By Robert Fishel, on October 19th, 2011 
Not knowing what you can afford – What the lender says you can afford and what you know you can afford may not necessarily be the same. Looking at homes that are outside your price range can put you in the dangerous position of trying to stretch beyond your financial means. Be sure to consider all of your monthly expenses when budgeting for your anticipated mortgage payment. Continue reading “St Louis Mortgage Interest Rate Update; First-Time Homebuyer Mistakes“
By Gerry Loesch, on October 3rd, 2011
2011 will be remembered for having a wet spring and being the 4th hottest summer of record (calculated by having the highest average temperature). What is significant from a property and real estate viewpoint, however, will be that we have had little or no rain since the middle of June. We have been watering our lawn during that time and really do no want to see the next water bill. Continue reading “The St. Louis Drought of 2011 and the effect on homes“
By Dennis Norman, on September 6th, 2011
It is not uncommon when performing an inspection, not be able to have ready access to the electric panel cabinet. Items are stored in front of it, it is located behind the laundry equipment, it is covered by a finished wall, it is located in a closet with limited space and yes even it may even be located in or behind cabinetry in a “remodeled” basement.
(We work hard on this and sure would appreciate a “Like”)[iframe http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FStLouisRealEstateNews&send=false&layout=standard&width=50&show_faces=false&font&colorscheme=light&action=like&height=35&appId=537283152977556 100 35 ]
Search St Louis Homes For Sale HERE
Continue reading “Electric Panels need their space too“
By Robert Fishel, on July 14th, 2011 The home-buying process can be a little intimidating for not only first-time home-buyers but also repeat home-buyers. Here is a basic outline of the home-buying process as well as recommendations of how to approach each task which I hope will help you with this process:
Get pre-qualified for a loan: talk with your mortgage banker.
By Gerry Loesch, on May 27th, 2011 Where do you begin?
Moisture can come from several sources. However, the most frequent sources of moisture inside the home are the plumbing, roofing, basement seepage and condensation. No matter where the source is it must be found and eliminated.
Moisture damage in some cases may take some time to become obvious. It is easy to see a wet spot or stain on the wall, ceilings, under cabinets or basement floors. In other cases, the moisture evidence or damage may not show itself for some time, thereby allowing for the growth of mold, rot or deterioration of some of the house’s components. Continue reading “What to do when moisture gets inside your home“
By Dennis Norman, on May 4th, 2011  Well, the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, in north St. Louis County, is back at it again. As some readers may recall, in February of last year I wrote about the appellant court declaring that an ordinance passed by the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors requiring property owners to apply for an inspection before advertising their home for sale violated their property rights and was unconstitutional. Then, the following month I wrote another article on the subject, this time about how, in spite of the decision of the appellant court, the city of Bellefontaine was still enforcing the ordinance.
So what are they up to? Well, this afternoon I found out that tomorrow, May 5th, the Bellefontaine Neighbors Board of Alderman will consider passing Bill No. 2233, “Pre-Sales Inspections”, which, if passed, would in my opinion be the City thumbing their noses at the Eastern District Court of Appeals decision since this bill is basically the same as the ordinance struck down by the court with the exception being that in this one instead of requiring an application for an inspection PRIOR to listing your home for sale it now says you have to apply within 3 days of advertising your home for sale. Yep, I’m serious….
While some of you may think this doesn’t affect you because you don’t own property in the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, think again…Ordinances tend to spread from one municipality to another, particularly in a case like this where the city attorney, Kevin O’Keefe, represents many other municipalities in the area.
So what can you do to try to prevent this? The St. Louis Association of REALTORS has set up a Call to Action and you can easily send a message to the Alderman of the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors encouraging them not to pass this bill by clicking on this link.
By Gerry Loesch, on May 2nd, 2011 Basement seepage, in most cases relates to poor management of surface and roof water. Water causing basement seepage can come from three basic sources. First surface water can be directed to, rather than away from the foundation. Second water collected in gutters and downspouts is not routed away from the foundation. Although rare, the third source can be ground water. Continue reading “Spring Showers-It is time to Improve the Odds to Limit Basement Seepage“
By Dennis Norman, on April 11th, 2011  Forty three years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which included Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act which, as described on HUD’s website, “prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).” Continue reading “Undercover Investigation Reveals Possible Discriminatory Treatment of REO’s by Lenders“
By Gerry Loesch, on April 8th, 2011 For those of you who do not know me, I have been in the home inspection profession for the past 35 years. I have served as National President of ASHI® and have also served on the Examination Board for Professional Home Inspectors. I offer the following comments and opinions on HB 553: Continue reading “House Bill No. 553 has been introduced to License Home Inspectors in Missouri“
By Dennis Norman, on January 14th, 2011 You finally reach a deal with a buyer to sell your house, or strike a deal with the seller of your dream home, only to see the deal fall apart later when the house doesn’t appraise for the price that has been agreed upon…what are you to do? This is a plight that has become all too common today for many buyers and sellers. Why? Several reasons….appraisers have, after being blamed by many for causing or contributing to the downfall of the housing market, understandably so become cautious and somewhat conservative when putting a value on a home today. Not to mention, since about a third of the home sales are distressed sales and prices are still falling somewhat in many markets, the “value” of a home is a moving target.
