#orea negotiator

[basicbarista]

You can use the Orea V3 Negotiator with Kalita Wave filters 🤯☕️

[teenageread]

Review: Glint

Synopsis:

For ten years, I’ve lived in a gilded cage inside King Midas’s golden castle. But one night changed everything.

Now I’m here, a prisoner of the Fourth Kingdom’s army, and I’m not sure if I’m going to make it out of this in one piece. They’re marching to battle, and I’m the bargaining chip that will either douse the fire or spark a war.

At the heart of my fear, my worry, there’s him—Commander Rip.

Known for his brutality on the battlefield, his viciousness is unsurpassed. But I know the truth about what he is.

Fae.

The betrayers. The murderers. The ones who nearly destroyed Orea, wiping out the Seventh Kingdom in the process. Rip has power sizzling beneath this skin and glinting spikes down his spine. But his eyes—his eyes are the most compelling of all.

When he turns those black eyes on me, I feel captive for an entirely different reason.

I may be out of my cage, but I’m not free, not even close. In the game of kings and armies, I’m the gilded pawn. The question is, can I out maneuver them?

Plot:

Auren is a prisoner again. Traded from the Red Raid to the Fourth Kingdom, Auren finds herself in the company of the most feared commander in all of the kingdoms: Commander Rip. Named because of how he likes to rip people in half, Auren is more afraid because she knows what he is: a fae. As it was believed that the fae have abandoned their world long ago, Auren is shocked to see one so open about their magic, with spikes surrounding his body, something is captivating about him. Allowing her freedom to explore, Auren is left to wander the Fourth camp, learn their dedication to their kingdom, King Rot, and get mocked by the other saddles despite Auren trying to help them. Rip also has taken an interest in Auren, and instead of integrating her to spill secrets on Midas, he asks about her past, her life, and if she was happy in her golden cage. Finally being able to open up about her emotions and feelings, Auren realizes that she is stronger than she thought, as she no longer needs a cage to protect her from the outside world. As the fourth army with Auren marches towards Midas, in hope of negotiation and not an all-out war. Meanwhile, Malina decides she is done being Midas’s lonely wife and is willing to do what it takes to take back her kingdom. 

Thoughts: 

Raven Kennedy has done it again, adding more plot to our golden girl story, as Auren seems to befriend those in the fourth army, despite having her heart still pledged to the sixth King. With easy writing and a compelling plot, Kennedy really takes a step back on the smut in this novel, and can almost get rid of its 18+ age warning. There is like one spicy scene, and I honestly don't really care for it because it was not with anyone I cared about (sorry Malina). Still a bit derogatory towards women, Kennedy begins to remedy that with Auren becoming stronger in her femininity and knowing who she is. Also, the fourth army is not full of losers who mock women, and those who do get punished. Kennedy spends the majority of this novel building the relationship between Auren and Rip, creating a foundation of trust between the two of them, as Auren enjoys how Rip sees her beyond her golden skin. Kennedy gives a lot of backstory to Auren, from who she was, to her begging on the streets to survive. Still to come is how Auren and Midas become a thing, but we begin to see cracks in Midas for Auren, and how Rip begins to show her how she should be treated. Aka, more than just the object and a symbol of his power, as Midas uses her. Told from the perspectives of the majority of Auren, we get a few Malina chapters scattered throughout as she begins trying to take back her kingdom from her husband. Similar to the previous novel, we end with a Midas chapter, as he tries to negotiate no war between him and King Rot. With a twist at the end that leaves you begging for the next novel, Kennedy is nowhere done with Auren’s story, and hopefully, you are not either, as betrayal seems to follow our golden girl no matter whose arm she ends up in.

Read more reviews: Goodreads

Buy the book: Amazon

[maximuswolf]

Can we talk about the Orea 3 brewer?

Can we talk about the Orea 3 brewer? The Orea 3 is popular now, probably due to popular YouTube creators and a recent SCA World Cup champion using the brewer to win. Do those of you who have it consider it a "game changer" or even a brewer worth owning; does it make your brews taste better than other flat-bottom brewers? (I have Kalita 155 and Stagg X which never clog)Does the Negotiator filter thing make such a difference, or is using the Kalita filters good too. Then there's the no by-pass recipe; is that a big deal when using the brewer? Please share anything about the Orea 3 if you're using it. Submitted February 17, 2023 at 12:35PM by Wendy888Nyc https://ift.tt/SqXayQA via /r/Coffee

[lightfaithed]

Colour  him  surprised.  One  moment  he  was  studying  the  mystical  beauty  of  the  Jedi  temple  ruins  on  Orea  One,  and  then  next  he  was..wherever  this  was.  On  a  ship.  Standing  before  him  was  himself.  In  retrospect,  drawing  his  lightsaber  had  not  been  a  smart  move.  He  was  called  the  Negotiator  for  a  reason.  Talking  this  through  would  be  the  preferable  way  to  handle  this.

"Excuse  me,  I  didn't  mean  to  draw  my  lightsaber.  I  will  extinguish  it."  His  free  hand  was  raised  in  a  pacifying  sign  of  possible  yielding.  After  waiting  a  few  moments,  Obi-Wan  stayed  true  to  his  word  and  the  blue  shine  of  his  saber  died  down,  leaving  only  the  other's.

This  was  obviously  him,  but  there  were  clear  differences.  And  the  ears  were  just  the  beginning.  "I'm  afraid  I  don't  understand.  I  didn't  do  anything.  The  last  thing  I  remember  was  visiting  the  ruins  of  Orea  and  touching...oh."

The  holocron.  Of  course.  It  spoke  of  self-discovery  and  the  two  essays  that  existed  about  it,  drafted  by  renowned  Jedi  philosophers,  both  assumed  that  interacting  with  it  would  only  lull  you  into  a  deep  meditation  that  forced  you  to  discover  new  sides  about  yourself.  "The  philosophers  were  wrong.  The  holocron  is  showing  me..other  versions  of  myself.  And  yourself.  Ourself."

@lightfaithed / snarter call.

"I would say take a holo, it will last longer." The gaze at his back was heavy, a physical weight dragging behind him as he ran a finger across the bottom of the cockpit's metal shutters, ensuring there was no fraction of light trickling in from the outside. It was only when the windows were sealed, all the communications disabled, navigation system shut down (killing all hope of tracking the vessel's location) with only the emergency flood lights in each corner to brighten the room that he felt free to candidly speak. "But don't."

Obi-Wan Kenobi rarely went dark and he certainly never went dark without warning, but the risk of sparking a momentary panic was far outweighed by the concern of anyone being able to see or listen in on what he was sure would become, perhaps, his second or third most closely guarded conversation.

The Force was unnervingly silent and its lack of warning did little to settle the tension between them, as evident by the three lightsabers still out, visible, and within arms reach of either one of them. Their peace was a tentative one—from his perspective—and he was sure its largest maintaining factor was that very absence of energy.

"This is bad." Spoken as if the thought had just occurred to him and not the second they'd locked eyes and his first worry had been someone had cloned him (rather selectively). Just a few years ago, it would have been an insane assumption; not only was cloning meant to be illegal within an inch of Republic space, but there had also been no one capable of creating such intricate and independent living beings. At least, not until the Kaminoans, who he would certainly not put past cloning Jedi if they were given the opportunity. That the man before him was something else entirely had been an uncomfortable notion to accept; only able to even do so through his repeated teachings that anything was truly possible through the Force and his familiarity with how each of the Clones felt within it.

Obi-Wan didn't even need to reach for his mind, Qui-Gon's influences on his shields so painfully present and a near reflection of his own.

"Do you have any idea how bad this is . . . what have you done!"

[salesrepresentativecentury21]

Four Key Attributes Of Top Ten Realtors You Should Seriously Know When Hiring One

The ever-evolving arena of residential real estate is crowded with umpteen players, including home inspectors, appraisers, contractors, property managers, mortgage loan officers, bankers, and government agencies along with many potential sellers and buyers. However, those who are often found at the forefront of overseeing the entire procedure, right from planning to execution, are undoubtedly the realtors of the housing industry.

A seasoned realtor is what a good conductor to a symphony, coordinating the various players for closing the mortgage. The veteran broker is naturally expected to wear multiple hats, such as a buyer’s advocate, a salesperson, a business manager, an analyst, a negotiator, a consultant, a marketer, and what not!

What follows next is a short primer on some of the most defining attributes of top ten realtors in Milton and other major places across the globe.

PROBLEM-SOLVING MINDSET

Top notch real estate agents enjoy devising creative solutions to issues. Many of the phenomenally successful property brokers are to know how to showcase a house in a proper fashion for making it more appealing and marketable. They have the full potential to develop creative property listings for attracting the right prospects.

SELF-MOTIVATED ENTREPRENEUR

Having a burning desire to govern own professional career and be the own boss is something that is typically found in the top ten realtors in Milton and other significant places around the world. It really requires a high level of motivation and drive, as well as the very ability to make smart decisions.

HONESTY AND INTEGRITY

The professional reputation of a first-class real estate broker is vital to one’s long and successful tenure in the property business. Becoming a participating member of one and/or more regional and national level trade organizations, such as OREA (Ontario Real Estate Association) and CREA (Canadian Real Estate Association) respectively is an excellent way for the property agent to show the world that they are to comply with impeccable ethical standards.

HUSTLE AND TENACITY

To be the crème de la crème of real estate agents genuinely call for a stupendous work ethic. Top ten realtors in Milton and other notable places worldwide possess all the tenacity for pursuing every single lead and the much-required hustle for aggressively marketing the properties of their clientele. It is about putting in the adequate amount of time, working smart, leaving no stones unturned and walking the extra mile for closing the transaction at an opportune moment.

[rebeccahpedersen]

Multiple Offer Myths

TorontoRealtyBlog

As I write this blog post on Sunday night, I’m reviewing multiple offers on a listing of mine, for which we were supposed to review offers on Tuesday night, but that damned “bully offer” reared its ugly head on Sunday afternoon.

No matter.  I couldn’t wait to drop everything I was doing, put my one day-off per week on hold, and get to the laptop…

My mind is racing with potential blog fodder from this experience, FYI.  I’ll save it for later in the week, but w-o-w have the phone calls been awkward today.  I’ll tell you all about it on Wednesday.

I now find myself in the (un?)enviable position of being the listing agent, with multiple offers on the table, and trying to play fairly.

I run a fair game, for what it’s worth.  I just got off the phone with an agent who said he “might” be able to get his client on paper at a number that is about 15% lower than the bully itself, and rather than waste his time, I told him, “You’re not in the running on this one.”

Some might argue that I shouldn’t give him that courtesy; that I shouldn’t be cordial, polite, or helpful, and let him hang himself with the very length of rope that he seems to be holding.  But keep in mind, I already have the bully offer in hand.  That offer is already in my possession.  This isn’t like the situation I described in my Friday blog, where the listing agent was telling buyers and buyer agents that the seller wouldn’t consider any conditional offers, thereby eliminating multiple bidders from the process, who could drive the bidding higher.  In my case, I already have the offer in hand, which is an absurd price.

