191–200 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you like to ski, Illinois is close to the last place you should be living.
We are within an 8-10 hour drive from some of the best skiing in the Midwest
They are a discount buyer, so it is generally a bad deal to use them and you basically shouldn't unless you have no other option. It is similar to getting a pay day loan, or selling stuff to pawn shop or keeping a balance on your VISA. You are going to get a bad deal. I don't really know what to do about it. How can you ensure people are educated enough to know that a discount buyer is a buyer who will under pay for…
Cool. I’m sure the cross section of people who would be victims to discount real estate buyers and visitors of this site is basically one circle. I’m sorry but your comment is weirdly unconstructive.
What interest rate is too high? What price for your home is too low?
They both depend upon your circumstances and your view of them.
There is a set of circumstances rationally viewed where you can pay a very high interest rate or take a very low price for your home.
If you're acting irrationally then you have problems - the question is should we try to help you with your problems or removing some of the ways you might act irrationally, keeping in mind that in doing so we're stopping some rational people from doing something they want that is by definition rational.
In France you cannot buy a house without a notary, and the whole thing is completely standardized. No surprise contract, or small print. The notary has a monopoly and charges for it a lot (the amount is regulated as well) but at least you have no legal worries.
It's entirely possible and happens all the time that a fraudulent document is notarized.
In France you cannot buy a house without a notary, and the whole thing is completely standardized. No surprise contract, or small print. The notary has a monopoly and charges for it a lot (the amount is regulated as well) but at least you have no legal worries.
A notary in France must mean something completely different from a notary in the United States. In the US a notary simply is verifying the identity, and swearing they have done so, of the people signing the document. It's entirely possible and happens all the time that a fraudulent document is notarized.
This means that when you are done with the signature, all legal aspects of the transactions are covered.
Since what needs to be checked is completely standardized and what is in the contract is standardized as well, you are not expected to negotiate anything (except for the price). There are no surprises in the contract either - it is all standard (and boring).
When you are at the notary the contract is read out loud but for one you do not understand everything, and for two you do not worry either as this is the same thing everytime and cannot be neither less nor more than what is required by law.
BTW, each party can have their own notary (what each of them do is legally defined as well and they share the fee (also according to the law :)) or you can have the same for both.
It is very comforting for a stressful act like this.
This is very similar with labour contracts (no notary involved, but a fixed set of points in the contract, no more an no less)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A notary in France must mean something completely different from a notary in the United States. In the US a notary simply is verifying the identity, and swearing they have done so, of the people signing the document. It's entirely possible and happens all the time that a fraudulent document is notarized.
In France (civil law, different from US common law) a notary is a qualified lawyer whose role when selling the house is to ensure that all the legal aspects are handled correctly (including things as making sure that the technical reviews of the house have been done, that there are specific documents from the city etc.), and to make sure that the people who sign the documents are the ones that are allowed to do so. T…
This is typical in the US, too (just called a lawyer, not a notary) but it's not required
If you're buying a house with a mortgage, you're going to be represented by a lawyer who makes sure everything is on the up and up (and more importantly the mortgage company is being represented to make sure everything is on the up and up)
But, it's not required and really all that's required to transfer property is a signature on a deed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In France (civil law, different from US common law) a notary is a qualified lawyer whose role when selling the house is to ensure that all the legal aspects are handled correctly (including things as making sure that the technical reviews of the house have been done, that there are specific documents from the city etc.), and to make sure that the people who sign the documents are the ones that are allowed to do so. T…
>In France (civil law, different from US common law) a notary is a qualified lawyer whose role when selling the house is to ensure that all the legal aspects are handled correctly (including things as making sure that the technical reviews of the house have been done, that there are specific documents from the city etc.), and to make sure that the people who sign the documents are the ones that are allowed to do so.…
This is actually a two-step process. You sign a first contract that entirely engages both parties - the only exception is if the buyer cannot get a credit. They have a month (or something like that) to secure it.
Then once the funds are there the final contract is signed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the cases mentioned specifically, the buyer has broken a law already (at least two are fraud) or the contract is invalid (lack of mental capacity). This isn't really a story per se. People are doing illegal stuff or stuff that won't hold up in court if challenged. We have a system for it - it works ok, not fantastically. We don't need new regulation for cases like this, we just need better execution on the existin…
This is a reasonable take, but I think it's also reasonable to suggest that if current system execution is too expensive then perhaps a new regulation could make it cheaper. Of course there are perhaps unintended side effects from new regulation, but "this is already a crime, we don't need anything new" isn't prima facie a sufficient argument. If a lot of a similar type of crime is going unpunished, there may be a re…