What can home sellers and buyers do to avoid appraisal problems? Continue reading “Tips to Avoid Appraisal Problems“
By Robert Fishel, on August 26th, 2010 
STEP 1 Get pre-qualified for a loan: talk with your mortgage banker.
Determine your “mortgage goals.” Review your credit history and sources of income. Do you have money set aside for a down payment? Do you have an “ideal payment range” you would be comfortable with? What are your expectations. Continue reading “Six Important Steps on How to Buy a Home; St Louis Mortgage Watch“
By Robert Fishel, on July 14th, 2010
The mortgage industry has underwent some dramatic changes in the past year as has the regulations and rules the industry must comply with. Lender’s are barely able to keep up with everything new so it’s not surprising home-buyers have many questions when it comes to obtaining a mortgage to buy a home. Therefore, I thought I would take this opportunity to provide a list of questions that a home-buyer should ask their lender that I think will be helpful. Oh, and since I am a loan officer in St. Louis, I did take the liberty of giving my answer to these questions :)
Q: Are you a Banker or a Broker?
A: Mortgage Bankers are companies that fund their own loans with their own money. Mortgage Brokers rely on a third party to make the transaction happen. Paramount is a Mortgage Banker – no delays for closing – we’ll be there with the check!
Q: How can I help the transaction along?
A: Your responsiveness can make a difference in meeting the closing date. Please return any requested paperwork to Paramount as soon as you can. Schedule inspections as quickly as possible to allow for any maintenance that may be required.
Q: Who makes the decision on my loan?
A: We have staff underwriters for FHA, VA and Conventional loans, so we are able to make credit decisions quickly and in-house. Paramount is a locally owned and operated independent mortgage company. Most of our employees are native to St. Louis so we understand the nuances of our town.
Q: Will I need Mortgage Insurance?
A: Mortgage Insurance is required on all loans with less than 20% down to cover the lender in case of default. Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) for conventional loans can be paid monthly or financed through the term of the loan, while FHA loans have an up front fee as well as a monthly premium. Another option is a Combo Loan – a first and second mortgage – to avoid a PMI premium.
Q: How is my home value determined?
A: Paramount uses certified appraisers with decades of experience and a thorough knowledge of the industry and metropolitan area. To ensure the integrity of valuation we do not accept appraisals from non-certified or non-approved appraisers.
Q: When do I lock in an Interest Rate?
A: First you need a signed real estate contract and a firm closing date. You will lock in your rate once the loan program is determined and you are satisfied with the rate available. We recommend locking in quickly to avoid any potential upswing in the market.
Q: Will I get the best rate possible?
A: You will get the best loan program – including rate, APR and terms – for your needs. We evaluate your current financial situation and where you anticipate you will be down the road to determine what the best program will be for you and your unique needs; down payment assistance, limited documentation, lowest monthly payment, minimize PMI exposure, etc. More than rate determines the best loan for the buyer.
Q: Who will be at the closing?
A: Paramount will be there! Typically the borrower and anyone on the loan papers and your realtor attend closing. Paramount is at every closing delivering the closing documents and check which could save you on title company charges.
If you have more questions or would like additional information feel free to contact me using the contact information at the bottom of this post.
St. Louis Mortgage Interest Rates – July 14, 2010 *
- 30-year fixed-rate mortgage 4.50% no points
- 15-year fixed-rate mortgage 4.125% no points
- 5/1 adjustable rate mortgage 3.50% no points
- FHA/VA 30-year fixed rate mortgage 4.75%
- Jumbo 5/1 ARM 4.125% no points
- Jumbo 15 year fixed rate mortgage 4.625%
For more information or if you have questions on mortgage rates in St. Louis you may contact me by phone at my direct line, (314) 372-4319, email at rfishel@paramountmortgage.com or you can visit our company website at http://www.paramountmortgage.com.
*Note- The above rates are based upon a typical sale price of $187,500 with a 20% percent down payment leaving a loan amount of $150,000 to a borrower with a 720 credit score for a loan with no discount points charged. Rates and terms will vary depending upon loan amount, home value, credit and income of borrower.
This information is provided by this author and this site for informative purposes only and is not warranted or guarteed in any way.
By Dennis Norman, on June 18th, 2010  Dennis Norman According to a press release issued by the FBI, nearly 500 people have been arrested in a nationwide mortgage fraud take-down as part of “Operation Stolen Dreams.” This operation was launched on March 1, 2010 and, according to the FBI, has lead to a total of 485 arrests, 330 convictions and the recovery of nearly $11 million. The FBI estimates that losses from a variety of fraud schemes are estimated to exceed $2 billion.
Operation Stolen Dreams is the government’s largest mortgage fraud take-down to date. But FBI Director Robert S. Mueller cautioned that there is still much work to be done. The Bureau is currently pursuing more than 3,000 mortgage fraud cases, he said, which is almost double the number from the last fiscal year.
 “The staggering totals from this sweep highlight the mortgage fraud trends we are seeing around the country,” Attorney General Holder said. “We have seen mortgage fraud take on all shapes and sizes—from schemes that ensnared the elderly to fraudsters who targeted immigrant communities.”