Either way, the point is simply that listing agents can run the process however they like.

There are, however, a few rules agents must follow.

And this is what I wanted to discuss today.

Last week, I wrote about OREA’s “Final Report,” and how they advised the Real Estate Council of Ontario to update the Real Estate and Business Broker’s Act to add transparency to the process, and allow sellers the option of providing a more open bidding process.

I wholeheartedly agree that REBBA, 2002, needs to be updated, amended, or even re-written.

But in the fallout that resulted from the Final Report, I noticed a lot of incorrect information about how multiple offers are handled in Ontario (specifically Toronto), not just on comment boards and among the general public, but within actual media reports!

So let me clear up what I believe are the five areas where the most misinformation exists, and make note of places where I did see incorrect reporting last week.

Here are my five myths for multiple offers:

Myth #1: You don’t know how many offers there are.

With respect to all the hard-working journalists who wrote articles on the topic of multiple offers and transparency last week, I noticed a couple got this point wrong.

There is absolutely, positively, no confusing this point.

Now a situation may arise when a feeble, inexperienced buyer-agent doesn’t know how many offers there are on a property, but that doesn’t mean he or she can’t find out.

Save for that exact case, you always know exactly how many offers are on a listing.  To not know, truly would be “blind bidding.”

It was this point being misrepresented in the newspaper that prompted me to write this blog.

Imagine a situation where a property is listed at $999,900, and you make an offer on the scheduled “offer night.”  You don’t know how many offers there are, as per the point in the media.  Do you offer $999,900?  $1,100,000?  $1,500,000?  How can you know what to offer if you don’t know who you’re bidding against?

To believe in the myth that “you don’t know how many offers there are” is just incredibly naive.

Myth #2: The listing agent can lie about the number of offers.

Incorrect.

This has always been the cardinal sin among agents, but just in case anybody ever thought about fudging the numbers, the “Offer Summary Document: Form 801” was brought into our world three years ago, to ensure that every listing agent must keep a record of every offer ever registered.

There are times when the number of offers can be confused.  Look to the fly-by-night brokerages; the Guy-In-His-Condo Realty’s of the city, for how and when it can be tough to really gage how many offers there are on a listing.  Call Bosley, Re/Max, Royal LePage et al, and the front desk is tracking every registered offer.  But call the one-man-show, and you get a call centre in Sudbury…

In any event, the listing agent him or herself is the best resource for knowing how many offers there are.  Calling the front desk is what you do when you don’t want to hound the person you hope to be working with later that evening.

And that listing agent, cannot lie about how many offers are registered, as you, the buyer agent, have a right to ask for the Form 801’s.

If that agent did lie about the number of offers, he or she is a slam-dunk to be fined up to $25,000 at RECO.

I will admit, the fine isn’t automatic, and it isn’t enough.  But the bottom line here is this: I’ve read in the media that agents can exaggerate how many offers are present on a listing, perhaps in the same way that, say, cops can lie to a suspect during an interrogation.  Almost like the exaggeration, or lie, is a negotiating tactic.

But it doesn’t work that way.

And if the public thought this was true, then they ought to never offer on any property, ever.

Myth #3: There is always a second round of bidding.  Lower offers always get sent back to improve.

Not true.

In fact, I would say that the number of times I’ve been told, “Sorry, we’re going with another offer,” is likely more than the number of times I’ve been told, “We’re going to send you back.”

Nothing is automatic when it comes to multiple offers, because there is no one, set, regulated structure in place.  And while it would be easy to suggest there should be, that would remove much of the negotiating from the process, as well as the seller’s right to make decisions.

It is quite common for the listing agent to send back the top, say, two bidders, in a multiple offer process.

And I’ve come across agents in the past that have 18 offers, and simply say, “We’re sending everybody back.”  I hate that, since the guy at $900,000 with two conditions, on an $899,900 listing, doesn’t need to be “sent back” in the same group as the guy at $1,200,000 with a $200,000 cheque in hand.  But as I said, every agent is free to run the process as he or she chooses.

But much of the public seems to think there’s an automatic “second round,” or that everybody gets another shot.  This belief would no-doubt shape a buyer’s strategy and/or bid, and it’s a shame, because a lot of buyers get left behind thinking that they’ll be asked to resubmit their offer no matter what.

As with everything else in a multiple offer scenario, it’s crucial that the buyer-agent have direct, personal access to the listing agent, and communicate effectively to understand the process both before and during the presentations.

Myth #4: There is no point in submitting an offer when the listing agent has his or her own offer.

In certain cases, I would agree.  And I see where this myth takes shape.

There are a couple of agents in the city of Toronto (and I’m sure my readers could name these agents in the comments section below) who are absolutely notorious for listing properties on the MLS system, with absolutely zero intention of “cooperating” with other agents.  Their sole intention is to solicit buyer-clients, and use these cooperating agents as bait to escalate the price to a number that their new-buyer-client will pay, and their seller will accept.

But save for these couple of agents, you can’t assume that just because a listing agent has his or her own offer, that you’re automatically going to lose.

And you know what?

I actually like when a listing agent has his or her own offer!  Because agents and buyers who believe in this myth, won’t submit offers.  And that keeps the price lower, and increases my probability of winning.

Now to understand why this point is a myth, you need to understand where the listing agent’s “own offer” comes from.

Give it a think.

Would you believe that, say, the listing agent puts a property up for sale, and then suddenly realizes he or she has a buyer-client interested in the property, shows it to the client, and ends up bidding on the property with that buyer?

Maybe.

But in reality, the number-one reason why a listing agent would have his or her own offer on his or her own listing is…….

…..pulling a buyer from the open house.

And now you see.

Obvious, once you’re told, right?

Many buyers these days want to work with the listing agent, because they think it gives them an advantage.  And that, in itself, could be another myth.  But in reality, many buyers who are walking around, unrepresented, and who feel they have a leg up in this situation, really don’t understand the market.  And they’re most certainly not going to be the highest bidder in a multiple offers situation, as a result.

Many listing agents will submit an offer on behalf of a buyer that they met at the open house, even if it has no shot of being accepted, because it creates an agency relationship (even if just for that one day), and opens the door to a potential relationship, and sale, down the line.

So when I hear a listing agent say, “I have my own offer,” I’m not afraid.  I just assume it’s somebody they picked up at the open house, and I move forward with my buyer-client.

You’d be wise to do the same.

Myth #5: Listing agents and buyer agents from the same brokerage will collude.

As with the point above, there are agents, and brokerages, where this will happen.

I bid on a house in April of 2017, and when it was over, and the ‘winning’ buyer agent was from the same brokerage as the listing agent, my colleague who presented my offer on my behalf said, “It was never in doubt.  There was no way that (buyer agent name) wasn’t coming out of here with the sale.”

It can happen.

But I can tell you from experience, it’s far, far from automatic.

To be blunt, I could not possibly care less where a cooperating agent comes from, and I would never go out of my way to help an agent from my firm.

Why?

Because there’s no upside.  Only downside.

You could argue, “If you help the agent from your firm, then the seller can get more money!”  True.  But I could help any agent from any firm and the seller would get more money.

My firm isn’t huge; we have four locations in Toronto, and about 250 agents.  But having said that, there are still a lot of agents I don’t know.

So then what about an agent from a brokerage with 800 agents?

What about a “franchise” brokerage?  Would you argue that they tip their hat to one another?  An agent from Re/Max ABC Corp helps an agent from Re/Max XYZ Division?  I don’t think so.

There’s no upside here, plain and simple.

I value my reputation and good standing in the industry far too much to ever stick my neck out for somebody that merely shares the same logo on their business card as me, especially when there’s nothing in it for my seller.

–

Any questions about specific situations, please comment below.

I’m curious to know what many of you think goes on in multiple offers, what you’ve experienced, and what you want to know.

The post Multiple Offer Myths appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.

Originated from https://ift.tt/2OrvDjc

[felishasheats]

Realtors share a past and future with Ontario’s land surveyors

Samuel de Champlain and 32 colonists settled on the site of Quebec City in 1608. He and the surveyors that followed laid out farm lots for settlers, town sites, canals and railways. Surveyors were largely responsible for the creation of settlement patterns to accommodate waves of immigration and aboriginal land claims.

Thousands of United Empire Loyalists and other settlers migrated from the U.S.A. in 1782 following the War of Independence. Governor-General Sir Frederick Haldimand created the first township system in 1783 and land was distributed to the immigrants by drawing lots.

[banner]

A treaty was negotiated in 1790 whereby the British Crown acquired title to what is now southwestern Ontario. The result of this treaty was that most of the Ontario peninsula was opened to British and Loyalist settlement.

Surveyors mapped canals to link overland routes with major water bodies and set the alignment of railways to connect settlements and increase trade. Surveyors opened military roads and numerous “colonization” roads that are still used today. As settlement progressed, surveyors laid out townships consisting of lots and concessions. Along each concession they reserved a road allowance, which was linked at intervals by side roads, shaping Ontario’s network of modern roadways.

Although the history of the surveying profession in Canada began with the voyages of Champlain, the history of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors began in 1892, much of which is documented in the book Great Lengths by Charles Wilkins in celebration of 125 years.

Ontario Land Surveyors continued the legacy of their predecessors in shaping the foundations of significant political and economic development in Ontario like railways, highways and pipelines; farms, towns and cities; and forms of communication and travel that connect the people of Ontario to one another and the world.

Acknowledged as one of the principal founders of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, Willis Chipman, engineer and OLS, continues to be honoured in Ontario, Canada and abroad. Chipman is best known for advancing the design of sewage treatment plants to save lives commonly lost to cholera, scarlet fever, typhoid and smallpox. Elected president of the AOLS in 1896, Chipman advocated improved education and apprenticeships for surveyors, and more rigorous examinations for licensing.

Before the launch of the Ontario Association of Real Estate Boards (OAREB) in 1922, many land surveyors were land developers and successful business owners of grist mills, saw mills and farms, as well as being vendors of surveyed lots. Many townships of Ontario carry the names of surveyors. Ontario’s land surveyors became licensed in 1892 and worked with local law firms to help build a professional real estate industry based on standards and ethics.

OAREB was established with the vision to organize real estate activities provincewide and to bring higher standards to real estate transactions. Eight years later, the provincial government passed the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 1930, which marked the beginning of bringing standards, respect and public trust to an emerging profession of Realtors. The act required salespeople and brokers to obtain a licence. In 1972, the association was renamed the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) and the mission identified in 1922 continued.

By the turn of the century, Ontario’s Realtors enjoyed a professional association that was reinforced with passage of The Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 (REBBA). Revisions to previous legislation governing the profession included tougher consumer protection regulations.

Among the many uses of the Ontario cadastre set by Ontario Land Surveyors are real estate transactions that are drafted and executed by a principal team of Realtors, lawyers and land surveyors. There is no doubt that OREA is raising the bar for its members to obtain and maintain a licence to engage in transactions, and this action is strengthening the relationship between the Realtor and Ontario Land Surveyor.

