Home Real Estate Page 20

Real Estate

Facts About Liens You Must Know

Facts About Liens You Must Know

Liens on real estate are defined as claims against property that are created to secure payments of a debt. If one owes a debt, usually called a debtor, owes money to another person or business, usually called a creditor, then the creditor is able to and may place a lien on the debtor’s property for the worth of the debt that is owed. From the result of the lien, the real estate is used as collateral against the debt. According to real property law, if the debtor does not satisfy the debt by paying it all off, the real estate or collateral becomes an asset that is a great potential source of the payment of the debt that is owed.
 
Several situations can call for a placement of a lien on real estate. Property owners may place voluntary liens on their very own property such as mortgage lines. Due to the fact that they are pledging their real estate as collateral for mortgage loans, many homeowners are capable of securing the funds that they need for home improvement, debt consolidation, and so many others areas. In nature, liens are involuntary and usually forced in real property law. 
If a homeowner decides not to pay for property taxes for whatever their case may be, the government unit that is responsible for assessing property taxes, has the right to place a lien on the property. This is usually called a construction or mechanic’s lien. The judgements for unpaid debts given by the court can attach as liens to a debtor’s property.
 
There is a process that creditors follow to place liens on property that differs with each state law. In most states, there are detailed notice requirements that a creditor must proceed to follow in order to notify the debtor that the lien may be place on the piece of real estate. 
Creditors must be cautious when taking the steps, under the real property law, in order to release a valid, legally binding lien on the debtor’s piece of estate. It may include filling out certain legal documents with a court, recorder’s office or county clerk’s office. It also may include preparing paperwork to be given to the jurisdiction’s land records to be kept on file.
 
In real property law, there are ways to release property liens. The most evident way to release one is to pay the creditor the debt in full. The creditor must release the lien on the debtor’s real estate if the judgement or debt is paid by the debtor. The passage of time can also release a lien in most jurisdictions. 
In a fair amount of states, a judgement may be voided after twenty-five years. The release of judgement lien is released by operation of real property law. Exact procedures differ from state to state, the creditor most likely will and must execute all the appropriate documents that release the lien which is placed on file with the appropriate governmental system. A lien release notifies to everyone that the creditor has been stripped away of any valid legal claim to the debtor’s property.

What are Profits in Real Estate Laws

What are Profits in Real Estate Laws

Profits greatly resemble easements, but there is variation that distinguishes the two. Attorneys involved in real estate law should be able to know the difference between the two easily. According to real estate law, profits are non-possessive interest in a piece of land. Due to the necessity of permitting access to land so that resources such as petroleum, minerals, and timber may be gathered, a profit contains an implied easement for the profit owner to enter the other party’s land for the permitted purpose of collecting the resources.

According to real estate law, profits can be created with an expression through an agreement recommended to be advised by attorneys from both parties. The agreement must be made between the property owner and the owner of the profit. It can also be created through a prescription which is where the owner of the profit has made “open” use of the land for a continuous and interrupted rightful, consented period.

There are two types of profit. A profit can be considered appurtenant which is owned by an adjacent landowner and tied to the use of the adjacent land. It can only be used by the owner of the adjacent property. Attorneys would define an appurtenant profit to a right or restriction that goes with any given property such as a covenant against blocking the neighbor’s nice view. In contrast, a profit in gross can be assigned or transferred by the owner of the property. Benefits and obstructions that are not tied to ownership or possession of a specific portion of the land are called “in gross.” 

In real estate law, courts will deduce a profit as being in gross unless the profit is explicitly expressed as being appurtenant. Benefits from areas in governmental bodies, conservation, preservation organizations, pipeline owners, railroads, and utility companies are often in gross. Attorneys would recommend that profit owners know the difference between the two.

Termination of a profit can occur through different ways and it usually requires an attorney heavily experienced with real estate law. Real estate lawyers can handle mergers where the owner of the profit receives the land to which it applies and there is no longer a need for a separate right to take the resources off of it. A release is where the owner of the profit can execute a contract, usually with the help of an attorney, to surrender the profit to the owner of the land. 