A few examples:
-
In Miami, on Wednesday two people were arrested for targeting the Haitian-American community, claiming they would assist them with immigration and housing issues. Instead, they used victims’ personal information to produce false documents to obtain mortgage loans.
-
In California, a prominent home builder used straw buyers to sell his houses at inflated prices. The scheme inflated prices on other homes in the area, creating artificially high comparable sales and affecting the overall new-home market.
-
And in Detroit yesterday, FBI agents arrested several individuals in a $130 million scheme orchestrated by the local chapter of a motorcycle gang. The conspirators posed as mortgage brokers, appraisers, real estate agents, and title agents and used straw buyers to obtain around 500 mortgages on only 180 properties.
The FBI says to combat the problem, their National Mortgage Fraud Task Force helps identify mortgage frauds such as loan origination schemes, short sales, property flipping, and equity skimming. In addition, they have 23 mortgage fraud task forces in “hot spots” around the country, from California and Texas to Florida and New York.
Unlike previous mortgage fraud sweeps, Operation Stolen Dreams focused not only on federal criminal cases, but also on civil enforcement and restitution for victims. Federal agencies participating included the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Secret Service. Many state and local agencies were also involved in the operation.
The FBI has produced a video for consumers to help make you aware of the scams that are out there and show you how to avoid them. To watch the video click the link below:
FBI Video on Common Mortgage Fraud Scams
By Dennis Norman, on June 1st, 2010 UPDATE- June 2, 2010: The National Association of REALTORS obtained answers from the Treasury Department on 3 common questions about HAFA:
- agents are not permitted to rebate a portion of their commission to the buyer,
- sellers who are real estate agents must list their home for sale with another broker, not their own broker, and
- the incentive allowed for subordinate lien holders (6% of any one subordinate lien, up to a total of $6,000 for all subordinate liens) is a hard cap and may not be supplemented from any source.
 Dennis Norman In March I did an update on the Home Affordable Foreclosures Alternative (HAFA) Program which was scheduled to go into effect April 5, 2010. Today, Fannie Mae issued guidelines to their servicers outlining the policies and produres Fannie Mae had adopted as a result of HAFA.
What is HAFA? In a nutshell it gives qualifying homeowners the opportunity to do a short-sale or deed-in-lieu rather than face foreclosure:
The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program provides financial incentives to loan servicers as well as borrowers who do a short-sale or a deed-in-lieu to avoid foreclosure on an eligible loan under HAMP. Both of these foreclosure alternatives help the lender out by avoiding the potentially lengthy and expensive foreclosure proceedings and also by protecting the property by minimizing the time it is vacant and subject to vandalism and deterioration. These options help out the borrower by avoiding the foreclosure process and the uncertainty that comes with it and allows the borrower to negotiate when they will give up possession of their home as well as, under the HAFA program be released from any further liability from the loan including short-fall and deficiencies.
Highlights of the guidelines given to mortgage servicers by Fannie-Mae:
- Servicers are “encouraged to adapt their processes to implement these Fannie Mae HAFA policies and procedures immediately;” however, they have until August 1, 2010 to implement them.
- The HAFA Short-Sale and HAFA DIL (deed-in-lieu) program will be offered to borrowers through December 31, 2012
Borrower Eligibility for HAFA Consideration:
- A borrower cannot be considered for HAFA until the borrower has been evaluated for a HAMP modification (including, but not limited to, providing all required income documentation).
- Once a borrower has met all of the eligibility criteria for HAMP, the borrower must be considered for a HAFA short sale or DIL (after all home retention options have been considered) if the borrower:
- was not offered a trial modification due to inability to meet the HAMP qualifications (for example, did not pass the net present value (NPV) evaluation or meet the target monthly mortgage payment ratio based on verified income);
- failed to complete the trial period successfully;
- became two consecutive payments (31 or more days) delinquent on the modified mortgage loan; or
- requests a short sale or DIL.
- Lender’s are not allowed to consider a borrower for a Fannie Mae HAFA short sale or DIL (without consent from Fannie Mae) if:
- a foreclosure sale is scheduled to be held within 60 days of the borrower’s request for a Fannie Mae HAFA short sale or DIL, ordetermination that a borrower is ineligible for HAMP, or;
- a foreclosure proceeding could be initiated and reasonably be expected to result in a foreclosure sale being held within 60 days of the borrower’s request for a Fannie Mae HAFA short sale or DIL or determination that a borrower is ineligible for HAMP; or;
- the mortgage loan is secured by a property in Florida on which foreclosure proceedings are pending, judgment has been obtained, or a hearing on summary judgment or trial is scheduled within 60 days.
Financial Requirements of Borrower for HAFA:
The lender, prior to deciding if the borrower is eligible for HAFA, must determine if the borrower has:
- the ability to continue making the mortgage payments but chooses not to do so; or
- substantial unencumbered assets or significant cash reserves equal to or exceeding three times the borrower’s total monthly mortgage payment (including tax and insurance payments) or $5,000, whichever is greater; or
- high surplus income.