The histories of Ontario Land Surveyors and Ontario Realtors took similar paths in the early 1920s. Both professions have a legislated responsibility to the public, and both have a responsibility to understand the role that each profession has in managing one of Ontario’s greatest assets – its registry of property showing the extent, value and ownership of deeds.

The post Realtors share a past and future with Ontario’s land surveyors appeared first on REM | Real Estate Magazine.

Realtors share a past and future with Ontario’s land surveyors published first on https://oicrealestate.tumblr.com/

[kbrealestate-blog1]

FOR AGENTS: Form 801 - What it is, and what it isn’t.

One of the most frequently asked questions by agents in the various forums is the appropriate use(s) for OREA’s Form 801. Misinformation and lack of clarification by organizations contributed to the mishandling of this very valuable form. Let’s start with the history. I’ll spare you the snorefest and try and keep this brief. Back in 2013, debates occurred at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to create, amend and pass Bill 55. The Bill essentially would accomplish three things:

1- Make it mandatory for debt collectors to be entirely transparent with all of the terms of the debt including repayment and buy-out options, only one collection company can own a debt at one time, blah blah blah (because none of this was law before?)

2- Creating a mandatory “cooling off” period for consumers purchasing water heaters from door-to-door salespersons, ensuring the consumer has appropriate time to inform themselves before committing.

3- Make it mandatory that communication of offers for real property via real estate registrants all be in writing, and kept by the listing brokerage for a period of time. Obviously, this is what we’re interested in.

“Phantom Offers” has been a widely criticized practice that has always been unethical, but has rarely been able to be proven. A buyer (via their agent) would express interest in purchasing a property, either verbally, or by submitting a formal offer, only to be told by the listing agent that they were in competition with another offer. Oftentimes, this might spur the buyer to bid high and/or remove conditions to secure the purchase - higher than they would have if they were the only buyer looking to negotiate. Our privacy laws prevent a buyer from knowing *anything* about competing offers, except if the other buyer realtor is from the same brokerage as either their Buyer Realtor, or the listing brokerage. No written or formal proof was ever required to qualify the existence of a competing offer. Buyers who either increased their bid and won, or whom might have walked away only to notice the property never sold grew skeptical of the existence of another offer at all. But complaints resulted in no recourse, as listing agents would say “I was told another offer was signed, but I never got it.” or a plethora of other excuses. I don’t think anyone ever determined the percentage of these cases that were ever falsified. But even one, was one too many. Bill 55 would significantly help to reduce these cases, as it would require listing brokerages retain the written offers it receives for a period of time - in the event a skeptical buyer doubted the listing agents’ honesty. So, Bill 55 was passed. RECO made an announcement to registrants stating that a buyers agent *must* notify a listing agent *IN WRITING* of the existence of a physical, SIGNED offer. There’s rules around this too. The buyers agent must identify themselves, their position and their brokerage, and they must clearly state they have a signed offer on X property, and it must be in writing of some kind. It’s been determined that “in writing” means via fax, via email, via text, or by handwritten/typed, delivered notice. It’s important to note that that is the extent of “registration”. You are not required to divulge the names of the buyers, nor even any aspect of the offer itself before formal presentation to the sellers. There is no specific form you must fill out, and it’s not mandatory that you need to call the listing brokerage and inform their front desk either. Once your offer has been delivered to the listing agent - either via in-person offer presentation, email, fax or otherwise, the listing brokerage is charged with keeping a copy of that offer - and a copy of every version of the offer (for example counter-offers). In the event a prospective purchaser demands proof of the existence of other offers, they can appeal to RECO, who can request these documents. Fines would be levied if the listing brokerage could not procure them. In the event that a buyers agent communicates existence of an offer, but is instructed to withdraw their offer before it’s given to the sellers or listing agent, they must communicate the withdrawal in writing to the listing agent, then the buyers agent must retain a copy of the signed offer, in the event RECO were to come knocking. The last point I need to make is that the offer itself isn’t necessarily required to be kept. But pertinent information is, including (but not limited to) the buyers name and signatures, the property in question, the representative for the buyer, the irrevocable date, and the date and method the offer was submitted. This means that an “offer summary document” could reasonably be used in lieu of keeping the entire (sometimes 12+ page) document.  

Ok. Now that we have all that clear, what the heck is 801 anyway?  So OREA - the organization that has created all the other forms we use over the course of a transaction - wanted to make this even easier for brokerages and agents to comply with. So, they created just such a summary document. If both parties agree, this document could be used to record the existence of the offer in lieu of the listing brokerage retaining the full document. OREA also realized that this document could kill two birds, as it were, and also function as a way of confirming the existence of - or “registering” an offer, which they indicated on their form and communicated to registrants. Cue mega confusion. Suddenly, it seems people think this document is mandatory - or can be made mandatory arbitrarily by Realtors or brokers, and that offers cannot be considered to be in existence without receipt of a signed form 801. I once had a back and forth in a realtor-only Facebook group with a prominent and popular branch manager of one of Toronto’s largest brokerages who actually said “If you do not give me an 801 to confirm your offer, I will not tell my sellers your offer exists, and I will not inform other buyers your offer exists.”  And this guy is a mentor for hundreds of agents! To summarize, the onus is on the listing brokerage to maintain proper records of offers on their listings to be able to prove their processes if a buyer were to put it into question. Can you prove you were notified of a signed offer? Can you procure those signed offers on demand, OR an acceptable summary of it? Don’t claim that 801 is mandatory to register an offer with your brokerage. It’s not. You can politely ask that buyers agents provide a filled out 801 when they submit their offer, but they aren’t mandated to provide one. HERE is a link to a RECO fact sheet which outlines what I’ve said. Feel free to comment or reach out if you’d like to discuss it further!

[shomihome-blog]

With several years of experience and having successful,we are specialize in the selling of both new and resale homes, condominiums, investment properties, commercial space, and vacant land. we posses extensive knowledge of the business and combined with his unique skills and comprehension of the marketing and promotion of luxury real estate, Jordan will provide you with a positive and rewarding experience. Our network ability and keen understanding of our clients’ individual needs, along with his results-oriented approach to the negotiation process is precisely what distinguishes us from other realtors. We are proud member of OREA, CREA and TREB.

[rebeccahpedersen]

Multiple Offer Myths

TorontoRealtyBlog

As I write this blog post on Sunday night, I’m reviewing multiple offers on a listing of mine, for which we were supposed to review offers on Tuesday night, but that damned “bully offer” reared its ugly head on Sunday afternoon.

No matter.  I couldn’t wait to drop everything I was doing, put my one day-off per week on hold, and get to the laptop…

My mind is racing with potential blog fodder from this experience, FYI.  I’ll save it for later in the week, but w-o-w have the phone calls been awkward today.  I’ll tell you all about it on Wednesday.

I now find myself in the (un?)enviable position of being the listing agent, with multiple offers on the table, and trying to play fairly.

I run a fair game, for what it’s worth.  I just got off the phone with an agent who said he “might” be able to get his client on paper at a number that is about 15% lower than the bully itself, and rather than waste his time, I told him, “You’re not in the running on this one.”

Some might argue that I shouldn’t give him that courtesy; that I shouldn’t be cordial, polite, or helpful, and let him hang himself with the very length of rope that he seems to be holding.  But keep in mind, I already have the bully offer in hand.  That offer is already in my possession.  This isn’t like the situation I described in my Friday blog, where the listing agent was telling buyers and buyer agents that the seller wouldn’t consider any conditional offers, thereby eliminating multiple bidders from the process, who could drive the bidding higher.  In my case, I already have the offer in hand, which is an absurd price.

Either way, the point is simply that listing agents can run the process however they like.

There are, however, a few rules agents must follow.

And this is what I wanted to discuss today.

Last week, I wrote about OREA’s “Final Report,” and how they advised the Real Estate Council of Ontario to update the Real Estate and Business Broker’s Act to add transparency to the process, and allow sellers the option of providing a more open bidding process.

I wholeheartedly agree that REBBA, 2002, needs to be updated, amended, or even re-written.

But in the fallout that resulted from the Final Report, I noticed a lot of incorrect information about how multiple offers are handled in Ontario (specifically Toronto), not just on comment boards and among the general public, but within actual media reports!

So let me clear up what I believe are the five areas where the most misinformation exists, and make note of places where I did see incorrect reporting last week.

Here are my five myths for multiple offers:

Myth #1: You don’t know how many offers there are.

With respect to all the hard-working journalists who wrote articles on the topic of multiple offers and transparency last week, I noticed a couple got this point wrong.

There is absolutely, positively, no confusing this point.

Now a situation may arise when a feeble, inexperienced buyer-agent doesn’t know how many offers there are on a property, but that doesn’t mean he or she can’t find out.

Save for that exact case, you always know exactly how many offers are on a listing.  To not know, truly would be “blind bidding.”

It was this point being misrepresented in the newspaper that prompted me to write this blog.

Imagine a situation where a property is listed at $999,900, and you make an offer on the scheduled “offer night.”  You don’t know how many offers there are, as per the point in the media.  Do you offer $999,900?  $1,100,000?  $1,500,000?  How can you know what to offer if you don’t know who you’re bidding against?

To believe in the myth that “you don’t know how many offers there are” is just incredibly naive.

Myth #2: The listing agent can lie about the number of offers.

Incorrect.

This has always been the cardinal sin among agents, but just in case anybody ever thought about fudging the numbers, the “Offer Summary Document: Form 801” was brought into our world three years ago, to ensure that every listing agent must keep a record of every offer ever registered.

There are times when the number of offers can be confused.  Look to the fly-by-night brokerages; the Guy-In-His-Condo Realty’s of the city, for how and when it can be tough to really gage how many offers there are on a listing.  Call Bosley, Re/Max, Royal LePage et al, and the front desk is tracking every registered offer.  But call the one-man-show, and you get a call centre in Sudbury…

In any event, the listing agent him or herself is the best resource for knowing how many offers there are.  Calling the front desk is what you do when you don’t want to hound the person you hope to be working with later that evening.

And that listing agent, cannot lie about how many offers are registered, as you, the buyer agent, have a right to ask for the Form 801’s.

If that agent did lie about the number of offers, he or she is a slam-dunk to be fined up to $25,000 at RECO.

I will admit, the fine isn’t automatic, and it isn’t enough.  But the bottom line here is this: I’ve read in the media that agents can exaggerate how many offers are present on a listing, perhaps in the same way that, say, cops can lie to a suspect during an interrogation.  Almost like the exaggeration, or lie, is a negotiating tactic.

But it doesn’t work that way.

And if the public thought this was true, then they ought to never offer on any property, ever.

Myth #3: There is always a second round of bidding.  Lower offers always get sent back to improve.

Not true.

In fact, I would say that the number of times I’ve been told, “Sorry, we’re going with another offer,” is likely more than the number of times I’ve been told, “We’re going to send you back.”

