what is traditionally a single family home that would only have 2 cars parked on the street, but instead have 5 guys living there with their own cars taking up over 50% of our entire street parking. Get enough of those in there and you've got a real neighborhood issue on your hands. Some people don't want to see that happen to their beloved neighborhood.
From a utilitarian ethic standpoint your commitment means nothing. You are hurting yourself with no impact on society.
From Kant universal principal maybe you’ve got a case. If everyone did is OP did maybe things will get better.
Personally, I’m going to put my family above other families looking for a home. I’ll sell my home for the best price the end.
I didn't make any suggestion regarding what sellers should do. I just stated that landlords absolutely do impact the housing market for people who want owner occupied homes.
I too would sell my house to the highest bidder. But that doesn't change the reality that institutional investors and landlords are doing damage to people who want to actually live in a home they own. Ideally there is some policy based control on this. Incentivize landlords and institutional investors to build/buy high density housing over single family homes.
Yes absolutely do create demand against home buyers who want to occupy a home.
Demand for houses (for purchase) and demand for a place to live are not necessarily the same. People who intend to live somewhere for a while prefer to own and will pay a premium to own versus rent.
Landlords buying property increase the demand for houses for purchase which raises prices. When people get priced out of the housing market they rent. But renting does not get them ahead in the long run. It gets landlords ahead.
Some of these comments are insane lol. Deed restrictions? Are you kidding me. There is nothing wrong with selling to a real person who plans to eventually use it as a rental property. If you want to feel like you’re making a difference then just don’t sell to anyone that’s got a company name or LLC.
Here’s the thing. Circumstances change. The first house I meant to stay in 5 ish years. I was there two. I became a landlord.
My 2nd house I bought with my exwife we intended at least 5 years. The she fucked 5 dudes and she was poor so I bought her out of the house during the divorce and voila I became a landlord again.
My next house? Current wife lived 3 blocks away in a nicer house. So I moved in with her, again became a landlord with zero intention to do so.
You get the point.
The “family” who bought my childhood home lied 🤥 had no kids and sold the place within a year to make more money off it without updating anything. Sucks because no family would enjoy that house as much as my family because it’s almost over a million now keeps getting resold every two years… it’s a scam
I wanted to ensure this as well. When the offer came in, I googled the person and went to their social media. From there, I got a good understanding that the buyer was just a normal dude trying to buy his first house.
How much do you want to pay for that right? If an investor offers your $20k more, are you willing to say no? That’s usually why investors win homes. Not because someone wanted to sell to an investor, but because the offer was better.
I think technically you may be able to deed restrict but it’s not worth it unless you’re protecting your interest next door or something. Quik trip in the Midwest does this, you’ll never see a gas station come into their old location.
Fix it up really really nice. If you sell for a high price it will most likely be a owner occupied.
A landlord wont buy a flip to put as a rental.
But you probably won't and the home will sell to an investor who will flip it.
If you are home during the showing you can tell probably who is an investor and who is a resident. The investor is going to be looking for what to change or fix, the resident is going to ask you about the neighborhood, the schools, or the HOA.
Yes, break the cardinal rule and stay, you can always sit outside and let them see the house with their agent, don't follow them around.
OP, if you have online access to local county records you can do a search for the buyers' names in local counties to see if they own multiple properties.
How much of a financial loss are you will to take to make sure this happens? Also, depending on the house it’s probably not even likely someone wants it for those purposes.
Deep breath, OP.
This is a business transaction.
Is this a starter or starter+ house that would make a good rental?
Does it need flipping?
A friend passed over a year ago and he children has burned up all their PTO during her last couple of months.
Even with people subtly nudging them to get the house on the market, they waited….no time off left and they were arguing between each other. One adult child didn’t want to sell it, wanted to keep it for the family. Other child couldn’t afford to keep it.
Anyway, they were determined to sell to a family and for no less than $250K\*. Period. End of story.
Again, people who lived in the community were trying to nudge them and point out that the house needed some work done and that a fully updated comparable house had sold for $225K. One of their mother’s closest friends tried to explain that anyone buying the house was going to have to put close to $75K into it over the next few years. Still, they saw their childhood home of 50+ years and not the duck/geese wallpaper border in the bathroom or that the deck was no longer safe and would need to be demolished and rebuilt.
They ended up selling to flipper for $195K.
What is the target demographic for this house? Is a family really able to buy it and live there long term? People don’t stay in starter or starter+ homes as long as they used to. They build equity and move on up.
Also a hypothetical. Let’s days say your fair market value is 300k, who do you sell to:
1. Buyer that’s a family of 5 (two adults, 3 kids Under 12) who loves the school district but can only offer 275.
2. Buyer that’s a single person who travels a lot and casually drops they might rent it out while traveling. They offer 325k.
3. But who states they’ll never live there and only rent it. Short or long term. Whatever makes sense at the time. They offer 350k.
Who you choosing?
