Remix.run Logo
cliglot a day ago

> You can buy a house from the government for $3,000

With $120,000 owed in back taxes due by you upon purchase. Also the structure is derelict and will have to be destroyed before anything can be done with it.

burningChrome a day ago | parent | next [-]

This is the same thing that happened back in the day. I remember seeing ads to buy castles in Europe for under $10,000. I made a quip about it to my boss and he said he was seriously looking into it as he was really big into real estate at the time.

He assumed he would have to put some money into it, but not the millions the fine print said they would need to invest to bring it up to a livable standard - which required a ton of construction, electrical and plumbing as a starter. He kind of scoffed at it once he started learning all of the details.

I also remember seeing the same thing when entire blocks of houses were being sold during the housing crash after 2008. Majority of the houses were in really bad neighborhoods (the ads for houses in Detroit were eye opening) or conversely way TF out in never never land where some developer decided to build some neighborhood development that went belly up after the crash and was stuck with half finished houses and no way to pay to get them finished.

BizarroLand a day ago | parent [-]

in 2012 I had a chance to buy a duplex in a relatively desirable neighborhood for $25k. It needed about $25k in rehab, but $50k in that area was unheard of.

My (now ex) wife was against buying it because we had not bought a home for ourselves yet, and even trying to explain that we could buy it, live in one side, rent the other for the full cost of the mortgage and then some was not enough to convince her, so I let it slide as no amount of money was worth the never-ending argument that it would have caused.

That duplex is worth about $450k now, and if I had gone through with it it would have generated a conservative $200k in rent income in the meantime.

If I had known the relationship would have been over in less than 5 years from that point, I probably would have bought it anyway, but at the time my mentality was "happy wife, happy life", naively thinking that there was a way to make someone happy who refused to be happy.

jagged-chisel a day ago | parent [-]

> ... I probably would have bought it anyway ...

Maybe the restoration would have been a (or another) point of friction, and perhaps the project would not have gone well because of it. You could have sold for breakeven, or less. Then you (and/or she) would have blamed that as the reason things went south.

Or it could have gone well and you could have lost your share in a divorce.

I don't really have a point ... maybe, bygones and all ...

dumbmrblah a day ago | parent | next [-]

A wise man once told me that most relationships can survive two affairs or one house remodel.

ethbr1 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Or it could have gone well and you could have lost your share in a divorce.

The Duplex: the perfect property for divorce settlements!

BugsJustFindMe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's also in, if you'll pardon my saying so, located in a shit-hole place to live. Look at the building across the street on google street view.

BorisMelnik a day ago | parent | next [-]

not always true or even the norm, I checked 3 near me and they are decent neighborhoods

Waterluvian a day ago | parent [-]

I’m curious about this but don’t want to dox you. Any guidance on how to find comparable examples?

BorisMelnik a day ago | parent [-]

check south florida

malshe a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The best deals are always in shithole places /s

There was an episode of Fixer Upper where Chip and Joanna helped their carpenter buy a house for 15K. The neighborhood was dystopian. Presumably people were using the house for shooting practice as its one side was entirely bullet riddled.

asdff a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends. I know people who got property from the city's sort of "land bank" operation for $1. No they did not have to pay any back taxes on it even though that is how the city got it from the original owners. The city even destroyed the old structure, backfilled it, and maintained the lot with regular mowing before it traded hands. Seems the city was desperate to just hand it over to someone to get it off their books really.

NitpickLawyer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> With $120,000 owed in back taxes due by you upon purchase.

How does it work in the US? Are taxes on the property itself? This feels weird. I would have thought that the property can only be sold if everything is OK with it (no litigation, liens, etc), and taxes are owed by persons? Is it different over there?

1-more a day ago | parent | next [-]

> the property can only be sold if everything is OK with it (no litigation, liens, etc), and taxes are owed by persons? Is it different over there?

This could vary by jurisdiction, but as I understand it, taxes and liens are attached to the property itself. "Clean title" can be a contingency of offer: buyer can back out and get back their earnest money (aka deposit) if the property has liens/encumbrances that are not written down in the sales contract (example clause at the link at the end). When you buy the place, you get title insurance, often mandated by your mortgage lender. The title insurance company does a title search on the property to find liens and owed money on the property and then sells you an insurance policy saying that they'll make it right if they missed anything during their search. This is because your mortgage lender never wants to be second in line to get their hands on the property to recoup in case you default on your mortgage. Liens on the property should be easy to find because they're supposed to be registered with the local municipality: maybe the city you're in, maybe the county, maybe the state, idk I think it depends. In practice, maybe some roofer/plumber/landscaper forgot to do that and now you have a problem you didn't know you had. That's what the insurance is for. The property _status_ is not knowable so much as the _status transitions_ are knowable: when was a lien attached or removed from the property, so that's why it involves a private company looking it up. You'd think it'd be a public good, but it's not. Odd.