Nothing is automatic when it comes to multiple offers, because there is no one, set, regulated structure in place.  And while it would be easy to suggest there should be, that would remove much of the negotiating from the process, as well as the seller’s right to make decisions.

It is quite common for the listing agent to send back the top, say, two bidders, in a multiple offer process.

And I’ve come across agents in the past that have 18 offers, and simply say, “We’re sending everybody back.”  I hate that, since the guy at $900,000 with two conditions, on an $899,900 listing, doesn’t need to be “sent back” in the same group as the guy at $1,200,000 with a $200,000 cheque in hand.  But as I said, every agent is free to run the process as he or she chooses.

But much of the public seems to think there’s an automatic “second round,” or that everybody gets another shot.  This belief would no-doubt shape a buyer’s strategy and/or bid, and it’s a shame, because a lot of buyers get left behind thinking that they’ll be asked to resubmit their offer no matter what.

As with everything else in a multiple offer scenario, it’s crucial that the buyer-agent have direct, personal access to the listing agent, and communicate effectively to understand the process both before and during the presentations.

Myth #4: There is no point in submitting an offer when the listing agent has his or her own offer.

In certain cases, I would agree.  And I see where this myth takes shape.

There are a couple of agents in the city of Toronto (and I’m sure my readers could name these agents in the comments section below) who are absolutely notorious for listing properties on the MLS system, with absolutely zero intention of “cooperating” with other agents.  Their sole intention is to solicit buyer-clients, and use these cooperating agents as bait to escalate the price to a number that their new-buyer-client will pay, and their seller will accept.

But save for these couple of agents, you can’t assume that just because a listing agent has his or her own offer, that you’re automatically going to lose.

And you know what?

I actually like when a listing agent has his or her own offer!  Because agents and buyers who believe in this myth, won’t submit offers.  And that keeps the price lower, and increases my probability of winning.

Now to understand why this point is a myth, you need to understand where the listing agent’s “own offer” comes from.

Give it a think.

Would you believe that, say, the listing agent puts a property up for sale, and then suddenly realizes he or she has a buyer-client interested in the property, shows it to the client, and ends up bidding on the property with that buyer?

Maybe.

But in reality, the number-one reason why a listing agent would have his or her own offer on his or her own listing is…….

…..pulling a buyer from the open house.

And now you see.

Obvious, once you’re told, right?

Many buyers these days want to work with the listing agent, because they think it gives them an advantage.  And that, in itself, could be another myth.  But in reality, many buyers who are walking around, unrepresented, and who feel they have a leg up in this situation, really don’t understand the market.  And they’re most certainly not going to be the highest bidder in a multiple offers situation, as a result.

Many listing agents will submit an offer on behalf of a buyer that they met at the open house, even if it has no shot of being accepted, because it creates an agency relationship (even if just for that one day), and opens the door to a potential relationship, and sale, down the line.

So when I hear a listing agent say, “I have my own offer,” I’m not afraid.  I just assume it’s somebody they picked up at the open house, and I move forward with my buyer-client.

You’d be wise to do the same.

Myth #5: Listing agents and buyer agents from the same brokerage will collude.

As with the point above, there are agents, and brokerages, where this will happen.

I bid on a house in April of 2017, and when it was over, and the ‘winning’ buyer agent was from the same brokerage as the listing agent, my colleague who presented my offer on my behalf said, “It was never in doubt.  There was no way that (buyer agent name) wasn’t coming out of here with the sale.”

It can happen.

But I can tell you from experience, it’s far, far from automatic.

To be blunt, I could not possibly care less where a cooperating agent comes from, and I would never go out of my way to help an agent from my firm.

Why?

Because there’s no upside.  Only downside.

You could argue, “If you help the agent from your firm, then the seller can get more money!”  True.  But I could help any agent from any firm and the seller would get more money.

My firm isn’t huge; we have four locations in Toronto, and about 250 agents.  But having said that, there are still a lot of agents I don’t know.

So then what about an agent from a brokerage with 800 agents?

What about a “franchise” brokerage?  Would you argue that they tip their hat to one another?  An agent from Re/Max ABC Corp helps an agent from Re/Max XYZ Division?  I don’t think so.

There’s no upside here, plain and simple.

I value my reputation and good standing in the industry far too much to ever stick my neck out for somebody that merely shares the same logo on their business card as me, especially when there’s nothing in it for my seller.

–

Any questions about specific situations, please comment below.

I’m curious to know what many of you think goes on in multiple offers, what you’ve experienced, and what you want to know.

The post Multiple Offer Myths appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.

Originated from https://ift.tt/2OrvDjc

[rebeccahpedersen]

Introducing Ontario’s New “Standard Lease” Agreement!

TorontoRealtyBlog

Renters, rejoice!

Landlords, ask yourselves how this changes your risk-reward equation.

Some will celebrate this new standardized document as a way to further protect vulnerable tenants from unscrupulous landlords, and others will see it as yet another example of the government meddling where they need not.

Let me try to provide you with as unbiased a view as I can possibly take…

    For a copy of the new Ontario Residential Tenancy Agreement (aka “Standard Lease”), please click HERE.

There’s a lot of info contained within that link, and the associated pages.

But here’s the bulk of what you need to know about the new lease:

    If you sign a lease on or after April 30, 2018, it must be a standard lease.

If you sign a lease on or after April 30, 2018 that does not use the standard lease, renters can ask the landlord for one in writing. The landlord must provide one within 21 days.

Renters cannot ask for a standard lease if they signed a lease before April 30, 2018, unless they and their landlord negotiate a new lease agreement with new terms on or after this date (for example, if the tenant signed a new lease for a one-year term).

Additionally, renters cannot ask for a standard lease if they sign a fixed-term lease before April 30, 2018, and it renewed automatically to a month-to-month tenancy after April 30, 2018.

If a landlord fails to provide the standard lease within 21 days after a renter has asked for it in writing, the renter may withhold one month’s rent.

If the landlord fails to provide the standard lease within 30 days after the renter has begun withholding rent, the renter does not have to repay the one month’s rent. Please note, you cannot withhold more than one month’s rent and you must continue paying your rent for the term of your lease, even if your landlord never gives you the standard lease. However, if a standard lease is not provided, special rules allow you to end your fixed-term lease early.

Landlords and renters can choose to use the standard lease before April 30, 2018. However, the rules requiring the standard lease will only be in effect starting on this date.

    That’s taken right from the Ontario Ministry of Housing website.

But what’s actually in the lease itself?

That’s where things get fun!

14-pages, a yellow highlighter, a glass of hot cocoa, and a lonely Saturday night provide some interesting take-aways…

Let me go through the entire agreement, and if you so choose, you can follow along by downloading from the link above.

1. Parties to the Agreement

This is pretty self-explanatory – it’s a section that names the landlord(s) and tenants(s).

The only thing worth nothing here is that the Tenant(s) are all to be listed.

In a typical “Agreement to Lease” on OREA forms, it’s possible to have a person on title, and another “occupant” that is not legally-bound to the transaction.

I always advise my clients to include all occupants on the lease agreeemnt, unless they’re children.

2. Rental Unit

Again, pretty self-explanatory – the residential address, and specification of parking.

The only item to note is this:

This is a clause that should be included in any residential Agreement To Lease.

3. Contact Information

This might seem obvious, but it’s not.

In fact, this is a HUGE deal.

I’ve often lamented how many condos in Toronto are owned by overseas investors, and how some poor tenant with a broken dishwasher will n-e-v-e-r get that thing fixed.  All too often, the real estate agent, who is in no way legally permitted to play property-manager, tells the tenant at the onset, “Call me if you have any issues.”  And all too often, the tenant gets screwed.

I would love to see this section filled out properly.

The only issue, is that a further section basically provides the landlord a complete opt-out of any responsibilities:

If the landlord does not provide phone and/or email, then we’re right back to where we started.

I can’t tell you how many tenants in Toronto suffer from renting a property from an overseas landlord.  I always tell my clients to check up on the landlord, and make sure they’re local.  I know the rental market is fierce, but some risks aren’t worth taking.

4. Term of Tenancy Agreement

Nothing really of interest here.

5. Rent

Specifying when the rent is paid, the amount of the rent, and how the rent is paid.

My issue is the following:

It has always been illegal for landlords to ask for post-dated cheques, but that hasn’t stopped……..every landlord in Toronto from asking for them.

I’ve never understood how the government, past or present, has expected tenants to pay rent in such a way that the landlord has any sort of certainty or security.

If the idea here is, “The tenants will pay, don’t worry.  And if they don’t, then the landlord can chase them through the Landlord & Tenant Board,” then I would never want to be a landlord, and I would question the government’s motive.

Tenants need protection, no doubt about it.  My opinion in Section (3) above clearly conveys my beliefs on that.

But by expecting tenants to pay according to the honour system, we’re simply setting ourselves up for disappointment.

All a tenant need do is provide a deposit for first-and-last month’s rent, then move in, and stop paying.  It would take the landlord a year to get the tenant “legally” evicted, and by then, the landlord’s entire investment is blown.

I know I’m talking to some people who believe that homes are for living, and not investing, and that people who can afford to own a second property are “rich” and they can go to hell, but for the rational folk out there – what’s the solution to the payment?

6. Services & Utilities

Great section, outlining absolutely every cost that could be associated with the rent.

Far too many Agreement To Lease documents don’t contain extras, which come up in debate later on.

Although this is just silly:

This is so babyish.

The term “nanny-state” comes to mind.

7. Rent Discounts

Another good idea.

If one tenant in a multi-plex gets a $100/month discount on the rent to shovel and salt the driveway and sidewalk when it snows, and to take out the garbage bins every week, then this needs to be documented, and not on a hand-shake agreement.

8. Rent Deposit

This should shake things up a bit:

First of all, who the hell doesn’t need a deposit?  That was rhetorical, so please save me the explanation.

But more importantly, “This amount cannot be more than one month’s rent or the rent for one rental period.”

Good………………luck!

9. Key Deposit

Another item which is not always included in the Agreement To Lease, but should be.

10. Smoking

Oh boy.

This one is going to get VERY interesting after July 1st!

Call me naive, but I would think the percentage of the population that smoke cigarettes on a regular basis has declined over the years.

But as for marijuana?  We’re going to be one giant puff of smoke come summer.

The lease includes this section:

There are oh-so-many jokes here.

“Provide description of smoking rules.”  That’s funny.

But even better – who is “adding additional pages?”

Are drawing diagrams of bongs?

Do we need to draw the elements of Tetrahydrocannabinol?

Jokes aside, I suppose Section (10) in the Standard Lease is more emphatic than a single clause in Schedule A of the Agreement To Lease that says, “Tenant agrees not to smoke in the dwelling.”

11. Tenant’s Insurance

Great, this should be part of the lease.

Again, there’s a checkbox for “There are no insurance requirements,” and I suppose the same landlord that isn’t asking for a deposit is checking that box, but I digress…

12. Changes To Rental Unit

I don’t know why this is included:

“The tenant may install decorative items such as pictures or window coverings.”