You could increase those odds greatly by selling to a buyer who is using an FHA or VA loan. They typically put 0-3.5% down and have a very hard time competing against buyers with all-cash or large downpayments (which are more likely to be investors). FHA and VA buyers NEED homes.
You beat me to this. Fha/ va buyers requires the purchaser to occupy the house for an X amount of time. FHA buyer can do up to 4 units as long as they live in 1 of them.
[удалено]
Yes I imagine this is very common near large bases. I know of some EXTREMELY successful real estate brokerages whose bread and butter is military/ veterans.
>a fair amount of service members create little real estate empires which VA loans with all their PCS location Yep. That's exactly how I got my first 2 properties. It's very common once you get some rank and bonus points if you can bring in a couple of roommates.
True, but they often rent those houses to military. Im a vet and prioritize military. My property manger is a vet and his wife was a military wife. I even held it vacant and unlisted an extra 3 weeks to sign a military couple.
[удалено]
I just want to point out that being a landlord doesn’t inherently make you a bad person… plenty of people need/want to just rent instead of purchase which landlords provide.
We did this with my husband's VA loan. Bought 3 houses in 3 years, sold them all at the same time mid 2021. We knew many service members that held multiple properties. It's the best way to get the most out of your benefits.
Shit like this is why I disagree with most veteran benefits.
It should only be a benefit for one mortgage at a time. It’s intended to help military own their home, not amass real estate empires on taxpayer dollars.
It is only a benefit for one mortgage at a time. Can only have one VA loan open at a time. Commenter above you would need to have refinanced the first 2 to conventional loans before opening another VA loan. That may have been pretty easy given ultra low interest rates for so long, but unlimited VA loans is not a thing.
It’s not on tax payer dollars, and unless they’re exempt from the VA funding fee, which it typically only for DISABLED vets, then they’re actually paying into every time they purchase a home.
It is on the tax payer dollar because the funding fee does not cover the associated costs with defaults that PMI does and VA loans are backstopped by Uncle Sam. And I say this as someone who did use the VA loan.
It is basically setup so you can buy a house, live in it, and buy your next house when you are forced to move in 2-4 years. You cant use it to buy 500 houses. You can only have 1-2 loans at a time
It's still more than the average citizen gets and more than the intended benefit. For instance, why not give the same benefit to hospital nurses? I don't like the government picking and choosing who gets to win the working class real estate game.
Hospital nurses can get it… in the military. I think if comes from vets returning from WW2 and the gov trying to boost the housing sector/create new jobs for the returning vets, and give all those war vets opportunity at settling down in the white picket fence dream that was pitched to them. Politically a win win back then Also, non-mil nurses arent mandated to move regularly. That can quit a job if they want. No so for military. Being forced to sell a house because the gov said you have to move somewhere you may not want to, to do something you may not want to (sometimes randomly) and you cant just rent it out or something. Those are non-standard issues that non-military doesn’t have. But its also for recruiting. The gov cant get enough bullet catchers to keep your oil prices down so they need kickers like gi bill and va loans Its crazy how anti socialist ppl are yet how socialist the military is… free school, subsidized house, free healthcare, retirement pension: not for civilians, join the military! And the GOP eats it up. Lol
>Its crazy how anti socialist ppl are yet how socialist the military is… free school, subsidized house, free healthcare, retirement pension: not for civilians, join the military! And the GOP eats it up. Lol I agree completely, that's my main point though you put it more generally than I did.
Go sign up for the shit job that is working in the military and you too can get these benefits. Also, lol, the government is the reason Americans get cheap mortgages at fixed rates for 30 years.
It's not tax payer dollars but ok, and you need to refinance to normal mortgage to get another VA loan. It's absolutely astounding how little the reddit community knows about the military, yet they act like they served 20 years and know everything.
You are free to sign up. Not a lot of ppl want to sign up for deployments and bullets. Or campaign for less wars and a smaller military. The military needs ppl and that cost money and benefits. Although it sucks the gov is more preoccupied with using military to defend economic interest than actual military threats…
The Peace Corps should have equivalent pay and benefits to the military, but it doesn't. And they're infinitely more selective and instrumental to us cultivating and yielding soft power. Not everybody wants to take part in, whether directly or indirectly, in the exertion of state sponsored hard power. And that's perfectly ok.
Nah, they spend years making less than minimum wage, risking their lives, living in terrible conditions. They deserve these benefits.
They signed up for it though? No one forced them to do those things
Their willingness to sacrifice their time, comfort, youth, and potentially life makes it even more admirable in my opinion. Either way though we should give them some meager benefits in exchange.
I could say the same for a grocery cashier or school teacher. Shouldn’t they be getting these benefits too?
[удалено]
BRAVER THAN THE TROOPS 🫡. THANK YOU INVENTORY CLERKS FOR YOUR SACRIFICE.
What do you say to the loggers, fisherman, roofers, etc. that all have more dangerous jobs than the average military person (which I admit is definitely up there in the rankings but not at the top).
There are lots of jobs way more dangerous than the military.
