| RE: Limits to CoHousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Bruce A. Duda (baduda |
|
| Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 08:19 CDT | |
>
> In terms of financial / social stresses, It could be a potential
> problem. If someone has to sell a home for financial viability they
> are perhaps going to want to make the best possible sale environment
> and may not give prospective buyers a whole truth view, especially if
> that works against the potential sale. In the Sharingwood declarations
> we actually have a requirement that the name, address and phone of the
> purchaser, escrow holder and realtor (if any) be delivered to the board
> within 48 hours of the signing of a earnest money agreement. In this
> way a comphrensive package which would include our internal covenants,
> vision, policies, etc will be sent, as well as a statement on current
> assessment dues. (Assessment debts survive sale).
>
> This package of information (which doesn't yet exist but is being
> drafted) could very well de-rail a sale if the owner-seller didn't give
> the whole picture to the prospective buyer. I would imagine in this
> case it would cause the seller to be rather upset.
Is there protection for the buyer? It sounds like s/he could
louse his/her interest money if s/he came in inadequately informed. Why
not require the information be part of the purchase agreement?
I like the idea of a commitment to a place, but as a society we
seem to move around a lot.
- RE: Limits to CoHousing, (continued)
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Joel Spector, April 23 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Bruce A. Duda, April 23 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Rob Sandelin, April 25 1994
- Re: Limits to CoHousing -Reply Steve Fogarty, April 25 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Bruce A. Duda, April 26 1994
- Re: Limits to CoHousing -Reply Rob Sandelin, April 26 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.