To group “pictures” with “window coverings” shows the inexperience of whoever wrote this.

Many condominium corporation’s by-laws prohibit tenants from installing window coverings of a certain colour.  And while the Standard Lease does specify that the tenant “must comply with by-laws of the condo,” this is contradictory.

I also wouldn’t want a tenant drilling holes in my drywall, or removing my window coverings to install their own, unless there’s are of higher quality.

13. Maintenance & Repairs

This is fair, albeit ambiguous.

14. Assignment & Subletting

This is pointless:

Now we’re just going to debate the definition of “arbitrarily or unreasonably.”

If I rented to a tenant, and they wanted to sublet, I’d rather break their lease and find a new tenant, provided there’s no loss in rent.

I believe, without question, that the landlord should always have approval of any tenant, in their absolute and sole discretion.  The idea of a sublet makes no sense in this market.

15. Additonal Terms

This gets interesting.

The governemnt is providing examples of illegal terms:

Personally, I think the landlords should be allowed to include a “no pets” clause.  If a landlord has hardwood floors that he or she values, why should a tenant legally be permitted to ruin them with a 70-pound dog?

I don’t see any reason why protecting tenants’ rights to pet ownership needs to be government-mandated.

I also have a problem with “additonal occupants.”

Are we permitting a tenant to sign a lease, and then have two other people live in the unit, without the landlord’s knowledge?  Perhaps I take back what I wrote about Section (1).  What’s to stop that tenant from charging a fee?  How many bunk-beds can that tenant fit in the living room?

I encourage my landlord clients to include a clause of “The Landlord & Tenant hereby agree that only the person(s) on title to this Agreement To Lease as Tenants shall be permitted to reside in the unit on a full-time basis.”

Tell me that’s illegal, and I’ll tell you why I don’t like this Standard Lease.

–

So those are the 15 sections of the Standard Lease, and my accompanything thoughts.

Overall, I’d say that this lease is far more reasonable than I would have expected from our government, and in fact, all they’re really doing is enforcing the existing Landlord & Tenant Act.

The problem, of course, is that so many “illegal” clauses have been used by such a high-percentage of landlords, for so long, that it seems as though these are new rules.

The fact that a landlord can’t ask for post-dated cheques is mind-boggling to me, but I won’t belabour that point.  I’d say that about 95% of tenants renting condominiums in Toronto submit post-dated cheques, and the rest pay by direct deposit.

The section about deposits is an issue, since many tenants are offering 6-12 month’s rent up front in order to be competitive, and any tenancy advocate will point out that it’s actually illegal for a landlord to accept that, even if offered!

And the pets thing.  Yeah, I don’t get it.

But as I said, this Standard Lease is merely enforcing the existing LTA, and seeking to discourage landlords from including illegal clauses.  The stage has also been set for a tenant, who identifies an illegal clause, to take action.

I wonder if the Liberal government will now create 1,000 new jobs for “Lease Enforcement Officers,” or something of that nature.

Because the Standard Lease is great and all, but unless they’re keeping a huge database of them somewhere, I don’t know how they plan to oversee this whole thing…

The post Introducing Ontario’s New “Standard Lease” Agreement! appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2GNec9v

[rebeccahpedersen]

Liberal Government’s “16-Point Plan” Comes Up 14 1/2 Points Shy

TorontoRealtyBlog

I’ve had the weekend to digest the “Ontario Fair Housing Plan,” the title of which sounds eerily-similar to the “Ontario Fair Hydro Plan,” and I’ve come to the sad, yet somewhat expected conclusion, that the entire thing is just political rhetoric.

Save for a foreign buyer’s tax that might affect a couple people here and there, and rent controls, the rest of the “plan” is a list of vague, rambling, hollow, and incomplete “points” that don’t specify actual action to be taken, or a timeline, or a plan for implementation.

Mumbo-jumbo.  Gobbledygook.  Hocus-pocus.  Blather.

What else would you expect from Kathleen Wynne?

“You can’t tax your way into a cooler market.”

That’s what I’ve said all along.

From the moment the rumblings started about the government “taking steps to cool the market,” through the speculation about what measures they would take, right up to last week when their 16-point plan was announced, I’ve continued to reiterate that the government simply can’t tax their way to a cooler market.

It’s naive.  It’s novice.  And it’s insulting to the constituents of the province.

Taking money away from people is not going to help cool the real estate market.

The real estate market, like any market, is about two things: supply and demand.

I know, I know – I’ve said this before a thousand times.  And although that’s more of a metaphor, I think over the years, the times I have mentioned supply and demand may now actually add up to a thousand!

In any event, while I didn’t have high hopes for the Liberals’ measures to address the housing market, I did hope that they would do the simplest, easiest, most obvious thing possible and start their “plan” by looking at supply and demand.

Having read through their plan, it’s now clear that they did nothing of the sort.

Friday’s blog, for which I applaud each and every one of you who commented, probably had more meaningful, well-thought-out ideas than every meeting between the Liberal figureheads over the past few months.

Why can’t they see what’s staring them right in the face, and yet we simple folk can?

If you want to cool the market, you need to do one, or both, of the following:

Decrease Demand

Increase Supply

It’s not rocket science, and yet watching the Liberals try and figure this out is like watching monkeys try and put blocks into slots.

All the Liberals needed to do, that is, if they really wanted to attempt to cool the market (many think they weren’t interested in seriously implementing policy change, but rather wanted to hold a press conference and make announcements about nothing), is figure out how to decrease demand, or increase supply.  That’s it.  It’s that simple.

Instead, what we got last week were 16-nonsense-points, some of which had nothing to do with real estate (elevators???), or were vague, or referenced a future call to action.

Let’s start from the beginning here, and I’m working off the “16-Point Plan” which can be found HERE.

1) Foreign Buyer’s Tax

I’ve been saying all along, that if we want to cool the market – in this case, by decreasing demand, then we can do so rather easily by implementing a foreign ownership ban, that masquerades as a tax.

Because as I’ve said with Vancouver – nobody, I don’t care how rich they are, is going to pay a $300,000 fee to purchase a $2,000,000 property.

That tax in Vancouver is essentially a ban.

And while I can see why governments don’t want to enact “bans,” and thus they’ve implemented a tax that nobody is going to pay, I still can’t see why Ontario, or Toronto, didn’t implement the tax as Vancouver did.

Because make no mistake – our tax is not their tax.

Their tax is a 15% tax on foreign buyers.

Our tax is a 15% on foreign buyers, subject to a slew of exemptions and rebates.

Their tax will have a tangible effect, and already has.

Our tax will have virtually no effect.

The government really dropped the ball here, that is, if they wanted to actually decrease demand with this foreign buyer’s tax.

And personally, I was all for the tax, er, ban.

Canada is for Canadians, or at least it should be.  I see no reason why hard-working, tax-paying Canadians should be pushed to the back of the line, because people across the world, who’s currency renders ours Monopoly-money, are buying up our real estate like it’s going out of style.

I know there’s a counter-argument to be made here, and one upon a time, I would have made it.  Every country strives desperately for foreign investment, and some time ago, as will be the case in the future, Canadians will be starving for foreign investment.

But that time is not now.  Not with respect to real estate.

So while I personally would have supported measures similar to that of Australia, I think what the government did last week – telling constituents that they’re bringing in a tax, when the tax will have a fraction of the implied effect, is gutless.

2) Rent Controls

This is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing the Wynne government has ever done.

Thirty years from now, university students will be reading about this policy decision in text books.

I haven’t seen a single economist who thinks this is a good idea, in fact, every economist out there is saying it will have the complete opposite effect as what was intended.

And let’s not forget, that this whole issue came out of a CBC story that was, in my opinion, flawed journalism.

Back in February, Shannon Martin from the CBC wrote a story about how her rent was going up $1,000 per month, and that led to other stories about rents “doubling.”

As several commenters pointed out on Friday’s blog, this wasn’t about rents going up – it was about getting tenants out so that the landlord could sell the unit.

If you’re a landlord in this market, you know that not only do you need to sell your condo with vacant possession (ie. no tenant attached), but you also need the unit vacant for the sale process so you can clean, stage, and have unfettered access.

So through legal means, you can tell the tenant his or her rent is going up “one hundred billion dollars,” and that will cause them to walk away.

There was zero mention of this in the CBC story, nor was it explained in follow-up articles.

All the media was about how “prices for rentals are doubling,” and all the while I pulled my hair out and tried to find somebody to listen.

I must have told 5-6 media members, through interviews that they solicited, how misleading these stories were.

But nobody reported what was really going on.

And I felt like this:

How fitting that a Liberal policy change was based on flawed and misrepresented information.

3) Actions To Protect Tenants

The Liberal government is going to give us a “standardized lease,” which might be worthwhile, except that we already have one.

If you do a lease through MLS, you’re signing the standard OREA “Agreement to Lease,” which is subject to the clauses and conditions that the landlord and tenant agree to.

Those clauses and conditions must be variable.  They form part of the negotiation, just like the price, deposit, and closing date.

Who is going to create this standardized lease?  Who is going to enforce it?  How is it going to be implemented?  And what if a landlord doesn’t like it?

As it stands now, the “standard” OREA “Agreement of Purchase & Sale” doesn’t stop somebody from taking a ballpoint pen and striking out some of the “pre-printed text.”

What the hell do they mean with this standardized lease?

4) Leverage The Value Of Surplus Provincial Lands

Great idea.

But how long will it take to implement?

This will undoubtedly go through studies, committees, panels, reviews, and eventually fizzle out like most other proposals.

5% of the units will be “affordable ownership,” they say.  What does that mean?  Tax-payers subsidize the ownership of a handful of units for people who essentially win the lottery?

5) Vacant Land Tax

This is how the point reads: “Introducing legislation that would, if passed, empower the City of Toronto, and potentially other interested municipalities…”

“If passed.”

So the Liberals are taking credit for allowing Toronto City Council to potentially vote on something like this, at some point, maybe.

Classic politicking.

6) Property Tax For New Multi-Unit Residential

Hilarious!

This is a joke, right?

The Liberals think that point #6 still applies, despite point #2.

The point reads: “This will encourage developers to build more new purpose-built rental housing…”

Really?

But you completely discouraged them from building rentals when you brought in rent control!

Oh, Liberals!

7) Rebating a Portion Of Development Charges

$125 Million over 5 years.

Isn’t the GDP of Ontario about $800 Billion per year?

Who cares about $125M, especially when it’s “in those communities that are most in need of new purpose-built rental housing,” which essentially means they have no idea where they’re going to implement this yet.

Once upon a time, $125 Million over 5-years was significant.

Now it’s what Kyle Lowry is going to sign for this off-season…

Oh, and by the way – that $125 Million is being rebated to developers.  So the Liberals will have to replace it with…….more taxes on us?

8) This BS:

“Providing municipalities with the flexibility to use property tax tools to help unlock development opportunities….”

Seriously?

This is such politicking!