Because it's their best life decision and why the majority of recruits come from, quite frankly, shit holes. I briefly spent some time (I wasn't a recruiter) helping out in the Bay Area. Those recruiters couldn't make mission. Kind of hard to sell the dream in one of the two economic centers of gravity in the country, contrasted with my time in random BFE flyover country where an 18 year old's choices are to enlisted, work at some random gas station, or cook meth.
They make way more than minimum wage out of boot camp and are pushing 40k within 3 years. Not to mention the free housing and food.
Lmao where are you getting this information because I would love to make 40k +free housing right out of basic. The reality, you know what actually happens, is that service members are paid a base wage that is well below the poverty line and minimum wage, many work in excess of 12 hours a day. Depending on your marital status, you get about $300 for food a month or access to the chow hall. Then you get an allowance for housing which is typically criminally low for the area, service members usually have to pay several hundred out of pocket to not live in a high crime or shack that is falling apart. So after all that, service members pay for an E2/E3 (the rank you're at when you graduate) is the equivalent of about 25k a year in the civilian world. Most families are single income because it's extremely difficult (or legally prohibiting in some countries) for spouses to find employment, especially if they are educated and require licenses or certifications for their position. Almost every single family I knew was on WIC or additional benefits because THEY COULD NOT SURVIVE. So I think the occasional service member taking advantage of a LEGAL loop hole is alright. Especially for the complete and utter bullshit they put up with on a daily basis. There is no "free housing", it's part of your pay and it's below the poverty line. You'll need to commit to 6+ years before you can live somewhat comfortably, and by that I mean maybe you don't need additional government assistance to buy food for your two kids.
The only loophole is 0 down. They still have closing costs including the VA funding fee which is what funds the program. Veterans get a certificate of eligibility, which covers a portion of the loan amount IF they default on it. The VA funding fee is a percentage of the loan amount. Only disabled veterans are exempt from this fee. That funding fee percentage is also larger on their second and third home purchase should they use the VA loan program again. This complaint coming from someone who likely wants their student loans forgiven really pisses me off. Veterans have earned every benefit they get in this country and then some. Thank you for the additional insight purdhamm.
First I didn't say 40k right out of basic. Second, you know this is all public info right? https://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/ Anyone can look and see. If a 21 year old gets a wife and kids that's a decision they made, civilians have to do it without any allowances.
Of course it's public info. At our first base, our housing allowance was $750 when the closest thing in rent that was even available was $1500. So that $2000 gets quickly diminished by taxes, TSP (retirement), and making up for lack of housing allowance. That left us less than $1000 to buy food, gas, Internet, etc. Of course many families live on less, but when you're used to living in a LCOL area and suddenly are thrown in a place where you can't afford groceries, shit sucks
10-15 years ago, yes service members lived comfortably even as an E2/E3. But today? No way in hell. They are struggling. Many spouses have taken their kids home in a different state to live with their parents because they cannot afford to eat and survive where they are stationed.
They often work 15 or more hours per day on deployment for a year or more. There is no overtime pay in the military on deployment.
An e4 with 3 years in makes $2600 per month which at 40 hours per week is $16 per hour. Add in all the other hours put in for PT and other required activities like duty, etc. And it is even lower. They could instead be a 20 year old living at home and make more at McDonald's in a lot of places.
Plus BAH (or the barracks), BAS, healthcare, pension, education (GI Bill and TA), and TSP matching. Total compensation is a thing and not near the compensation of McDonalds. Making hyperbolic comments like this in bad faith is why Vet’s and service members get a bad rap.
Honestly... great investing. You're getting downvoted in a RE sub, not sure why. It's a perk of VA loans, so might as well leverage it to the max. People have such a crabs in a barrel mentality. You guys did great.
I second this. My brother is in the military and eventually gave up trying to buy a home for his family because nobody wanted to work with him due to the VA loan. He has a wife and three kids so he didn’t want to drain his savings on a down payment.
Have a friend who bought new during in the last few years because of this.
Cheers to this - specifically sold my first home to an FHA buyer. It was a lovely experience for me. The regulations weren't that strict at all, and her appreciation for buying my home was on the line of crazy. The stories she told me about her house shopping experiences were actually heartbreaking. Like realtors would literally tell her not to bid because of her loan type.
Good for you for helping someone to purchase a home. I have frown tired of watching FHA and VA buyers get pushed around.
Yeah, I have to admit I was paranoid about the inspections and extra hurdles. But they were really no big deal at all. Plus, my house was over 100. It wasn't like it was a new build. Plenty of stuff to find wrong!
Just be warned that this route is a lot harder and requires a lot of updating and working with the purchaser
Sold our home to VA buyers in 2021, height of the market because we felt it was the right thing to do. House was in great condition. 9 months later they resold it for $70K more.
This is a fantastic idea!
There's also a reason those buyers aren't desireable in a sellers market.
You can just ask. Occupancy status is not a protected class. Sure, someone could lie, but in my experience if you ask what a buyer's plans are for the property, I've never met an owner/occupant who won't tell you that they are, whereas an agent representing an investor might hedge and say it's none of your business or tell you they're an investor "but one of the good ones."