So the bottom line here is, if you have a bunch of assets, money in the bank or high income relative to you debt, Fannie Mae is not going to be interested in letting you walk away from your deficiency after a short-sale, or DIL.
On question that has come up on other posts I’ve written about this, is the effect of bankruptcy on eligibility for HAFA….Here’s the answer from Fannie Mae:
- A borrower in an active Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy case must be considered for a Fannie Mae HAFA short sale or DIL if the borrower, borrower’s counsel, or bankruptcy trustee submits a request to the servicer. However, the servicer is not required to solicit borrowers in active bankruptcy cases for shorts sales or DILs. With the borrower’s permission, a bankruptcy trustee may contact the servicer to request a short sale or DIL. The servicer and its counsel must work with the borrower or borrower’s counsel to obtain any court and/or trustee approvals required in accordance with local court rules and procedures. The servicer must extend the required time frames outlined in this Announcement as necessary to accommodate delays in obtaining bankruptcy court approvals or receiving any periodic payment when made to a bankruptcy trustee.
Lenders must, upon determination of eligibility for a HAFA Short-Sale or DIL, determine the fair market value of the property:
- As soon as a borrower is determined to be eligible for a Fannie Mae HAFA short sale or DIL and has demonstrated a willingness to participate, the servicer must take the necessary steps to determine the market value of the mortgaged property. Fannie Mae will require a broker price opinion (BPO) based on an interior and exterior inspection of the property or, if licensing requirements in the state dictate use of an appraisal for these purposes, an appraisal
- The BPO (or appraisal, if required) must be dated within 90 calendar days of the date the relevant HAFA Agreement is executed by the servicer.
Allowable Fees on Short-Sale:
Fannie-Mae will allow:
- real estate sales commission customary for the market. The servicer may not require that the commission be reduced to less than 6 percent of the sales price of the property;
- real estate taxes and other assessments prorated to the date of closing;
- local and state transfer taxes and stamps;
- title and settlement charges typically paid by the seller;
- seller’s attorney fees for settlement services typically provided by a title or escrow company;wood-destroying pest inspections and treatment, when required by local law or custom;
- homeowners’ or condominium association fees that are past due, if applicable.
- Fees paid to a third party to negotiate a short sale with the servicer (commonly referred to as “short sale negotiation fees” or “short sale processing fees”) must NOT be deducted from the sales proceeds or charged to the borrower.
- Additionally, the Servicer, its agents, or any outsourcing firm it employs must not charge (either directly or indirectly) any outsourcing fee, short sale negotiation fee, or similar fee in connection with any Fannie Mae loan.
In addition, Fannie Mae will allow;
- The Lessor of 6% of the balance of a junior lien, or $6,000, to settle the second lien.
- $3,000 to the Seller, to be paid out of sale proceeds, to help defray the costs of relocation.
Short-Sale Approval Should be Faster:
One of the major hindrances to short-sales has been the amount of time it takes for a lender or servicer to respond to an offer to purchaser, many times taking several months. Under these new guidelines that should not be a problem because, provided the Seller’s Agent has submitted all the required document to Fannie Mae (they only have 3 business days to submit) then the servicer must respond to the offer within 10 business days indicating acceptance or rejection of the offer. This is huge and should really help facilitate short-sales.
Deed-in-Lieu Eligibility:
Generally, for a borrower to be eligible for a Fannie Mae HAFA DIL, the mortgaged property must have been listed for sale at market value for 120 days or more. A servicer may waive the requirement that the property securing the mortgage loan previously be listed for sale in cases involving:
- a serious illness or disability,
- a deceased borrower or co-borrower,
- a borrower or co-borrower who has been relocated or who has been deployed by the military,
- a determination that local market conditions would impede a sale of the property,
- a borrower who demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to maintain or market the property during the listing period, or
- a borrower who has expressed an interest in doing a Deed for Lease
This is simply an overview of the Fannie-Mae guidelines and the HAFA program…there is much more, but this gives you the idea. For starters, this is nothing that a homeowner would want to take on alone in my opinion. I think you need a qualified real estate broker or agent, that has in-depth knowledge about HAMP and HAFA and the short-sale process.
To get more information I suggest your read my post from March, you can access that by clicking here, or if you really want to have some fun, you can read the complete Fannie-Mae guidelines by clicking here.
By News Desk, on April 26th, 2010 The United States Attorney’s Office announced today that Aaron Duncan, the former CEO and owner of The Duncan Group, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges involving a $3.9 million investment scheme.
According to court documents, Duncan represented that The Duncan Group was involved in real estate investments, including buying, rehabilitating, and selling residential real estate. Duncan solicited investors in Missouri and around the United States to participate in his real estate projects through The Duncan Group by making false representations regarding the security of investments and the rates of returns promised. Bank records revealed that Duncan operated The Duncan Group investment program as a Ponzi scheme. Investors who were repaid on their principal investments were paid from funds obtained from other investors, rather than from returns on investments in real estate projects as promised and represented. At no time did Duncan advise investors that their returns, if paid at all, would be paid from other investors’ principal. Typically, Duncan falsely told investors that their principal investments were secured by a specific property. For example, some investors were told that an investor’s name would be placed on a particular deed or that investors were “securitized” by first mortgages on properties.