This doesn’t even MEAN anything!

It’s just words, strung together, sounding important!

Remember what I said about crazy pills???

9) Housing Supply Team

This makes me want to puke:

“Creating a new Housing Supply Team with dedicated provincial employees to identify barriers to specific housing development projects and work with developers and municipalities to find solutions.”

Great.  So they’re creating another wing of government, that will create more new and useless jobs, that taxpayers will foot the bill for.

And more nonsense/meaningless rhetoric: “…identify barriers to specific housing development projects….find solutions.”

It’s like in Grade One, when the teacher says, “Break into groups, and discuss.”

Except this isn’t Grade One – this is the adult world, and the Liberals want to create a wing of government, to……….break into groups, and discuss.

10) Paper Flipping

Once again, the point doesn’t lay out any action, but rather implies that maybe, at some point, something will happen:

“The province will work to understand and tackle practices that may be contributing to tax avoidance and excessive speculation in the housing market such as paper flipping.”

What is this crap?

“Work to understand,” they say.

How many panels, committees, groups, and boards will be created to address this topic?

11) Double-Ending

They want to end, double-ending?

The public doesn’t like it?

Well neither do I, and neither do most agents.

But the truth is, folks, if Realtor Bob wants to double-end his listing, and he can’t represent buyer and seller, he can always find some rookie in his office to submit the offer for his buyer, and pay a referral fee.

Agents will find a way around this, just as foreign buyers will find a way around the tax.

Sorry – but don’t shoot the messenger.

That aside, I do like the idea of a complete overhaul of the system that governs us.  REBBA 2002 was written in, well as you might guess, 2002.

I have no idea why this legislation is so out of date.

But wait…..wasn’t the Condominium Act written in 1998?

12 Housing Advisory Group

Great.  More government.

13) Educating Consumers

What?

When?

How?

Where?

These 16-points get worse and worse as we move to the bottom.

It’s just hollow, mindless drivel at this point.

14) Partnering With C.R.A.

I suppose if we all pay more tax, then somehow, magically, we’ll be able to afford real estate?

15) Some BS About Elevators?

Come on, Liberals!

You’re not even trying anymore!

You’re so desperate to flush out your 16-point plans that you put something in here about elevator repair!

16) Growth Plan

When I see words like “understanding” and phrases like “working with,” it just shows me, once again, that they’re not actually outlining any specific proposals, but rather are going to give us a long paragraph that we get tired of reading halfway through, and simply give up, and assume they’re doing……something.

Although the last part of this paragraph does specify that “nothing” will happen to the Green Belt, which, of course, is one of the most frequently-suggested solutions to our housing woes.

–

Phew.

And here I thought I might come off as being cynical for a change…

Look, I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, but at the same time you can all infer that I’m not a Liberal supporter.

Kathleen Wynne has set this province so far back with her actions over the last four years, and now she’s standing up in front of a podium, promising things she can’t deliver, with “policies” that have no teeth, and essentially taking credit for future successes at the municipal and provincial levels.

If the government wants to cool the market, they have to do one of the following:

Decrease Demand

Increase Supply

Aside from a foreign buyer’s tax that might take a handful of buyers out of the market, these policies do nothing to decrease demand, or increase supply.

And the only one of the 16-points that has any teeth – the rent controls, will ultimately lead to lower supply in the long term.

This is 16-points of bullshit, in my opinion.

The irony is – I haven’t found a real estate agent out there who thinks this “16 point plan” will have an effect on the market.  Nor do I have one single buyer who wants to change his or her plans.

Sure, sellers are asking, “What impact will this have?”

But the early results out there – from opinion pieces in the media, suggest that most people don’t think this 16-point plan does anything to address the “crisis” we’re in, let alone take steps to “cool the market.”

This will cease to be a story in two weeks.

I’m sick about this.  It makes me want to bury my head in the sand.

How did we get here?

Who voted for this woman?

And what else will she do in the next 13 months to try and win favour with the voting public?

I shudder to think…

  The post Liberal Government’s “16-Point Plan” Comes Up 14 1/2 Points Shy appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2pcoJWf

[rebeccahpedersen]

Liberal Government’s “16-Point Plan” Comes Up 14 1/2 Points Shy

TorontoRealtyBlog

I’ve had the weekend to digest the “Ontario Fair Housing Plan,” the title of which sounds eerily-similar to the “Ontario Fair Hydro Plan,” and I’ve come to the sad, yet somewhat expected conclusion, that the entire thing is just political rhetoric.

Save for a foreign buyer’s tax that might affect a couple people here and there, and rent controls, the rest of the “plan” is a list of vague, rambling, hollow, and incomplete “points” that don’t specify actual action to be taken, or a timeline, or a plan for implementation.

Mumbo-jumbo.  Gobbledygook.  Hocus-pocus.  Blather.

What else would you expect from Kathleen Wynne?

“You can’t tax your way into a cooler market.”

That’s what I’ve said all along.

From the moment the rumblings started about the government “taking steps to cool the market,” through the speculation about what measures they would take, right up to last week when their 16-point plan was announced, I’ve continued to reiterate that the government simply can’t tax their way to a cooler market.

It’s naive.  It’s novice.  And it’s insulting to the constituents of the province.

Taking money away from people is not going to help cool the real estate market.

The real estate market, like any market, is about two things: supply and demand.

I know, I know – I’ve said this before a thousand times.  And although that’s more of a metaphor, I think over the years, the times I have mentioned supply and demand may now actually add up to a thousand!

In any event, while I didn’t have high hopes for the Liberals’ measures to address the housing market, I did hope that they would do the simplest, easiest, most obvious thing possible and start their “plan” by looking at supply and demand.

Having read through their plan, it’s now clear that they did nothing of the sort.

Friday’s blog, for which I applaud each and every one of you who commented, probably had more meaningful, well-thought-out ideas than every meeting between the Liberal figureheads over the past few months.

Why can’t they see what’s staring them right in the face, and yet we simple folk can?

If you want to cool the market, you need to do one, or both, of the following:

Decrease Demand

Increase Supply

It’s not rocket science, and yet watching the Liberals try and figure this out is like watching monkeys try and put blocks into slots.

All the Liberals needed to do, that is, if they really wanted to attempt to cool the market (many think they weren’t interested in seriously implementing policy change, but rather wanted to hold a press conference and make announcements about nothing), is figure out how to decrease demand, or increase supply.  That’s it.  It’s that simple.

Instead, what we got last week were 16-nonsense-points, some of which had nothing to do with real estate (elevators???), or were vague, or referenced a future call to action.

Let’s start from the beginning here, and I’m working off the “16-Point Plan” which can be found HERE.

1) Foreign Buyer’s Tax

I’ve been saying all along, that if we want to cool the market – in this case, by decreasing demand, then we can do so rather easily by implementing a foreign ownership ban, that masquerades as a tax.

Because as I’ve said with Vancouver – nobody, I don’t care how rich they are, is going to pay a $300,000 fee to purchase a $2,000,000 property.

That tax in Vancouver is essentially a ban.

And while I can see why governments don’t want to enact “bans,” and thus they’ve implemented a tax that nobody is going to pay, I still can’t see why Ontario, or Toronto, didn’t implement the tax as Vancouver did.

Because make no mistake – our tax is not their tax.

Their tax is a 15% tax on foreign buyers.

Our tax is a 15% on foreign buyers, subject to a slew of exemptions and rebates.

Their tax will have a tangible effect, and already has.

Our tax will have virtually no effect.

The government really dropped the ball here, that is, if they wanted to actually decrease demand with this foreign buyer’s tax.

And personally, I was all for the tax, er, ban.

Canada is for Canadians, or at least it should be.  I see no reason why hard-working, tax-paying Canadians should be pushed to the back of the line, because people across the world, who’s currency renders ours Monopoly-money, are buying up our real estate like it’s going out of style.

I know there’s a counter-argument to be made here, and one upon a time, I would have made it.  Every country strives desperately for foreign investment, and some time ago, as will be the case in the future, Canadians will be starving for foreign investment.

But that time is not now.  Not with respect to real estate.

So while I personally would have supported measures similar to that of Australia, I think what the government did last week – telling constituents that they’re bringing in a tax, when the tax will have a fraction of the implied effect, is gutless.

2) Rent Controls

This is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing the Wynne government has ever done.

Thirty years from now, university students will be reading about this policy decision in text books.

I haven’t seen a single economist who thinks this is a good idea, in fact, every economist out there is saying it will have the complete opposite effect as what was intended.

And let’s not forget, that this whole issue came out of a CBC story that was, in my opinion, flawed journalism.

Back in February, Shannon Martin from the CBC wrote a story about how her rent was going up $1,000 per month, and that led to other stories about rents “doubling.”

As several commenters pointed out on Friday’s blog, this wasn’t about rents going up – it was about getting tenants out so that the landlord could sell the unit.

If you’re a landlord in this market, you know that not only do you need to sell your condo with vacant possession (ie. no tenant attached), but you also need the unit vacant for the sale process so you can clean, stage, and have unfettered access.

So through legal means, you can tell the tenant his or her rent is going up “one hundred billion dollars,” and that will cause them to walk away.

There was zero mention of this in the CBC story, nor was it explained in follow-up articles.

All the media was about how “prices for rentals are doubling,” and all the while I pulled my hair out and tried to find somebody to listen.

I must have told 5-6 media members, through interviews that they solicited, how misleading these stories were.

But nobody reported what was really going on.

And I felt like this:

How fitting that a Liberal policy change was based on flawed and misrepresented information.

3) Actions To Protect Tenants

The Liberal government is going to give us a “standardized lease,” which might be worthwhile, except that we already have one.

If you do a lease through MLS, you’re signing the standard OREA “Agreement to Lease,” which is subject to the clauses and conditions that the landlord and tenant agree to.

Those clauses and conditions must be variable.  They form part of the negotiation, just like the price, deposit, and closing date.

Who is going to create this standardized lease?  Who is going to enforce it?  How is it going to be implemented?  And what if a landlord doesn’t like it?

As it stands now, the “standard” OREA “Agreement of Purchase & Sale” doesn’t stop somebody from taking a ballpoint pen and striking out some of the “pre-printed text.”

What the hell do they mean with this standardized lease?

4) Leverage The Value Of Surplus Provincial Lands

Great idea.

But how long will it take to implement?

This will undoubtedly go through studies, committees, panels, reviews, and eventually fizzle out like most other proposals.

5% of the units will be “affordable ownership,” they say.  What does that mean?  Tax-payers subsidize the ownership of a handful of units for people who essentially win the lottery?

5) Vacant Land Tax

This is how the point reads: “Introducing legislation that would, if passed, empower the City of Toronto, and potentially other interested municipalities…”

“If passed.”

So the Liberals are taking credit for allowing Toronto City Council to potentially vote on something like this, at some point, maybe.

Classic politicking.

6) Property Tax For New Multi-Unit Residential

Hilarious!

This is a joke, right?

The Liberals think that point #6 still applies, despite point #2.