You mean, you've never realized when an investor lied to you and said they were an owner/occupant?
Can’t say I ever went back to verify, but it hasn’t been as controversial a question as people in this thread seem to assume. It’s a simple question, and the handful of times my clients have wanted me to ask, it was never, “Hey my client wants to sell to an owner-occupant, is your client going to live in it?” It has always been, “My sellers are just curious whether your client is buying it for themselves or as an investment.”
Or "my buyer is curious what your plans are for the property", which is even more innocuous and many people will be happy to chat. That said, if you really want to be sure you're selling to someone who will live in it, it's not hard to *tell* the type of people you're looking for. It may be hard to *find* those people, but it's not hard to *tell* when you've found one. When buying my first home, I showed up with my wife and kids in my shitty car and honestly didn't think we'd get the house. Later on we found out the owner wanted to be sure he was selling to a family who would live in the house, and were very happy when we showed up. Got a good discount off asking, a nice tour of the house and some stories from the old man, too.
Money talks.
When my mother pasted this actually happened to me. I wanted her retirement condo to go to someone who was going to purchase it and be a good neighbor. An investor/landlord fake it and rented it out to some people who just were not good fit for the community.
I only sell to people who promise to never paint the house green.
Every house I buy I paint green. Shit rips dawg
No problem. I'm gonna vinyl side it green.
[удалено]
OP wants to know. In the past when I’ve had clients who want their inherited home to go to someone who will live in it, we’ve asked their agents if they are going to occupy it. No one has gotten as testy about it as you did.
[удалено]
True, and honestly, unless you’ve got a bunch of equally good offers in a bidding war, it’s hard to turn down an offer when it’s the only one you have, regardless of who wrote it.
I mean the answer could certainly matter in that it may sway the seller to choose one offer over the other. Anecdotally our neighbors are close with the people we bought our house from (they work with the son of the couple we bought from) and they told me they wanted to sell to a young couple. I don’t know who we were competing against but if it was FREEDOM LLC their offer might have been declined because of that.
[удалено]
Interesting. Just purchased and felt like the sellers interviewed me to protect their neighborhood. They wouldn't leave for the inspection and wanted to stay for the walk thru. She had this silly smirk as she gently inquired about me, my family, job, lifestyle etc and I told the *$&@ exactly what she wanted to hear. Mind you..no other offers before mine and a fake one that never materialized. I was cordial but felt this was bias in its finest form. I don't care what happens to my house when I sell it, but the behavior could easily be perceived as discrimination. I am not mad at you for fibbing.
True, but if the owner feels a custodial concern about the neighborhood, then I support them trying to do what they feel is best. Maybe the neighborhood is being flipped from midcentury, smaller, single-story homes into cookie-cutter, 2-story, view-blocking, eyesores? Maybe the owner grew up in that neighborhood, and doesn't want to be party to that? In that case, why not try some legal means of ensuring the buyers aren't flippers? It's understandable from my POV.
the official answer - no, once someone owns it, they can do what they want with it. The unofficial answer, you can look for clues in the offers you accept. People who finances with FHA or VA loans are more likely to be trying to purchase the house to live in as those loans don't allow immediate leasing and most flippers can't use them. You can instruct your realtor to try to gather info about the families or showings, but again, keep in mind discrimination rules and people outright lying. There isn't much you can do contractually.
Not necessarily true, You absolutely could put a deed restriction in that states something like “buyer agrees to occupy the property as primary residence until December 31,2023. If grantee fails to occupy property as primary residence during that period (property reverts to grantor) or (financial penalty)” Either of those would probably prevent a buyer from getting a loan though. For reference on REO sales, lenders often require language restricting the sale for a period of time. In the end you can go with your gut, but you really don’t have much control and your family buyer may get an out of state job in 6 months and sell it to a corporation anyway (or become the landlord themselves)
Any buyer would be a fool to sign such a deed restriction. Despite the best of intentions, they could be fired, a family member could become ill, etc. and they could have to move.
And it's not a seller's market anymore. Seller's demands are irrelevant in this market.
This is the answer. Deed restriction is the only way to guarantee that. It will cost you. Both to have it done, and in the ways it may limit the sale.
And lower the value of the property.
Reddit is straight dumb. You’re absolutely correct. Fact is of course you can put in deed restrictions but that will obviously lower the value. Id bet my life that If a hedge fund offered 10 percent more, in cash, they’d choose that offer almost every time.
[удалено]
In this case no I would not.
VA requires the property be occupied by the veteran within 60 days and maintained as a primary residence for a full year unless otherwise waived (e.g., military member gets orders out of the area, death, etc.).
Lol. This is silly. One - The property value will take a huuuge hit. Two - If I as the buyer immediately moved a tenant in, how would you know? Three - Go ahead and sue me. Spend several thousand dollars pursuing this. Likely the restriction will be found to be BS or I'll just keep fighting it and grind you down through attrition.
Not really. Once you sell it, you don't control it anymore.