Bank records show that beginning no later than December 2005, Duncan was experiencing personal financial problems and was often late on his home mortgage payments.
The scheme operated from roughly January 2006 until Duncan advised investors of his intention to declare bankruptcy in October 2008. During the scheme, Duncan received investment principal from more than 50 investors who ultimately lost a total of approximately $3.9 million. Records recovered during the investigation revealed that Duncan only bought approximately 10 properties and that these ten properties lost money in total. Investor money was not used as promised and represented, instead, investor money was routinely used to pay other investors, pay routine expenses of the business, and to pay Duncan’s personal expenses.
Duncan, 33, Defiance, Missouri, pleaded guilty to one felony count of mail fraud and one felony count of money laundering before United States District Judge Carol E. Jackson. Sentencing has been set for July 27, 2010.
“Promoters of Ponzi schemes prey upon trusting investors and then steal their hard earned money. Investors should be wary that programs promising unbelievable returns on investment should be looked at carefully,” said Toni Weirauch, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation, St. Louis Field Office.
“Mr. Duncan conned potential investors by promising a high rate of return on real estate and a fast turnaround,” said Michael Kaste, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI St. Louis Division. “Anytime before investing, people should do their homework and check with agencies like the Secretary of State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Better Business Bureau and other court records. But even then, con men will build a 12-foot ladder to climb an 11-foot wall.”
Mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000; money laundering carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000.
This case was investigated by Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, the Postal Inspection Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities Division of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney John Bodenhausen is handling the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
By Dennis Norman, on March 12th, 2010 Dennis Norman Appellant Says Bellefontaine Ordinance is Unconstitutional but City Inspector Still Enforcing It
Last month I did a post about a decision handed down by the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District that was a significant victory for St. Louis property owners by striking down part of an ordinance that violates our property rights as well as our First Amendment Rights to free speech.
Unfortunately, it appears no one told the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors they lost the case, or if they did, some may be choosing to ignore the court’s decision. I say this because I heard that Mark Scatizzi, the local REALTOR® who brought the appeal after being cited and fined for failing to have a home inspected and obtain a certificate of compliance from the City prior to marketing the property for sale, and the second being for displaying a “for-sale” sign in the window, again without obtaining the inspection first, had another run-in with the City of Bellefontaine and it seems nothing has changed.
This time involves a house Scatizzi has listed that is owned by a bank. Scatizzi said a Bellefontaine Inspector, Ted Stocker, told Scatizzi’s property manager that they could not advertise the home without first getting a property inspection. Scatizzi’s property manager then referenced the recent appellant court decision (which said that part of the ordinance was unconstitutional) and the inspector’s response was “the decision did not pertain to him and that he would continue to enforce the city ordinance.” Shortly thereafter, Scattiz received two notices from the city indicating he would need to have the house inspected prior to advertising it for sale. Interesting thing is, according to Scatizzi, this all happened even prior to him actually listing the home for sale.
This morning I contacted the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors again to inquire about the status of their ordinance. I was referred to the Mayor, Marty Rudloff. When I referenced the appellant court decision in the case “City of Bellefontaine Neighbors vs Mark Scatizzi” he said he had no idea what I was talking about, “it must be an old case”. I told the Mayor that the appeals court decision came at the end of January and that the decision indicated part of their ordinance requiring a property inspection before advertising a property for sale was unconstitutional. Mayor Rudloff said even though he was not aware of the case that if that is what the appellant court said the City would abide by it. I then told him the story about his inspector Ted Stocker and he said what Stocker said was not the city’s position and he would look into it.
I had this post completed then decided in fairness to the inspector, Ted Stocker, I would try to reach him again. I had called this morning but he was out. This time when I called I was able to talk with Mr. Stocker, the building inspector. Mr. Stocker told me that he was aware of the appellant court decision (I’m not sure how he knows but not the mayor?) he denied the quote that was attributed to him above by Scatizziand and said that, since receiving the notice from their attorney about the court decision he has “stopped pulling for sale signs” from yards. He said that now, when he sees a for sale sign in a yard, he makes note of it and comes sends the property owner a letter advising them that they must obtain a compliance inspection before anyone new occupies the property. So I said, “basically a courtesy letter?” and he said that was correct. I then said “so in other words the city is not enforcing the part of the ordinance that requires a property owner to obtain an inspection PRIOR to advertising their property for sale” and Mr. Stocker said that was correct.
Now I’m Confused…
We have the mayor that has no knowledge of the lawsuit nor the decision of the appeals court but stresses the city would comply with the court’s ruling.
We have an inspector that DOES have knowledge of the lawsuit and the appellant court decision and says they are not enforcing the ordinance.
But then, I receive two letters from Mark Scatizzi which back up what he has told me. Both letters are on letterhead of the City of Bellefontaine neighbors and are from the Building Department. The first letter is dated February 22, 2010 (the appellant court decision was on January 26, 2010) and states that “The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors has a Property Maintenance Code which requires that a house inspetion be completed before properties are offered for sale, rental or changing tenants.” The letter then goes on to add “After the Inspection is completed, the property may be placed on the market.” Hmm, certainly sounds like they are still enforcing the ordinance…the letter does not say what Mr. Stocker told me the letters say. The second letter is dated March 2, 2010 and while, instead of appearing to be a “form letter” like the first letter, still says the same thing, that “The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors has a Property Maintenance Code which requires that a House Inspection be completed before properties are offered for sale, rental or the changing of tenants.”