The point reads: “This will encourage developers to build more new purpose-built rental housing…”

Really?

But you completely discouraged them from building rentals when you brought in rent control!

Oh, Liberals!

7) Rebating a Portion Of Development Charges

$125 Million over 5 years.

Isn’t the GDP of Ontario about $800 Billion per year?

Who cares about $125M, especially when it’s “in those communities that are most in need of new purpose-built rental housing,” which essentially means they have no idea where they’re going to implement this yet.

Once upon a time, $125 Million over 5-years was significant.

Now it’s what Kyle Lowry is going to sign for this off-season…

Oh, and by the way – that $125 Million is being rebated to developers.  So the Liberals will have to replace it with…….more taxes on us?

8) This BS:

“Providing municipalities with the flexibility to use property tax tools to help unlock development opportunities….”

Seriously?

This is such politicking!

This doesn’t even MEAN anything!

It’s just words, strung together, sounding important!

Remember what I said about crazy pills???

9) Housing Supply Team

This makes me want to puke:

“Creating a new Housing Supply Team with dedicated provincial employees to identify barriers to specific housing development projects and work with developers and municipalities to find solutions.”

Great.  So they’re creating another wing of government, that will create more new and useless jobs, that taxpayers will foot the bill for.

And more nonsense/meaningless rhetoric: “…identify barriers to specific housing development projects….find solutions.”

It’s like in Grade One, when the teacher says, “Break into groups, and discuss.”

Except this isn’t Grade One – this is the adult world, and the Liberals want to create a wing of government, to……….break into groups, and discuss.

10) Paper Flipping

Once again, the point doesn’t lay out any action, but rather implies that maybe, at some point, something will happen:

“The province will work to understand and tackle practices that may be contributing to tax avoidance and excessive speculation in the housing market such as paper flipping.”

What is this crap?

“Work to understand,” they say.

How many panels, committees, groups, and boards will be created to address this topic?

11) Double-Ending

They want to end, double-ending?

The public doesn’t like it?

Well neither do I, and neither do most agents.

But the truth is, folks, if Realtor Bob wants to double-end his listing, and he can’t represent buyer and seller, he can always find some rookie in his office to submit the offer for his buyer, and pay a referral fee.

Agents will find a way around this, just as foreign buyers will find a way around the tax.

Sorry – but don’t shoot the messenger.

That aside, I do like the idea of a complete overhaul of the system that governs us.  REBBA 2002 was written in, well as you might guess, 2002.

I have no idea why this legislation is so out of date.

But wait…..wasn’t the Condominium Act written in 1998?

12 Housing Advisory Group

Great.  More government.

13) Educating Consumers

What?

When?

How?

Where?

These 16-points get worse and worse as we move to the bottom.

It’s just hollow, mindless drivel at this point.

14) Partnering With C.R.A.

I suppose if we all pay more tax, then somehow, magically, we’ll be able to afford real estate?

15) Some BS About Elevators?

Come on, Liberals!

You’re not even trying anymore!

You’re so desperate to flush out your 16-point plans that you put something in here about elevator repair!

16) Growth Plan

When I see words like “understanding” and phrases like “working with,” it just shows me, once again, that they’re not actually outlining any specific proposals, but rather are going to give us a long paragraph that we get tired of reading halfway through, and simply give up, and assume they’re doing……something.

Although the last part of this paragraph does specify that “nothing” will happen to the Green Belt, which, of course, is one of the most frequently-suggested solutions to our housing woes.

–

Phew.

And here I thought I might come off as being cynical for a change…

Look, I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, but at the same time you can all infer that I’m not a Liberal supporter.

Kathleen Wynne has set this province so far back with her actions over the last four years, and now she’s standing up in front of a podium, promising things she can’t deliver, with “policies” that have no teeth, and essentially taking credit for future successes at the municipal and provincial levels.

If the government wants to cool the market, they have to do one of the following:

Decrease Demand

Increase Supply

Aside from a foreign buyer’s tax that might take a handful of buyers out of the market, these policies do nothing to decrease demand, or increase supply.

And the only one of the 16-points that has any teeth – the rent controls, will ultimately lead to lower supply in the long term.

This is 16-points of bullshit, in my opinion.

The irony is – I haven’t found a real estate agent out there who thinks this “16 point plan” will have an effect on the market.  Nor do I have one single buyer who wants to change his or her plans.

Sure, sellers are asking, “What impact will this have?”

But the early results out there ��� from opinion pieces in the media, suggest that most people don’t think this 16-point plan does anything to address the “crisis” we’re in, let alone take steps to “cool the market.”

This will cease to be a story in two weeks.

I’m sick about this.  It makes me want to bury my head in the sand.

How did we get here?

Who voted for this woman?

And what else will she do in the next 13 months to try and win favour with the voting public?

I shudder to think…

  The post Liberal Government’s “16-Point Plan” Comes Up 14 1/2 Points Shy appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2pcoJWf

[rebeccahpedersen]

“Landmark Ruling” In B.C. Could Change Canadian Real Estate Forever

TorontoRealtyBlog

As much as I’d love to show you my blog video on Berczy Park in the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood today, perhaps I’ll have to push that back to Friday.

This story hit the proverbial wire last night, and everybody in my industry is talking about it.

Plus, my accountant, and my lawyer, and all my friends who work in finance.

The shock-value of this story is real, but could this “ruling” actually last through an appeal, and change the way real estate is sold?

I’ve seen the story in a few places now, but I first read about it in the Calgary Herald, in an article entitled, “House Buyer Beware: Landmark B.C. Court Ruling Will Shake Real Estate Industry.”

The story, in a nutshell:

1) The C.R.A. was owed money by the seller of a property, who was not a legal resident of Canada. 2) The C.R.A. came after the buyer of the property, after the seller had absconded (probably back overseas). 3) The buyer of the property sued the notary for not determining the seller was a non-resident, and/or not holding back sale proceeds to account for capital gains tax owing.

Here’s the juicy part of the story, as it appears in the Calgary Herald:

  Douglas Todd – Vancouver Sun – 3.27.2017

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling will send shock waves through the arm of the Canadian real-estate market that is powered by foreign capital, say immigration lawyers.

The ruling targets a weakness in Canadian laws that often leads foreign owners of real estate in cities such as Metro Vancouver and Toronto to claim they are “residents of Canada for tax purposes” when they are not.

The landmark B.C. decision requires notary public Tony Liu to pay his client more than $600,000 because Liu failed to adequately determine whether the Vancouver house his client was buying for $5.5 million had been owned by a tax resident of Canada.

As a result, the Canada Revenue Agency did not get paid, at the time of the sale, the 25 per cent capital gains tax it charges non-resident sellers of Canadian property on any profit they make on the sale.

So the CRA later demanded the buyer pay the $600,000 in tax. The buyer, in turn, sued Liu, arguing Liu failed to discover the seller was not a tax resident of Canada.

The CRA considers people who don’t live in the country at least six months a year and don’t pay income taxes here to be foreign property investors and speculators and thus subject to capital gains taxes.

The B.C. decision is a stark warning to real estate agents, notaries and lawyers who fail to ensure that sellers of properties are truly tax residents of Canada, said David Lesperance, a tax and immigration lawyer based in Toronto.

“This truly is a game changer,” said Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland.

“It’s a precedent. Real estate agents can now get a knock on the door from the taxman, asking for the (capital gains) taxes that should have been collected by Ottawa, because the agent failed to make adequate inquiries.”

  Wow.

Game-changer, indeed.

But is this really going to hold up on appeal?

I know, I know – you’re going to tell me to shut up.  Stop being cynical for just two minutes, and think about the “benefits” of this ruling.

But this is just so far out to lunch, that I don’t think anybody can celebrate yet.  I think we have years of appeals ahead of us, as is often the case with any “landmark” ruling.

Check out the entire ruling if you have time, and/or are a nerd like me.  You can find it HERE.

What I find really interesting is the summary of claims from the defendant, and then the response from the defendant.

Below are two excerpts from the lengthy B.C. Court judgment:

The plaintiffs allege:

a)    they entered into a contract on November 3, 2014 to purchase real property in Vancouver for the sum of $5,560,000;

b)    CEIR was a creditor of the registered owners of the property and had conduct of sale pursuant to an order of this Court (the “Court Order”);

c)     pursuant to an “engagement letter” dated November 10, 2014 and on the letterhead of the defendants, the plaintiffs retained the defendants to complete the conveyance of the title to the property to them;

d)    the engagement letter included provisions that the defendants would “negotiate appropriate closing undertakings with solicitor/notary for the Seller” and would “make inquiries as to the residency status of the Seller pursuant to the Income Tax Acts [sic] as required”;

I observe that all parties understood it was the residency of the registered owners of the property that was relevant.

e)    the defendants sent a draft statutory declaration concerning the residency status of the registered owners of the property to the lawyers for CEIR which was BLG, who “refused to sign the statutory declaration as to the residency of the Registered Owners, saying that this was a court ordered sale and their client was neither the vendor nor the owner of the property, and therefore not in a position to make any representations with respect to the property or any issues relating to it”;

f)      one of the registered owners was not a resident of Canada at the time of the purchase of the property;

g)    “Contrary to the terms of the Engagement Letter, the Defendant Tony Liu Notary Corporation proceeded with the conveyance of the Property despite not having any indication as to whether the Registered Owners were residents or non-residents of Canada for tax purposes under the Income Tax Act”; and

h)    by letter dated February 23, 2015, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised the plaintiffs that no certificate of compliance with s. 116 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) had been obtained in relation to the purchase of the property and accordingly the plaintiffs were obliged to pay withholding tax which was assessed at $695,000.

—-

In their response to civil claim the defendants made admissions the effect of which is that the following facts are not in issue:

a)              the plaintiff’s entered into the contract of purchase for the property as alleged;

b)              CEIR had conduct of the sale pursuant to the court order;

c)               the identity of the registered owners of the property, one of whom was not a resident of Canada at the time of the purchase of the property;

d)              pursuant to the engagement letter the plaintiffs retained the defendant notary corporation to convey title to the property to them;

e)              the engagement letter included a term that the defendant notary corporation was “to make inquiries as to the residency status of the Seller pursuant to the Income Tax Acts [sic] as required”; and

f)                title to the property vested in the plaintiffs on November 17, 2014.

The defendants also allege that they conducted a title search on November 10, 2014 of the property which showed:

a)              the mailing address of the registered owners was the address of the property;

b)              the registered owners had owned the property for more than 12 years; and

c)               “there was a history of mortgages [against the property] in favour of financial institutions in Canada”.

These are the alleged “indication” that the registered owners were residents of Canada at the relevant time.

So the defendants did attempt to ascertain whether or not the registered owners were residents, as per the last section (a, b, and c).

The mailing address of the owners was, in fact, the address of the property.

The registered owners had owned the property for more than 12 years.

And financial institutions had loaned on this property.

But was that enough?

Did they go far enough?

As the courts have ruled, they did not!