Abandonment where the owner of the profit stops to make use of it for quite a bit of time to guide a sensible owner to be convinced that it will no longer be used. Misuse, which is when a profit is used in a way that it places trouble on the servient’s property, is another way to terminate a profit according to real estate law.

Mortgage Lender Settles HUD Maternity Discrimination Suit

Mortgage Lender Settles HUD Maternity Discrimination Suit

PNC Bank, a mortgage bank based in Trumbull, CT, will have to pay $15,000 to a couple who was denied a home loan because one person in the couple was on paid maternity leave through her employer.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has been engaged in filing lawsuits against lenders who violate anti-pregnancy discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act since 2010.  According to the Fair Housing Act, discrimination in home loans is forbidden on the basis of disability, sex, religion, race, color, national origin, or family status.

HUD alleged that PNC Bank had violated both the familial status and sex discrimination portions of the Fair Housing Act after it told a woman that she would not be able to obtain a home loan until her maternity leave had ended.  

The woman, a veteran of the United States Navy, was told that she would be required to return to work early from her maternity leave in order to get her loan when she needed it.  The loan, which was guaranteed by the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs, had no such requirements.  Because the woman refused to return to work early, her home loan was delayed.  She had to pay an additional $3,000 in closing costs as a result of the discrimination from the loan officer at PNC Bank.

This is the latest in a series of several suits, all pertaining to the same issue.  According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, maternity leave does not constitute a legal reason for any bank to deny a loan to any person.  In just the last year, several of these suits have been settled with some of the largest banks in the nation, including Bank of America, which agreed to pay over $160,000 in 2012 to settle similar complaints.  Small and large mortgage banks have both been involved in the series of lawsuits, and have begun changing their policies regarding maternity leave as a result.

In addition to paying $15,000 to the couple who filed the lawsuit, PNC Bank is also bound by the terms of the settlement to find any other people who were denied mortgage loans for the same reason and pay each person $7,500 who was subjected to the same form of illegal discrimination.  The bank will also be required to provide training to all employees involved in approving loans, ensuring that all loan officers understand the Fair Housing Act and its anti-discrimination provisions.

Source: hud.gov

Liability of Real Estate Property

Liability of Real Estate Property

Common Law Rule Modern Changes

Though these traditional categorizations for a visitor are rooted deep in English history, the terms are not always enforced in the same way. The traditional liabilities a landowner faces in regards to injury can sometimes be streamlined by a universal statute regarding real estate laws. Some states have removed the concept of varying categories of visitors completely, and instead demand that a landowner reasonably protect all visitors from potential injury and harm. These statutes regard all visitors as equal, regardless of a visitor’s motivation to enter a property.
These statutes reinforce the notion that a landowner keep a property safe and secure because of the ability to foresee injury, maintain one’s property, and ensure an estate’s safety before injury or harm befall a visitor. These states find no difference between a trespasser, a licensee, and an invitee. An additional modern change is the inclusion of recreational use statutes, which protect landowners from liability if they open their land to the free recreational use of their land to visitors.
Recreational Use Statutes
In order to encourage rural landowners to open their lands to the recreational use of the public, states have issued recreational use statutes that negate the liability of a landowner to a visitor who is partaking in recreational activities on an owner’s land. These statutes have encouraged rural landowners to allow the public to hike, fish, hunt, raft, and more on their land because of the increased desire of urban visitors to partake in recreational activities and decreased availability of public land. 
By removing the liability of protecting their visitors, landowners can allow the public to utilize their lands for recreational activities. While on an estate protected by a recreational use statute, an owner cannot be held liable for the injury or harm to a visitor or a visitor’s property. These statutes also protect landowners from adverse possession of their lands. Landowners are free to open and close their properties at their own convenience without the fear that public will gain a permanent right to access their land because of continual and long-term use.

Modern Changes to Real Estate Law

Modern Changes to Real Estate Law

Most of the legal law regarding real estate originates in the Norman conquest of England in 1066. When William declared that all English land now belonged to the French monarch, the concept of estates was created. These estates were governed through common law, and brought to the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada through Great Britain's imperial expansion. The traditional liabilities a landowner faced with vistiors to an estate were broken into three categories, dependant on the visitor's status. 