As an example: when I bought my current place, the previous owner was financing the furnace which included free annual service from the installer. He wanted us to take over the payments. We asked him to convey without encumbrances, meaning pay off the balance with the furnace company before we'd close on the house. If he had refused, we could have backed out of the sale because our offer said that we were only willing to buy without owing anyone anything.

https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/title-contingency

HeyLaughingBoy a day ago | parent | next [-]

As an aside, I'm told that Title companies make absolute bank. Most buyers get title insurance, but the insurer very rarely ever has to make a payment.

pwg a day ago | parent [-]

> Most buyers get title insurance,

This is because all lenders require title insurance as a requirement for receiving the loan monies. So for almost all buyers they have no choice, their bank/credit union that is actually putting up most of the money forces it upon them.

HeyLaughingBoy a day ago | parent [-]

Not all buyers are using loans. First house I sold was to someone who refused title insurance because in his words, "that house has been sold 3 times in 10 years, the title's fine."

1-more a day ago | parent [-]

I swear I heard this same story elsewhere online. Maybe it was here in another thread.

sfn42 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> In practice, maybe some roofer/plumber/landscaper forgot to do that and now you have a problem you didn't know you had

Seems to me like this should be the contractor's problem. If they did the job 2 weeks ago fine, but if they come along 6+ months later after the house is sold demanding payment from the new owner that seems ridiculous to me. Surely if these Liens are supposed to be public there needs to be a requirement that they are registered as soon as possible.

Otherwise it seems to me like this is a ripe opportunity for scams. Buy house, have contractors refurbish it, sell it for a much higher value, then the contractors register their debts and now the new buyers or their insurance is on the hook for the refurbishment.

quickthrowman a day ago | parent [-]

> Otherwise it seems to me like this is a ripe opportunity for scams. Buy house, have contractors refurbish it, sell it for a much higher value, then the contractors register their debts and now the new buyers or their insurance is on the hook for the refurbishment.

This is called ‘fraud’, it is already illegal.

Mechanic’s liens are good and necessary for customers like the current US President who fail to pay their contractors.

sfn42 a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah I don't have a problem with liens, I have a problem with unregistered liens. There needs to be a system for registering and searching liens, it needs to be publicly accessible and the lien needs to be registered before it's valid. In order to register a lien on a car you need the owner's signature, that can't work when the owner has changed. Mechanic needs to get the contract signed then report the new lien to wherever it should be reported, and once that's all in order they can start working on the vehicle.

If they try to register their lien once the owner of the vehicle has changed, it can not be accepted. You can't secure debt with a vehicle you no longer own. The lender needs to make sure the person owns the car and register the debt while they still own the car. And if they sell the car then they have money to pay the debt, and since they no longer own the car then their debt is no longer secured so that should trigger a requirement to pay the debt per the loan contract. Debt should be owned by people not objects.

The whole concept of debt that's attached to objects is silly. It can make sense in certain situations like a housing association that's taking up a shared loan and paying it down as part of shared monthly expenses, but for a car repair or similar it makes no sense. The person who takes the debt is responsible for the debt. If they sell the car then they pay the debt with the money from the sale, if the sale doesn't cover the debt then they still owe the rest.

It does not need to be any more complicated than this. In order for anyone to take over responsibility for debt in relation to a purchase, there needs to be explicit written and signed consent. So - I can buy a house including some debt if I know and agree to it, but I can't unwittingly buy a landmine. If the owner fails to resolve their debts when they sell that should be their problem not the buyer's. It's up to the bank to collect their debts from the person they have a contract with.

1-more 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> If they try to register their lien once the owner of the vehicle has changed, it can not be accepted.

This is true in practice with houses, not in theory. Here's an example (differs by jurisdiction) of how the deadlines work for filing a lien: https://www.levelset.com/payment-help/question/can-we-lien-a.... The title search should include "are the sellers the defendants in a lawsuit wherein if they lose, the judgment results in a lien on the property." We actually went under contract on a house where the owner's name matched someone in bankruptcy and triggered this. We knew the guys were different (ages, addresses) but our mortgage lender needed the title company to figure out their mistake first. So the lien attaching to a house that sells in the meantime is a really extraordinary circumstance: closings usually take 30 days so what are the odds that something gets filed in that meantime without already being underway? If the lien does attach to the house, then the buyer would have a tort against the seller for putting them on the hook, but the mechanic would have a backstop for getting paid in the form of the lien. The buyer could get a judgment against the seller. But that'll all be handled by the title insurance if it ever comes to that.

> The person who takes the debt is responsible for the debt. If they sell the car then they pay the debt with the money from the sale, if the sale doesn't cover the debt then they still owe the rest.

This is how it really works in practice. The mortgage company won't let you buy the house with the liens still attached. The debts will get paid out of the purchase price of the house. Who gets paid what out of the sale price is already determined before the actual closing date, and the mortgage company writes separate checks to everyone who needs to get paid (I think). The insurance is there in case something very out of the ordinary happens. Even the cost of paying someone to figure out who gets what is part of that insurance policy (again, I think).

> If the owner fails to resolve their debts when they sell that should be their problem not the buyer's.

It effectively is. The title search before the closing reveals all of this and pauses the sales process. Nothing proceeds until they come up with a plan to pay it off. The insurance is only for extraordinary circumstances where someone messed up the recording of the lien.