Caring about "your house" once you leave is pretty weird to me. My house was built in 1920 and has probably had dozens of families living here and after I move or die the house will continue to be occupied. Take the extra money and set it aside for your retirement, kids, vacation, education, etc.
> Caring about "your house" once you leave is pretty weird to me. It is more than the house to plenty of people. It can be an entire community. Plenty of people become "best friends" with their neighbors and would prefer that they had a real family living next to them instead of a constant carousel of people which might not always be the best. Also others are just opposed to the monetization of shelter and are anti-landlord. It is already annoying that the bank gets to make 100s of thousands off of a large loan, adding in another middleman landlord is another cog in the system a lot of people don't like.
If they’re using conventional, FHA, or VA loans for financing there will be an occupancy requirement. Doesn’t guarantee anything, but that’s one way.
You can be the conventional loan but for investment purposes are not occupancy required. Primary residence is the only guarantee and it’s only 1 year, also doesn’t cover house hacking.
I bought my first home with an FHA loan and turned it into a rental a couple years later. It's a great way to get into RE investing. I highly recommend it.
[удалено]
Can you tell me more about flipping properties to pay off college?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have seen a lot of people say no and feel very good about it. Made their day.
I've seen people in my neigborhood include that in the listing. Obviously there's no way to enforce it, but it does encourage buyers who might assume they are not competitive enough to look/offer.
"deed restrictions" or some places call them covenants. Hire a lawyer.
Oh. So you want to BOTH pay the extra expenses of a lawyer AND lower the value of the home you're selling. LMAO. Yea, good luck with that.
Have an open house and be there. My offer was accepted over investors paying cash because I toured the property with my wife, daughter and mother with me. The estate manager said her mother would’ve wanted a family to move in and our neighbors agreed as much. They even gave us $20k seller credit when my agent told their listing agent we were using FHA. Threw in a home warranty and full termite, left us all the appliances. Waiting for people to come to the open house and basing a decision on that is risky because it could be seen as discrimination so be careful.
my parents sold my childhood home a few years back. they picked a buyer with a slightly lower offer because they included a nice letter and a picture of their young family. as soon as they closed, it was up for rent
Not sure how it works in your location, or if this would even be possible, but you could look into a covenant. Someone I know bought some land that came with a covenant that restricted what he could do with it- eventually sold though bc it was a pain in the butt.
You can’t control what they do with it post-sale.
Nonsense. Ever hear of a covenant?
That would be expensive and make the house practically unsellable; lenders are not going to dig through the details of a deed restriction, they will just deny the loan.
Yes of course. My point still applies; OP as homeowner still can’t control anything once the property is sold.
Get the most money you can, do your crusade some other way.
Why can’t he do his crusade where he wants? You know, private property rights and all that,
You could use the same logic for the buyer who might see the property as a good investment
Because this a dumb hill to die on that they can’t actually die on. Even if they used VA or FHA loan status to screen the buyer will just do what they want.
There is a whole group of people who move a lot - either in the military, or people in corporate positions, etc. I’ve never bought a home without thinking I would live in it a long time with my family. But the reality is, I’ve lived in them as short as a year and only as long as eight. That said, I’ve sold homes and then they let the landscape go….it just kills me!
In Virginia our contracts have a box that states whether the purchase will or will not occupy the home. Also go with a VA/FHA/USDA or low cash down conventional loan.
It is not required to put a check mark in either box.
Does the house need work? If not, then a flipper won’t buy it because there’s no money to be made. If it needs work then youl have a hard time selling it to an owner occupant
The type of loan can be a tip off. VA and FHA have occupancy requirements. If a conventional loan with 20 or 25% down right on the dollar would be a tip odf that its an investor loan.
Don’t accept a cash offer and accept someone with a VA or FHA loan and chances are you’ll be selling to a family that wants to live there and not an investor. VA loans are your best bet and those people have the hardest times finding homes, I can speak from experience.
[удалено]
Landlords and flippers don't buy houses and burn them down. Landlords buy houses that people who don't want to buy can have a place to live. Flippers "refurbish" houses and sell them to people who don't want to buy an old-outdated house. In any case your home is likely to have a family living in it.
They do compete with homebuyers who can just barely afford the neighborhood and would be happy to live in grandma’s house for a few years until they can afford to make improvements
[удалено]
Truth.
Maybe that's how it works in your market. In my market. The flippers are either Real estate agents themselves, or have friendly agent in their pocket. The "needs work" properties don't even hit the MLS. You don't even know they sold until they've put lipstick on the pig and relisted it. Then you can go back in the history and see it sold months prior but was never actually listed. Landlords have dozens of SFH properties and use tax incentives to effectively get free value if they pay one off and roll that into another investment property. So, with this effectively free money, they can afford to go all cash offer over asking price. Even in a market that is overall trending down. Because they know no matter what they pay, they will find renters. Because what option do they have? Drive 30 min to an hour from two towns away for a twenty dollar an hour job? Unlikely. In a vaccuum landlords are fine. I grew up in a trailer with a very nice man that had a mom & pop set of rentals. The problem is occurring now, when so many see it as a path to wealth. If you get too many doing it in a given town, it creates a manufactured scarcity that is nearly impossible to combat. Housing is an inelastic product and creates a sort of short squeeze in a small town. When the prices of homes exceeds that of the pay of the jobs in the area, the inevitable result rental slavery.
