- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OT Lawyers: Road Home Property
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:32 pm
Party A received road home funds on a vacant lot in 2007 subject to the road covenants (on the condition that it build and occupy a home on the vacant lot within 3 years). No home was built.
Party B bought the vacant lot from Party A in 2013. The sale of the lot stated that the sale was subject to the 2007 road home covenants.
Party C wants to buy the lot today. Should it care about the road home covenants? Should Party B make its sale to Party C subject to the covenants?
Party B bought the vacant lot from Party A in 2013. The sale of the lot stated that the sale was subject to the 2007 road home covenants.
Party C wants to buy the lot today. Should it care about the road home covenants? Should Party B make its sale to Party C subject to the covenants?
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:33 pm
9
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:34 pm to Spudly
You should go see a real-life lawyer about this.
Not a bunch of dipshits on the internet.
Not a bunch of dipshits on the internet.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:34 pm to Spudly
Has anyone contacted the program or the State yet? If so, what did they say?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:35 pm to Spudly
TS Sandy Board
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:39 pm to Spudly
Law school homework! Nice. The answer is "Yes AND No."
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:40 pm to Spudly
Which party are you?
Just go all in.
Just go all in.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:41 pm to arseinclarse
I'd say a definite maybe...seriously why dont you call them
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:43 pm to Spudly
Depends. 
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:43 pm to Spudly
Seems to me Party A broke the conditions of the agreement for the funds. A lien or judgment should have been put in place in 2010 before it was sold to party B in 2013.
Curative action would have been required at that point to complete the 2013 sale.
Eta: The title company will get sued, but that's what they have insurance for, and that is exactly why you should buy title insurance.
Curative action would have been required at that point to complete the 2013 sale.
Eta: The title company will get sued, but that's what they have insurance for, and that is exactly why you should buy title insurance.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:50 pm to Clyde Tipton
If Party A called Party C to talk about it, would Party B get jealous?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:05 pm to Spudly
OK, so since Party A did not fufill the covenant... what happens now? What did Party A do with the money?
I'm guessing Party A never returned the money to the state. Is there a lein on the land?
I'm not sure why the Title Company would be in trouble, if there was no public record filed pursuant to the covenant and/or the non completion of the covenant. And why in the world did Party B sign a contract with the sale subject to the covenant.
I was living in Texas when all the road home money went out. I'm still trying to understand what in the world the state/feds were thinking. They basically just gave away all the money.
I'm guessing Party A never returned the money to the state. Is there a lein on the land?
I'm not sure why the Title Company would be in trouble, if there was no public record filed pursuant to the covenant and/or the non completion of the covenant. And why in the world did Party B sign a contract with the sale subject to the covenant.
I was living in Texas when all the road home money went out. I'm still trying to understand what in the world the state/feds were thinking. They basically just gave away all the money.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:07 pm to Clyde Tipton
quote:
Seems to me Party A broke the conditions of the agreement for the funds. A lien or judgment should have been put in place in 2010 before it was sold to party B in 2013.
Curative action would have been required at that point to complete the 2013 sale.
Eta: The title company will get sued, but that's what they have insurance for, and that is exactly why you should buy title insurance.
Yeah, this was my conclusion as well. No lien has been filed.
Already spoke to Road Home. They said that whoever owns the property is required to comply with the covenants. I don't really agree with them because the covenants seem to expire after 3 years.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:11 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I'm not sure why the Title Company would be in trouble, if there was no public record filed pursuant to the covenant and/or the non completion of the covenant. And why in the world did Party B sign a contract with the sale subject to the covenant.
The covenant is recorded. No lien is filed.
Party B's act of sale stated it was subject to the recorded covenant. Party A stated in the act of sale that it has not violated the covenants.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:11 pm to Spudly
quote:
Already spoke to Road Home. They said that whoever owns the property is required to comply with the covenants. I don't really agree with them because the covenants seem to expire after 3 years.
Did you speak to a phone operator or someone with actual authority?
If you don't mind me asking... what role are you playing here?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:12 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Did you speak to a phone operator or someone with actual authority?
If you don't mind me asking... what role are you playing here?
Phone operator (so....yeah).
Helping out two family friends (Party B and Party C) and never realized how messy and unclear these road home grant are.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:12 pm to Spudly
quote:
Party A stated in the act of sale that it has not violated the covenants.
So, Party A lied. How can party A state it did not violate the covenant when, you know, there is no actual house on the land?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:15 pm to Spudly
do you have authorized release consent to discuss their file, because if you do not then they will probably not give you anything specific. Or are you just going to give them your party a,b,c scenario?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:16 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I'm not sure why the Title Company would be in trouble, if there was no public record filed pursuant to the covenant and/or the non completion of the covenant.
Yeah, I was assuming one was filed and and it was missed during title opinion and that is how the 2013 sale went through.
You would have to check the specifics with the state but I think liens like that have a 10 year statute of limitations in LA. So the govt. has until 2020 to file the lien, or a 2010 lien would expire in 2020. I'm a little fuzzy on that without researching further.
Nonetheless, sounds like something I would avoid being part of.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:20 pm to Clyde Tipton
I'm guessing Party A took Option One? Could they have gone back and changed to Two or Three? Of course, that would have been best done before the 2013 sale.
I'm still trying to figure out why Party B did this transaction.
I'm still trying to figure out why Party B did this transaction.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:21 pm to LSUFanHouston
Road Home has basically said that if Party B, C, D, etc. build a house on the lot and can show occupancy and insurance, then there are no issues and Road Home will release the covenants (regardless of Party A's previous noncompliance within the initial 3 year period).
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 3:23 pm
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News