> There needs to be a system for registering and searching liens, it needs to be publicly accessible and the lien needs to be registered before it's valid.

This would be the best. I'd love it if it were federal so you just had to search one thing. Bankruptcy is federal, so why not this? Even better: if the system could record the house going under contract. You're a roofer who's been lazy suing somebody. Every Monday you upload the CSV of addresses that owe you money. One of those days, you see "this house is now under contract and you have 5 days until the window to register lawsuits against the sellers closes" You call your lawyer and tell them to start the lawsuit for the unpaid debt. Sellers and buyers get notified that the title isn't clear and there's a suit worth $X to work out.

This then produces the problem of people monitoring every address in their town and threatening the parties to the sale with a baseless lawsuit in order to pause the sale. You may have to bring back corporal punishment to stop such individuals. Hmm. Much to consider.

Scubabear68 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Very commonly in the U.S. are liabilities that "run with the land", not the owner. This is done intentionally.

Easements can be a huge headache too e.g. some utility may have an easement to come on your property at any time and do a whole list of activities to maintain a pipeline, or power line, or what have you.

chasd00 a day ago | parent [-]

yeah I had a neighbor spend a lot of time and money planting flowers only to have the city destroy all of it when it was time for new utilities heh. You need to know about easements.

I find mineral rights interesting. You can own some land, say 20 acres, and then discover something valuable under it like oil but then it turns out the rights to that oil are owned by someone else. Further the owner of those mineral rights can drill on the surface of the land, which you own, without your permission.

jjav 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> Further the owner of those mineral rights can drill on the surface of the land, which you own, without your permission.

The oligarchs always win.

dlcarrier a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It varies by state and sometimes even county. Sometimes you buy the property outright (a deed), sometimes you buy the debt (a lien), so the original owner pays you back with interest but they keep the property unless you foreclose, and sometimes you buy the right to the land if the original owner doesn't pay you back within a set time frame. (a redemption deed)

Here's a general map of how it works, by state: https://www.secretsoftaxlieninvesting.com/tax-sale-map

In general, when it's sold as a deed, and sometimes as a redemption deed, non-government liens on the property are forfeit, and it clears out the taxes owed by the government entity selling it, but it doesn't clear out other government liens, e.g. when a property is sold to pay county property tax, the federal government could have a lien on it for income tax owed by the same owner, and the county could have a lien on it for sidewalk repair, and a mortgage company could have a lien for a loan. The mortgage company would be unable to collect anything, the federal tax lien would likely allow the government to force you to sell it to them for what you paid for it, but they wouldn't be entitled to collect from you, because it's the previous owner who pays taxes, but you could still be required to pay the county lien for sidewalk, plus penalties accrued since the previous owners non payment started, because you now own that property and its sidewalk.

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
dcrazy a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s called a tax sale. The delinquent tax was assessed on the value of the ”improved property”.

mmmlinux a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh and its filled with asbestos, so you're gonna be on the hook for that too.

fhdkweig a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, you are basically just buying the land underneath.

dwa3592 a day ago | parent [-]

not quiet true - if you wanna use the land - you'd have to pay to destroy the house already built on top of it.

sumtechguy a day ago | parent [-]

and sometimes you can not do that. if it is some sort of historical thing.

chasd00 a day ago | parent [-]

or filled with asbestos.

quickthrowman a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if there’s no tax or other liens, demolishing a house probably costs $10-20k, my guess is that the $3000 minus $15,000 would equal the rough cost of an empty lot in the same area, $12k.

someguynamedq a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

123,000 is still very cheap

advisedwang a day ago | parent | next [-]

Did you look at the $3000 house? https://govauctions.app/auction/hud-home-420-e-dayton-st-fli...

It needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It's not a large plot. It doesn't seem to be in an attractive location. For all we know the water is undrinkable. I suspect its true value is negative.

Scoundreller a day ago | parent [-]

Heh, some landowner near me owned a piece of contaminated property. Technically worthless but was getting some lease money for a shop on the property. I think their game plan was for the city to grow and it being valuable to excavate one day for a condo or other building. Soil remediation is a lot cheaper when you dig anyway.

Transit agency tried to expropriate for a train station at market value: ie $0.

Looks like it got settled out of court: https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/88178

furyofantares a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, maybe - but just because 123,000 is cheap doesn't mean it's OK to make your headline "You can buy a house from the government for $3,000" if the reality is that it's 40x as expensive and you don't actually get a house, you get a demolition project you have to complete in order to use the land.

cliglot a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes and for that I can get something much nicer in a non derelict area. Probably a much better plot too if I go rural.

beng-nl a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Not if the thing is actually worth $3000

Aeolun a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do not understand what sane person attaches taxes to a property instead of to a person.

pwg a day ago | parent [-]

Local governments that very much want to get their tax monies, even if receiving them is delayed by a few years before someone buys the property.

FireBeyond a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, "almost certainly needs serious work" in that first home was doing some serious heavy lifting - the roof has collapsed and the foundation has sunk.

giancarlostoro a day ago | parent | prev [-]

$123,000 still not terrible if the home is worth 5 time that.