I believe that Steve Murphy, Mark Scatizzi’s attorney, has been in contact with the attorney for the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors.
Ah, the fun never ends.
By Dennis Norman, on March 9th, 2010
Dennis Norman
This story is part of my ongoing series on how local laws negatively impact the property rights of property owners in the St. Louis area
Unfortunately I don’t have to try too hard to find examples of local laws that seriously impact the rights of property owners in the St. Louis area, particularly those property owners that are landlords or other investors.
My story today comes from a friend of mine, a St. Louis REALTOR(R) that buys homes for his rental portfolio. For the sake of the article, and to help him avoid retaliation from Velda City, I’m going to refer to this person as “Joe” in this article.
Joe’s story is interesting, and scary. Joe purchased a home in Velda City, a small municipalty of 1,600 people with an average household income of $35,745, and one of 91 municipalities in St. Louis County, Missouri. Joe’s plan to was to rehab the house and rent it.
Velda City has an ordinance that requires an inspection by the City of the home before not only someone can move into the home (which is sort of typical), but also before ANY work can be done to the property. This part of the ordinance is a little unusual…most municipalities allow a property owner to work on their property and try to bring it in compliance with all local building codes prior to having it inspected so long as the house is not occupied prior to being “passed” by the city.
In this case, my friend Joe went by the house he bought one day after buying it so that he could show a prospective tenant the house and describe the improvements he was going to make as well as to leave a few tools in the garage.
Joe was present at the home he had purchased for a total of about 15 minutes when the Velda City Police showed up. They questioned why he was “on” his property prior to getting the home inspected. He explained that he was just showing the house to someone and dropping off some tools in the garage and assured the officer that no work was being done to the property. Unfortunately Joes explanation didn’t matter, the officer wrote him a ticket for, basically being in the home he owned.
So Joe got a ticket for being present on his property basically.
By Dennis Norman, on February 9th, 2010 Dennis Norman Appeals Court Strikes Down Bellefontaine’s Ordinance Affecting Real Estate For Sale Signs
At the end of January the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District handed down a decision on a case that I think is a significant victory for St. Louis property owners and strikes down part of an ordinance that violates our property rights as well as our First Amendment Rights to free speech.
The case involves Mark Scatizzi, a local REALTOR® who, after listing a home for sale at 1027 Addision, in the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, advertised the property for sale and posted a “for sale” sign in the window of the property, all without first applying for an inspection of the home by Bellefontaine Neighbors. The City then charged Scatizzi by information in municipal court with two ordinance violations, the first being failure to have the property inspected and obtain a certificate of compliance from the City prior to marketing theproperty for sale, and the second being for displaying a “for-sale” sign in the window, again without obtaining the inspection first. Ultimately one charge was dismissed and the lower court ruled in favor of the City on the remaining one and fined Scattizi $100. Scattizi appealed the decision and the Appellant Court just reversed the lower courts ruling.
What Mark Scatizzi had faced with the City of Bellefontaine was something that many of us St Louis REALTORS® have to deal with daily; local ordinances that are passed that either affect owner’s property rights, impede an owner’s ability to sell a property or in some cases discourage ownership of rental property. In the case of Bellefontaine Neighbors, the city has in their property maintenance code the following requirement:
(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or lessor of any property subject to the provisions of this code, or their agent, to advertise in any way, or to list with a real estate agent or other broker, such property for the purpose of selling, leasing, renting or otherwise transferring its ownership or possession, without first applying for the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance by the code official.
In his appeal Scatizzi stated that he felt this ordinance was unconstitutional and limited his right to free speech, below is an excerpt from the decision with the comments on this claim by Judge Clifford Ahrens who wrote the opinion of the appellant court:
In his first point, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in enforcing section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 because it violates his right to free speech, his right to contract, and his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
3 Regarding speech, Defendant contends specifically that, by prohibiting an owner or agent from advertising property without first applying for a certificate of compliance, section 112.4(a) places an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. We agree.
Scatizzi also claimed that the Bellefontaine ordinance violation a Missouri State Law (67.317 RSMo) that was passed back in 1984 that states “No political subdivision of this state shall enact or enforce any ordinance which forbids or restricts the right of any owner of an interest in real property or his agent from displaying on the property a sign of reasonable dimensions, as may be determined by local ordinance, advertising:”.
The appellant court agreed with Scatizzi on this point as well addressing as follows:
In his second point, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not finding that section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 violates section 67.317 RSMo, which prohibits municipalities from restricting the right of homeowners and their agents to erect signs advertising real property for sale except as to sign size….
