Real Estate Mailbag

Passing off the Deed

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Robert J. Bruss
Saturday, May 12, 2007

Bruss is away. These questions are taken from previous columns.

Q: DEAR BOB: My daughter and another teacher co-own a townhouse. The other teacher is getting married. My wife and I are going to buy her out so our daughter can avoid selling and trying to buy again in an expensive area. To remove the other teacher's name from the deed and mortgage (preferably leaving only our daughter's name or substituting our names for the co-owner), do we need a lawyer? Or can we sign something in a government office to get her name off the deed? -- Dan W.

A: DEAR DAN: The co-owner's name will remain on the mortgage until the loan is either paid off or refinanced. If you contact the lender, the lender might demand a stiff assumption fee or even demand payment in full because of the title transfer. I would not contact the lender.

When the co-owner receives your payment for her equity share, she should sign a quitclaim deed to you and your wife. I suggest that you handle the transaction at a local title insurance or real estate lawyer's office because you should obtain an owner's title insurance policy. The title insurer or lawyer will then record the quitclaim deed.

You need an owner's title insurance policy so you don't get stuck with the co-owner's liens (if any), perhaps for unpaid income taxes or judgments, which might have attached to her half of the property. An owner's title policy is your best protection.

DEAR BOB: I have decided to sell my home so I can afford to move to a nearby assisted-living residence. My two-bedroom home, built in 1938, has become a bit run-down. However, it is in a good neighborhood where most homes have been remodeled or completely rebuilt. My real estate agent suggests that I spend about $50,000 to renovate the kitchen and bathrooms before listing my house. My son says I should just have the house painted inside and outside. He and his pals have offered to do the painting in a weekend or two. I can afford the $50,000 renovation, but then I read a column by you about selling "as is" and wonder if that's the way to go. -- Anne C.

DEAR ANNE: Listen to your smart son. There is no sense spending $50,000 to renovate an older house just before sale. Your buyers will either like your charming older house the way it is and be thankful for a reasonable price in a desirable neighborhood or want to remodel to their taste after purchase.

Save your $50,000 and the inconvenience of renovation, which might not even return the $50,000 in higher sales price.

Let your son and his pals paint your house inside and outside. Also, check the landscaping to be sure it is attractive. Perhaps plant some spring flowers to make the front yard especially inviting.

When you sell your home "as is," that means you must disclose all known defects (such as a leaking roof) but will not pay for any repairs. However, if an obvious defect can be repaired at minimal expense, such as a dripping faucet, get it fixed.

After the house is painted and ready to sell, I suggest you interview at least two more agents. Their comparative market analyses will show you recent sales prices of comparable nearby homes, asking prices of neighborhood homes currently listed for sale (your competition) and even the asking prices of recently expired similar home listings.

DEAR BOB: You have said it is not wise to sign a binding-arbitration clause in a real estate sales contract. But how can a person agree in the contract to mediation of disputes, as you suggest, but not agree to binding arbitration if a dispute later arises? What alternative do you suggest to expensive court action? -- Richard F.


CONTINUED     1                 >


© 2007 The Washington Post Company