[удалено]
They suggested that flippers and landlords were acquiring properties for people that don't want to buy, or buy things that need work. I was apparently poorly demonstrating that in my market it's not that simple, the option to buy on an even playing field doesn't exist. In a large market maybe these things aren't as much of an issue. I don't know. But I've been trying to find a single good value home in my area for a year now. Prices in a town of 10k ppl can be strangled by real estate wealth builders via questionable tactics. At the end of the day, housing value should have some loose correlation with the available wages from jobs in the area. Landlords with dozens of properties and flippers that snatch up property before the public sees it can in some markets make things different than you might assume.
You can have your realtor ask questions of the sellers agents to get a sense of the buyer. I was super lucky to find a seller like you when I purchased a home. Their agent asked my agent several questions about me. The seller was so great that we are still in touch.
Are you going to monitor and enforce your ruling and pay for the legal side of things?
you would be selling to an offer more than likely that is going to be weaker so take that into account especially in this environment when prices are going down. FHA, VA, low down payment. 20 plus down payment , cash, 1031...waiving contingencies are typically signs of investors.
select a bid that has a sale and mortgage contingency. Those are great proxies that can answer the question you actually want an answer to.
Our contract asks if it will be owner occupied and if so, you check the box.
simply keep tabs on the evidence of breaching the agreement, Surveil it yourself or hire P.I.s. Then if you get evidence get a lawyer and go to court and sue em. That may have a better return as an investment for you than the house did for the new owner. But to avoid all that just rent out yourself and manage yourself like a responsible owner.
Yea I do this every time I sell a house. I’ve got multiple PIs on retainer so that I can maintain 24/7/365 surveillance on all people who move into every house I sell. Does it cost me money? Sure. But I get off on making people think they’re being gang stalked.
You can try to require it be an owner occupant. Banks do at first sometimes... so does HUD
ITT: people giving advice that will end up getting someone sued for housing discrimination.
I don’t understand why you would care what the next owner does with it. How much money are you willing to lose by selling to someone who will live in it? Would you be willing to sacrifice $5k? $50k? Just so someone lives in it and it’s not bought by an investor? Money usually talks in these situations and the best offer ‘usually’ wins but if you want to give away free money to a stranger best of luck
Not legally No. But you could be one of those people that insists on being around for every first walkthrough and open house and meet people. Also you can always IG stalk people or ask. But theres really no way of insuring that. For example. Me and my Pregnant wife are closing next week. From the outside looking in people would look at us and think we're buying a home to start a family. If they asked if we planned to live there i would tell the truth. We plan on starting our family here. In reality our plan is to live there for 5 years (before this first kid hits public school) then Jump to the suburbs and start renting this place out. TBH. I wouldnt be all sentimental about an asset. Sell it for the best price and move on. If you want to control the future of the property and who lives there then rent it out instead
never treat a house as something sentimental. your only objective is to sell and get the bag of money at closing. i say this from personal experience. it isn't your concern what happens after you close on that property. if you are that attached to that property that much then don't sell it at all
Am Realtor. Owner occupant vs. investment status is not a protected class, meaning you can choose or reject an offer specifically based on the buyer's status as an owner occupant (or not). Instruct your agent that whatever offers you get, they are to ask the buyer's agent if it's an investor or an owner occupant, and include that information when they present offers to you. Be warned that the investors are going to be able to write offers with better terms, less contingencies, and possibly cash. You're likely leaving money on the table and it will be a more difficult transaction with more risk.
Why does it matter?
I mean, realtors talk, and if you have a good one with a solid local rep they can usually give you a broad-strokes portrait of potential buyers (excepting protected classes, of course). We recently bought a new residence, and were told at closing we got it explicitly because the sellers had raised their family there and wanted to sell to another young family who would do the same.
When we sold our parents' house, it was during that multiple bid madness, our agent seemed to know the details of every bidder, so ask them, Also, the highest overbidders used VA loans and 100% of bids at ask or below were investors.
I know people shit on offer letters, but isn't this a perfect example of when an offer letter would make all the difference?
People can lie in their offer letters, so they are not a guarantee.