Superimposing the plain language of section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 over that of section 67.317 RSMo compels the conclusion that the ordinance violates the statute. The Supreme Court of Missouri reached such a conclusion under similar facts in City of Dellwood v. Twyford, 912 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1995). There, the city’s ordinance required owners to submit an application and pay a fee before advertising real property for sale. Noting that section 67.317 does not authorize cities to impose any restrictions other than reasonable dimension restrictions, the Court held the ordinance invalid. Id. at 60. Likewise here, section 112.4(a) of ordinance 2057 purports to impose a restriction that section 67.317 expressly prohibits. As such, we hold it invalid. Point granted.
And finally the conclusion of the appellant court decision was:
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
I assumed that this decision by the appellant court would cause the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors to stop enforcing the part of their ordinance deemed unconstitutional and in violation of State Law by the appellant court, but it appears my assumption may be wrong, at least for now. I say this because I just called Bellefontaine to confirm they were not enforcing these parts of the ordinance and after speaking with Karen in the building department it appears the city is still enforcing the ordinance, in spite of the appellant court decision.
I asked Karen if I was a homeowner and called city hall saying that I wanted to put my home on the market and was it OK to advertise it and put up a for-sale sign what I would be told and she told me that I would be told that I need to come in and fill out a building inspection application, pay the fee, and then after the initial building inspection I could then advertise my home for sale and put up a sign. Hmm…not sure what they are thinking…..
By Dennis Norman, on January 6th, 2010
- Dennis Norman
In the past I think closing costs associated with the purchase of a home were pretty much a mystery to many, if not most, home buyers with many not even being sure what they were paying for. Most buyers simply went through the process, paying for closing fees, notary fees, title examination, title insurance, survey, flood letters, courier fees, recording fees, etc. without ever realizing that these fees and costs may vary with other vendors.
January 1st changes went into effect in the RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) which will require lenders to fully disclose all closing costs, including the costs of obtaining a loan as well as estimated costs for title insurance, settlement and other services within three days after a buyer applies for a mortgage. This should make it easier for buyers to see what services they are being provided, what the cost is estimated to be and to have time to shop around to find the best providers of those services at the most reasonable prices. Basically it gives buyers the opportunity to take control of “their deal” and not just “go with the flow” hoping that vendors being selected by your lender, real estate agent and/or title company are providing you with the best service at the best price. While preparing to do this post I ran across a company that I am not familiar with but have to admit I really like their website and think it could be a great resource for homebuyers. The company is called Closing Corp and their website is Closing.com.  Home buyers can go to their website, fill in the address of the property you are buying, answer a few questions and not only get a detailed estimate of their house payments as well as closing costs but also see quotes for various services from local companies (such as title insurance, home warranties, etc) and then print out a report. I entered an address here in St. Louis and got the following results:
-
47 title companies listed with prices from 6
-
10 home warranty companies with prices from 8
-
28 home inspection companies with prices from 13
-
17 pest control companies with prices from 3
As I looked over the “quotes” for the various services I found several disclaimers, basically nothing is binding of course, but I do think this gives a buyer a good idea of the range of prices they should expect as well as gives them a list of various vendors in their area they can consider. In addition it provides short explanations of each service such as this description of title insurance which, while it is short, I think it does a decent job of explaining what it is:
Title Insurance protects property owners and lenders from losses that could result from disputes over who actually owns the property. This could include fraud, liens against the property, or errors missed during a title search.
If nothing else the fact that it estimates your monthly mortgage payment for you, including an estimate for property taxes and property insurance, is probably worth the visit to the site.
———————————————————————————————
Authors disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Closing.Com nor recommendation or warranty, expressed or implied. It is simply an editorial review of the site. Realize that general and generic information from this site or any other like it is just that, general and generic. Consult your real estate professional to assist you in getting information specific to your situation.
By Dennis Norman, on December 18th, 2009 Dennis Norman UPDATE June 7, 1010 – Here are links to the Forms from MHDC to claim the tax credit as well as some sample forms they have provided showing how to fill them in:
Program Application
Home Purchase Affidavit
Promissory Note
Hope Program Information and Instructions
Sample Forms
******
Just moments ago, the Missouri Housing Development Commission passed at $35 million economic development initiative. Part of this initiative (to the tune of $20 million worth) is aimed toward helping stimulate home sales in Missouri.
 The initiative includes:
- $15 million to pay the first year of property taxes for qualified homebuyers who purchase a new or existing home after January 1, 2010. According to Missouri Treasurer, Clint Zweifel, this has the opportunity to help between 9,000 and 11,000 Missouri families making less than $100,000 a year.
- $5 million in assistance to qualified homebuyers to help with down payments and closing costs. This helps potential homebuyers overcome the obstacle of coming up with enough cash for a down payment and closing costs.
- In addition, there is assistance to homebuyers who purchase an energy-efficient home or purchase energy-saving appliances.
I have not seen the plan that was actually approved, however below are the details of the plan that was proposed to MHDC by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon and State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (remember, some things could have been changed when approved today) from a press release issued in November.
If approved by the commission, Missouri families making less than $98,000 a year who enter into a contract to purchase a new or existing Missouri home after Jan. 1 would have their property tax paid up to $1,250. Those families would be eligible to have an additional $500 paid towards the tax bill if the homeowner purchases a energy efficient home or items, such as Energy Star appliances, to make the home more energy efficient.
Who is eligible?