And frankly I’m shocked by this ruling, which I think is so exceptionally punitive, that I just can’t imagine it’s not overturned on appeal.

I get it.  I understand.

People are fed up with foreign buyers in Canada, whether it’s Toronto or Vancouver.

And just about every government, at every level, in every country, needs money.

Combine the two, and we get new taxes, like the 15% foreign buyer’s tax in Vancouver.

But now we’re also going to have the C.R.A. go after the buyer of a property, when they can’t go after the seller, who owes them money.

And this court case shows that the buyer can sue their notary, real estate agent, or lawyer, and that the courts may in fact side with the buyer.

But what are the further implications of the C.R.A.’s stance that they can come after the buyer when they can’t track down the seller?

How could this apply to, say, HST?

When houses are built here in Toronto, most builders do what is referred to as a “substantial renovation,” to save on the HST.

But ultimately it’s up to the C.R.A. to determine what is a “new build” and what is a “substantial renovation,” and the former comes with HST implications.

Section 7 of the standard OREA “Agreement of Purchase & Sale” contains the following section:

That can read “included in” or “in addition to.”

So if you’ve purchased a home, and the APS says “included in,” then that means even if the C.R.A. determines that HST should apply (after the fact), then it’s included in the sale amount, and thus the buyer doesn’t have to pay in addition.

If the C.R.A. determines that HST should apply, for a house that sold for $1,300,000, then they would suggest that house actually sold for $1,150,442, and there was 13% HST, for a total of $1,300,000.

Then the C.R.A. comes after the developer for that $149,558.

But by the same logic with respect to the capital gains tax for foreign buyers, if the C.R.A. wasn’t able to get that $149,558 from the developer/seller, would they then come after the buyer?

Who knows.

The Canadian government is spending money like it’s going out of style.  Apparently they spent $14,000 on one television, so anything is possible.

Bottom line for buyers and their agents: a new standard clause is coming.

Something like:

“The Seller hereby states that he or she is a legal resident of Canada with respect to Section 116(5) of the Income Tax Act, and that no capital gains will be owing upon completion of this sale.”

Something like that.  I’m not a lawyer, but I think a TEAM of them will be putting their heads together to come up with some verbiage to protect buyers, and as an extension, agents, lawyers, and notaries.

Something tells me this is not the last we’ve heard of this story…

The post “Landmark Ruling” In B.C. Could Change Canadian Real Estate Forever appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2mP5hyM

[rebeccahpedersen]

“Landmark Ruling” In B.C. Could Change Canadian Real Estate Forever

TorontoRealtyBlog

As much as I’d love to show you my blog video on Berczy Park in the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood today, perhaps I’ll have to push that back to Friday.

This story hit the proverbial wire last night, and everybody in my industry is talking about it.

Plus, my accountant, and my lawyer, and all my friends who work in finance.

The shock-value of this story is real, but could this “ruling” actually last through an appeal, and change the way real estate is sold?

I’ve seen the story in a few places now, but I first read about it in the Calgary Herald, in an article entitled, “House Buyer Beware: Landmark B.C. Court Ruling Will Shake Real Estate Industry.”

The story, in a nutshell:

1) The C.R.A. was owed money by the seller of a property, who was not a legal resident of Canada. 2) The C.R.A. came after the buyer of the property, after the seller had absconded (probably back overseas). 3) The buyer of the property sued the notary for not determining the seller was a non-resident, and/or not holding back sale proceeds to account for capital gains tax owing.

Here’s the juicy part of the story, as it appears in the Calgary Herald:

  Douglas Todd – Vancouver Sun – 3.27.2017

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling will send shock waves through the arm of the Canadian real-estate market that is powered by foreign capital, say immigration lawyers.

The ruling targets a weakness in Canadian laws that often leads foreign owners of real estate in cities such as Metro Vancouver and Toronto to claim they are “residents of Canada for tax purposes” when they are not.

The landmark B.C. decision requires notary public Tony Liu to pay his client more than $600,000 because Liu failed to adequately determine whether the Vancouver house his client was buying for $5.5 million had been owned by a tax resident of Canada.

As a result, the Canada Revenue Agency did not get paid, at the time of the sale, the 25 per cent capital gains tax it charges non-resident sellers of Canadian property on any profit they make on the sale.

So the CRA later demanded the buyer pay the $600,000 in tax. The buyer, in turn, sued Liu, arguing Liu failed to discover the seller was not a tax resident of Canada.

The CRA considers people who don’t live in the country at least six months a year and don’t pay income taxes here to be foreign property investors and speculators and thus subject to capital gains taxes.

The B.C. decision is a stark warning to real estate agents, notaries and lawyers who fail to ensure that sellers of properties are truly tax residents of Canada, said David Lesperance, a tax and immigration lawyer based in Toronto.

“This truly is a game changer,” said Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland.

“It’s a precedent. Real estate agents can now get a knock on the door from the taxman, asking for the (capital gains) taxes that should have been collected by Ottawa, because the agent failed to make adequate inquiries.”

  Wow.

Game-changer, indeed.

But is this really going to hold up on appeal?

I know, I know – you’re going to tell me to shut up.  Stop being cynical for just two minutes, and think about the “benefits” of this ruling.

But this is just so far out to lunch, that I don’t think anybody can celebrate yet.  I think we have years of appeals ahead of us, as is often the case with any “landmark” ruling.

Check out the entire ruling if you have time, and/or are a nerd like me.  You can find it HERE.

What I find really interesting is the summary of claims from the defendant, and then the response from the defendant.

Below are two excerpts from the lengthy B.C. Court judgment:

The plaintiffs allege:

a)    they entered into a contract on November 3, 2014 to purchase real property in Vancouver for the sum of $5,560,000;

b)    CEIR was a creditor of the registered owners of the property and had conduct of sale pursuant to an order of this Court (the “Court Order”);

c)     pursuant to an “engagement letter” dated November 10, 2014 and on the letterhead of the defendants, the plaintiffs retained the defendants to complete the conveyance of the title to the property to them;

d)    the engagement letter included provisions that the defendants would “negotiate appropriate closing undertakings with solicitor/notary for the Seller” and would “make inquiries as to the residency status of the Seller pursuant to the Income Tax Acts [sic] as required”;

I observe that all parties understood it was the residency of the registered owners of the property that was relevant.

e)    the defendants sent a draft statutory declaration concerning the residency status of the registered owners of the property to the lawyers for CEIR which was BLG, who “refused to sign the statutory declaration as to the residency of the Registered Owners, saying that this was a court ordered sale and their client was neither the vendor nor the owner of the property, and therefore not in a position to make any representations with respect to the property or any issues relating to it”;

f)      one of the registered owners was not a resident of Canada at the time of the purchase of the property;

g)    “Contrary to the terms of the Engagement Letter, the Defendant Tony Liu Notary Corporation proceeded with the conveyance of the Property despite not having any indication as to whether the Registered Owners were residents or non-residents of Canada for tax purposes under the Income Tax Act”; and

h)    by letter dated February 23, 2015, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advised the plaintiffs that no certificate of compliance with s. 116 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) had been obtained in relation to the purchase of the property and accordingly the plaintiffs were obliged to pay withholding tax which was assessed at $695,000.

—-

In their response to civil claim the defendants made admissions the effect of which is that the following facts are not in issue:

a)              the plaintiff’s entered into the contract of purchase for the property as alleged;

b)              CEIR had conduct of the sale pursuant to the court order;

c)               the identity of the registered owners of the property, one of whom was not a resident of Canada at the time of the purchase of the property;

d)              pursuant to the engagement letter the plaintiffs retained the defendant notary corporation to convey title to the property to them;

e)              the engagement letter included a term that the defendant notary corporation was “to make inquiries as to the residency status of the Seller pursuant to the Income Tax Acts [sic] as required”; and

f)                title to the property vested in the plaintiffs on November 17, 2014.

The defendants also allege that they conducted a title search on November 10, 2014 of the property which showed:

a)              the mailing address of the registered owners was the address of the property;

b)              the registered owners had owned the property for more than 12 years; and

c)               “there was a history of mortgages [against the property] in favour of financial institutions in Canada”.

These are the alleged “indication” that the registered owners were residents of Canada at the relevant time.

So the defendants did attempt to ascertain whether or not the registered owners were residents, as per the last section (a, b, and c).

The mailing address of the owners was, in fact, the address of the property.

The registered owners had owned the property for more than 12 years.

And financial institutions had loaned on this property.

But was that enough?

Did they go far enough?

As the courts have ruled, they did not!

And frankly I’m shocked by this ruling, which I think is so exceptionally punitive, that I just can’t imagine it’s not overturned on appeal.

I get it.  I understand.

People are fed up with foreign buyers in Canada, whether it’s Toronto or Vancouver.

And just about every government, at every level, in every country, needs money.

Combine the two, and we get new taxes, like the 15% foreign buyer’s tax in Vancouver.

But now we’re also going to have the C.R.A. go after the buyer of a property, when they can’t go after the seller, who owes them money.

And this court case shows that the buyer can sue their notary, real estate agent, or lawyer, and that the courts may in fact side with the buyer.

But what are the further implications of the C.R.A.’s stance that they can come after the buyer when they can’t track down the seller?

How could this apply to, say, HST?

When houses are built here in Toronto, most builders do what is referred to as a “substantial renovation,” to save on the HST.

But ultimately it’s up to the C.R.A. to determine what is a “new build” and what is a “substantial renovation,” and the former comes with HST implications.

Section 7 of the standard OREA “Agreement of Purchase & Sale” contains the following section:

That can read “included in” or “in addition to.”

So if you’ve purchased a home, and the APS says “included in,” then that means even if the C.R.A. determines that HST should apply (after the fact), then it’s included in the sale amount, and thus the buyer doesn’t have to pay in addition.

If the C.R.A. determines that HST should apply, for a house that sold for $1,300,000, then they would suggest that house actually sold for $1,150,442, and there was 13% HST, for a total of $1,300,000.

Then the C.R.A. comes after the developer for that $149,558.

But by the same logic with respect to the capital gains tax for foreign buyers, if the C.R.A. wasn’t able to get that $149,558 from the developer/seller, would they then come after the buyer?

Who knows.

The Canadian government is spending money like it’s going out of style.  Apparently they spent $14,000 on one television, so anything is possible.

Bottom line for buyers and their agents: a new standard clause is coming.

Something like:

“The Seller hereby states that he or she is a legal resident of Canada with respect to Section 116(5) of the Income Tax Act, and that no capital gains will be owing upon completion of this sale.”

Something like that.  I’m not a lawyer, but I think a TEAM of them will be putting their heads together to come up with some verbiage to protect buyers, and as an extension, agents, lawyers, and notaries.

Something tells me this is not the last we’ve heard of this story…

The post “Landmark Ruling” In B.C. Could Change Canadian Real Estate Forever appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2mP5hyM

[basicbarista]

Orea V3 Negotiator tools 👌

You can use the Orea V3 Negotiator with Kalita Wave filters 🤯☕️