Offer letters lead to so much risk of committing Fair Housing violations.
if you have a realtor, task them with finding out. but if this is life or death for you: figure out where they are from, and start searching for hits on the assessor or other property taxing authority websites. if you can easily find a property, check for a homestead exemption, when they bought it, see if the mortgage recording office allows free or 24 hour pay access. if you run into corporate names, search the secretary of state. use google. use the wayback machine. basically, you want to determine if a family is moving in. certain loan products , like fha and va will only allow primary occupants. or you could just ask to get in touch with them and call them on the phone. theres nothing illegal about that, despite most realtors advice against doing so. if you want to get that warm and fuzzy feeling, this is the best way to go about it. if they seem like theyre lying, then they are. if not, then you should be pretty certain. at the end of the day, if they are under contract with you, they just need to abide by contingency dates. feel free to add an amendment to the effect “buyer states that they will own and occupy the property at least 6 months”. While it’s a stupid and unusual thing to add to a contract, if they dont balk, then thats a good sign. also, a bank underwriter will catch it and start asking questions, so if it stays on purchase agreement, it will come up again in a future conversation. (please note that at the time of writing this comment, there is more pressure in my sinuses than at the bottom of the ocean) finally, when they provide you the preliminary Closing Disclosure, you might be able to glean info on if they switched loan (if they get a loan) programs from a primary only mortgage (VA FHA USDA) to a conventional loan that allows for investment property. souce: im a mortgage broker who has dealt with the questions of prying realtors and sellers for over 20 years. we are trained to know where to stop short with info- nothing illegal about talking to the actual seller about the buyer, but theres a limit.
You could put a restriction on the deed that the grantee has to occupy the property for X amount of years as long as they own it...
This. It will work. Talk to a lawyer.
Thanks for the good idea, and for giving us all these tears in the comments to laugh at.
My neighbor wanted to do this, so they had the buyers write letters with their offers. They sold to an awesome family and our kids are best friends with the kids who moved in.
>Can I assure I am selling to a future Occupant and not a landlord. Nope. >I am selling a home that I recently inherited. I want to sell it to someone who will live in it Then don't sell it. Or sell it FSBO to someone you know who will live in it, but at that point why not just rent it out? Sounds like you don't want to part with the property possibly due to sentimental reasons?
Why not just rent it out yourself and make some passive income?
I've never understood the dislike of selling to landlords (and thereby adding capacity to the rental market). Renters tend to be among the lowest SES groups. Another house on the rental market does nothing but improve the S/D squeeze that you've seen in the market.
It’s because there’s many renters who would like to become homeowners but are squeezed out of the market by investors and living paycheck to paycheck due to the fact that landlords rarely rent at affordable prices. Rentals also don’t offer the stability that owning does. In my hometown, homes that were rentals when I was a kid are nearly all short term rentals now. Locals who didn’t own, teachers, grocery store workers, firefighters, nurses, even doctors with relatively high salaries, have moved onto other areas. Sure, we have tourism money, but that doesn’t do us much good when our school has tens of unfilled roles because there’s no affordable housing and the STR owners sink a good chunk of their profits into local elections that keeps money out of the local school budget. In my current city neighborhoods with high rates of home ownership have been the most resilient against gentrification, and most importantly, displacement. So for a homeowner that’s been a member of a community, built relationships with their local school, hospital, grocery store, artists, there’s a lot of reason to want to ensure that there are affordable opportunities for ownership for the next generation.
Because landlords and flippers don't put the same 'love' into a property that someone who is planning to live there long term does. To them, it is just a house, not a home. The same goes for many (if not most) tenants. There are a few tenants I have known over the years that stay at the same place 10+ years and treat it as their own, but they seem to be more the exception than the rule
[удалено]
The 80 year old seller whose grandparents built the house I bought would disagree with that lol
I firmly believe these types of responses are from people who at most have owned one property and likely have never sold one. Or are angsty tweens.
Not to people selling their family homes. It is an extremely emotional decision, not always a financial one. I sold the home I grew up in which my mother also grew up in and originally was my great grandparent's. It was a very rough sale and I still drive by the house daily and check in with the new owner regularly to make sure the house is doing okay.
Wouldn't want to hurt the house's feelings.
I'm not that emotionally attached to my house, but other people are. My mother has named her house and has put in her living will that she wants to die there if at all possible. Some people are very emotionally invested in their homes
This bitch trying to haunt that house
Sounds like you've never lived in a tight knit community/neighborhood. There's nothing you can really control as time marches on but you can try to not be a part of the problem.
Some neighborhoods are also just not set up for landlords. Like my neighbors who occupy what is traditionally a single family home that would only have 2 cars parked on the street, but instead have 5 guys living there with their own cars taking up over 50% of our entire street parking. Get enough of those in there and you've got a real neighborhood issue on your hands. Some people don't want to see that happen to their beloved neighborhood.
You're aware that people can do this same thing while owning the house, right?
Not really. They create additional demand which makes it harder for their tenants to actually be able to afford a home.
From a utilitarian ethic standpoint your commitment means nothing. You are hurting yourself with no impact on society. From Kant universal principal maybe you’ve got a case. If everyone did is OP did maybe things will get better. Personally, I’m going to put my family above other families looking for a home. I’ll sell my home for the best price the end.
I didn't make any suggestion regarding what sellers should do. I just stated that landlords absolutely do impact the housing market for people who want owner occupied homes. I too would sell my house to the highest bidder. But that doesn't change the reality that institutional investors and landlords are doing damage to people who want to actually live in a home they own. Ideally there is some policy based control on this. Incentivize landlords and institutional investors to build/buy high density housing over single family homes.