The three different traditional categories of a vistor were classified as a trespasser (a visitor of which the owner has no knowledge and was not invited), a licensee (a social guest) or an invitee (a guest with a commercial or business interest in the property). These traditional categories have been modified, however, in modern legal law. Many of the changes in real property law regarding liability are simply defined by the inclusion and adoption of common law principles into the written statutes of legal law. In effect, the principles of the common law are merely codified by statutes. They often do not differ substantially from the original intent of the common law.

In traditional legal law regarding estates, trespassers, licensees, and invitees are all granted varying degrees of protection from harm or injury that may be incurred while on another person's land. A certain number of states have instead decided to adopt a more modern statue that eliminates the three different categories of third person parties that may be on their land. 

These states do not focus on the distinctions between a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee, but rather focus on the general duty of a landowner to care for and ensure the reasonable safety of estates for all visitors, regardless of a visitor's traditional categorization. Rather than focusing on the status in legal law of a trespasser, invitee, or licensee, these states focus particularly on the ability of a landowner to foresee injury, maintain property, and ensure safety on estates. Thus, a landowner would not be held liable for injury or harm to a trespasser under older laws regarding estates, but would be held liable under the newer universal laws.

Another notable difference from these statutes is the creation of recreational use statutes is another modern change to the legal law regarding estates. To encourage landowners to allow others to use their estates for recreational purposes, many states have removed the traditional liabilities that landowners must honor regarding licensees on their land. 

A landowner would owe no duty to ensuring the safety of a person using their land for recreational purposes if they had qualified as an owner under these recreational use statutes. Provided they do not charge a person for the use of the land, any harm or injury sustained by a third person party on the owner's land would not be held liable to the owner. These recreational use statutes vary by state, but in general encourage rural land owners to open their land by protecting the owners from injury litigation. Contact real estate lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

 

Nature of Real Property

Why Are There Recreational Use Statutes?

Why Are There Recreational Use Statutes?

In the United States, every state has property law statutes that encourage landowners to open their lands to the public for recreational use. These statutes are often of particular importance to landowners in rural areas who may allow third parties to utilize their land for recreational activities including hunting, hiking, swimming, fishing, rafting, or other activities. 
These statutes encourage landowners by granting broad immunities to the legal repercussions and liabilities of property damage and personal injury. Often, these statutes are enacted within property law in order to meet the ever-increasing demand of growing urban populations for recreational land.
Recreational use statutes revise older common law rules regarding trespassers, licenses, and invitees. They remove a landowner’s obligation to keep the land safe for either entry or use, or provide warning for dangerous areas on their property, provided they do not charge the third person parties for recreational use of the land. Recreational use statutes and property law often regulate land and water on a landowner’s property, but also regulate the buildings, machines, or equipment on the property as well. 
In order for a landowner to be protected by the recreational use statutes, they must be defined as the “owner” of the estate, which may be defined as the actual legal landowner, a lessee, a tenant, and manager of the land, or an occupier. If the state does not find that a party qualifies as the “owner” of an estate, that party will be held to the stricter enforcements required of them through common law. 
Additionally, recreational use statutes are voided if a landowner charges for recreational use of the land or is found to have willfully or maliciously caused harm to third person parties on the real estate. The cost of such items such a fishing license have been found to not violate the status of an “owner” within courts, and certain states allow owners to charge parking fees without voiding their rights through the recreational use statutes.
To protect landowners, almost all recreational use statutes and state property law prohibit the adverse possession of land. Adverse possession allows for a third party to gain a permanent right to access to a land by continued use of the land without the direct permission or objection from the owner. This allows landowners the freedom to open and close their lands without the fear of a third party gaining a permanent right to access the land and to use it for recreational activity.
Public entities are not always regarded as “owners” within recreational use statutes. Certain states readily accredit public entities as “owners” within the statutes, and in these states, the recreational use statutes protect these owners for the recreational use of third parties on their land. However, other states have specifically discredited public entities as “owners,” and the common law and property law is enforced within those states. 
Still, other states neither accredit or discredit the status of an “owner” for a public entity, and have allowed their courts to decide. It is important to check particular state recreational use statutes and court case history before engaging in recreational activities on a public entity’s land.