Income eligibility is based on previously adopted MHDC guidelines. Depending on the county of the home sale, household income limit guidelines for low to moderate income persons or families approved by MHDC last spring range from $58,300 to $98,560. These grants are for owner-occupied purchases only.
When would it start?
If approved by the MHDC at its next meeting on Dec. 18, 2009, funds would be available for contracts entered into after Jan. 1, 2010, on a first-come, first-served basis.
How much of the property tax bill could be paid?
Eligible homeowners could have up to $1,750 of their property tax bills paid. According to the State Tax Commission, the average residential real estate tax bill for a Missouri homeowner is $1,160. An income-qualified individual or family is eligible to receive $1,250 or the amount of their first year’s real estate tax bill, whichever is highest, when they purchase a new or existing residential home. An income-qualified individual or family can enhance this base amount, up to $1,750, if they purchase an energy-efficient new home or make energy efficient improvements to an existing home that is purchased. These improvements must be made prior to closing or within 60 days of closing.
How do Missourians apply for these funds?
Forms and affidavits will be part of documents executed at the home sale closing. Additional receipts and documentation will be required for proof of energy efficient improvements.
What energy-efficiency upgrades would be eligible for the additional incentive?
Eligible improvements would include installing high-performance windows, house wraps, programmable thermostat controls, water-efficient toilets and faucets, and energy-efficient water heaters, lighting and appliances; sealing heating and air conditioning ductwork; caulking; insulating water heater pipes; increasing the R-value of insulation in crawl spaces and attics; and conducting on-site energy efficiency inspections and tests, including a blower door test, which tests the overall energy efficiency of the house, and a duct blaster test, which tests how much the air ductwork leaks.
By News Desk, on November 8th, 2009  Department of Justice Press Release
TAMPA—United States Attorney A. Brian Albritton today announced the results of a nine-month-long Mortgage Fraud Surge investigation that has resulted in charges against more than 100 defendants and involves allegations concerning more than $400 million in loans procured by fraud and more than 700 properties. U.S. Attorney Albritton is holding events throughout the district this week to highlight the announcement.
There are currently mortgage fraud-related charges pending against approximately 500 defendants in federal mortgage fraud cases around the nation. The cases concern both mortgage schemes designed to defraud mortgage lenders and “foreclosure rescue schemes” which prey on distressed homeowners. Continue reading “Mortgage Fraud Surge Investigation Nets More Than 100 Individuals Throughout Middle District of Florida“
By Dennis Norman, on November 1st, 2009  Gerry Loesch, PE In part one, part two, part three and part four of this series I gave you some background on Gerry Loesch as well as his informative E-View TM.
Now we’ll finish with the final post of his E-View TM:
Q-What should a consumer look for when choosing a building inspector?
A-In my opinion, when selecting a building inspector the following things should be considered: Continue reading “What should a home buyer know about home inspections? Final post in the series“
By Dennis Norman, on October 31st, 2009 Gerry Loesch, PE In part one, part two and part three of this series I gave you some background on Gerry Loesch as well as his informative E-View TM. Now we’ll pick up where we left off.
Gerry’s closing remarks show his passion for his profession: “I still love what I do. It is the only job where I get to give my opinion, no one has to agree with it, and I still get paid.” Well said Gerry! Where do I sign up???
Now we’ll continue with the E-View TM:
Q-Many cities and municipalities throughout the country have some sort of occupancy inspection. Since a building inspector from the local city or county is going to be inspecting the property to assure it’s compliance with local property maintenance codes, is it really necessary in this case for a buyer to still obtain an private building inspection? If so, why? Continue reading “What should a home buyer know about home inspections? Part four of a series“
By Dennis Norman, on October 29th, 2009 Gerry Loesch, PE In part one and part two of this series I gave you some background on Gerry Loesch as well as his informative E-View TM. Now we’ll pick up where we left off.
Gerry graduated from the University of Missouri at Rolla with a Bachelors and Master degree in Civil Engineering. He has been performing home inspections and engineering consultations for 32 years and during that period has inspected almost 15,000 homes.
Now we’ll continue with the E-View TM: Continue reading “What should a home buyer know about home inspections? Part three of a series“
By Dennis Norman, on October 28th, 2009 Gerry Loesch, PE In part one of this series I gave you some background on Gerry Loesch as well as the beginning of his informative E-View TM. Now we’ll pick up where we left off.
Gerry served as the National President of ASHI (American Society of Home Inspectors) in 1984-1986 and has served as well in various positions of numerous other local and national industry related organizations over the years.
Now we’ll continue with the E-View TM: Continue reading “What should a home buyer know about home inspections? Part two of a series“
By Dennis Norman, on October 27th, 2009 Gerry Loesch, PE To answer this question I called upon Gerry Loesch, a 30 year veteran home inspector with an impressive resume. Gerry was kind enough to do an in-depth E-View TM with me on the subject of home inspections. Gerry’s experience and knowledge shows in the depth and detail of his answers.
Since this is a rather long E-View TM I’ll do it in a series. In each post I will begin with a some background on Gerry. Continue reading “St. Louis Real Estate News – What should a home buyer know about home inspections?“
|
Recent Articles
|