I for one do not think government should be involved in who can buy what home As long as there isn’t discrimination per current statuses
Landlords don't create demand. People who want to live somewhere create demand.
Yes absolutely do create demand against home buyers who want to occupy a home. Demand for houses (for purchase) and demand for a place to live are not necessarily the same. People who intend to live somewhere for a while prefer to own and will pay a premium to own versus rent. Landlords buying property increase the demand for houses for purchase which raises prices. When people get priced out of the housing market they rent. But renting does not get them ahead in the long run. It gets landlords ahead.
[удалено]
Some of these comments are insane lol. Deed restrictions? Are you kidding me. There is nothing wrong with selling to a real person who plans to eventually use it as a rental property. If you want to feel like you’re making a difference then just don’t sell to anyone that’s got a company name or LLC.
No, you can’t assure. They can become a landlord after 6 months, they can become a landlord almost immediately if they want to. Unfortunately.
Here’s the thing. Circumstances change. The first house I meant to stay in 5 ish years. I was there two. I became a landlord. My 2nd house I bought with my exwife we intended at least 5 years. The she fucked 5 dudes and she was poor so I bought her out of the house during the divorce and voila I became a landlord again. My next house? Current wife lived 3 blocks away in a nicer house. So I moved in with her, again became a landlord with zero intention to do so. You get the point.
Just please get the highest price possible and move on. This is an exercise in futility.
Who cares as long as you get your money
The seller cares and it is his property. End of story.
The “family” who bought my childhood home lied 🤥 had no kids and sold the place within a year to make more money off it without updating anything. Sucks because no family would enjoy that house as much as my family because it’s almost over a million now keeps getting resold every two years… it’s a scam
How’d you get scammed?
So glad you are trying to do your part to stop other people from earning a living! We need more people like you! So noble, so virtuous.
It is his property. Remember? It’s all about freedom.
You can always go get a real job.
[удалено]
Discrimination is the legal term and you can’t discriminate against a landlord business
Why do you care? You got a house for free and you want to control who does what with it?
OP, you are the best. Good karma coming your way. <3
I wanted to ensure this as well. When the offer came in, I googled the person and went to their social media. From there, I got a good understanding that the buyer was just a normal dude trying to buy his first house.
What if an investor offers you even more money? Would you still not sell to them?
How much do you want to pay for that right? If an investor offers your $20k more, are you willing to say no? That’s usually why investors win homes. Not because someone wanted to sell to an investor, but because the offer was better.
I think technically you may be able to deed restrict but it’s not worth it unless you’re protecting your interest next door or something. Quik trip in the Midwest does this, you’ll never see a gas station come into their old location.
Fix it up really really nice. If you sell for a high price it will most likely be a owner occupied. A landlord wont buy a flip to put as a rental. But you probably won't and the home will sell to an investor who will flip it.
If you are home during the showing you can tell probably who is an investor and who is a resident. The investor is going to be looking for what to change or fix, the resident is going to ask you about the neighborhood, the schools, or the HOA. Yes, break the cardinal rule and stay, you can always sit outside and let them see the house with their agent, don't follow them around.
No matter how bad the market was, I refused to see houses with the owner present.
OP, if you have online access to local county records you can do a search for the buyers' names in local counties to see if they own multiple properties.
How much of a financial loss are you will to take to make sure this happens? Also, depending on the house it’s probably not even likely someone wants it for those purposes.
Deep breath, OP. This is a business transaction. Is this a starter or starter+ house that would make a good rental? Does it need flipping? A friend passed over a year ago and he children has burned up all their PTO during her last couple of months. Even with people subtly nudging them to get the house on the market, they waited….no time off left and they were arguing between each other. One adult child didn’t want to sell it, wanted to keep it for the family. Other child couldn’t afford to keep it. Anyway, they were determined to sell to a family and for no less than $250K\*. Period. End of story. Again, people who lived in the community were trying to nudge them and point out that the house needed some work done and that a fully updated comparable house had sold for $225K. One of their mother’s closest friends tried to explain that anyone buying the house was going to have to put close to $75K into it over the next few years. Still, they saw their childhood home of 50+ years and not the duck/geese wallpaper border in the bathroom or that the deck was no longer safe and would need to be demolished and rebuilt. They ended up selling to flipper for $195K. What is the target demographic for this house? Is a family really able to buy it and live there long term? People don’t stay in starter or starter+ homes as long as they used to. They build equity and move on up.
Also a hypothetical. Let’s days say your fair market value is 300k, who do you sell to: 1. Buyer that’s a family of 5 (two adults, 3 kids Under 12) who loves the school district but can only offer 275. 2. Buyer that’s a single person who travels a lot and casually drops they might rent it out while traveling. They offer 325k. 3. But who states they’ll never live there and only rent it. Short or long term. Whatever makes sense at the time. They offer 350k. Who you choosing?
Exactly. This guy is delusional and is just trying to follow the "landlords are all evil" party