Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim 9922
No if's or but's, the unpaid bond lien must be considered part of the purchase price. If a buyer falls for the "don't worry about it" line from the agent, the buyer is not much better educated or careing about finances than the "payment-coupon-book-rich" who's refrain is; " I like it, but I don't care what it costs, just tell me what the monthly payments are." That's the dream customer for every sales person!
Also, I think once the build-out occurs and the developer focuses on resales, his agents will begin to fess-up a lot more about the true meaning of the bond. The bond is nothing more than allowing the builder to advertise a lower selling price and defer and officiate all the infrastructure costs. Florida is only one of a very few states that allow this, and it suckers in alot of out of state buyers..
|
How true it is! And too many buyers overlook the bond and focus only on the price of the home. See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone
Truly you should think of the price of the home is the selling price plus the bond balance.
I bought a resale home in October of 2009. The bond balance was about $2,000. Big difference than the $20,000 bond that lots of my friends got at the same time on a new home. It makes about $1,000 difference on the property tax bill every year. I would rather have that $1,000 for dinners out or other entertainment than pay it on the tax bill - but that is just me.
The bonds on new homes are now $23,000 to over $50,000. Folks, consider a resale!
|
The first sentence tells it like it is: The TRUE price of a home is price PLUS bond, no matter what one does with the bond. Yes, bonds on the newer homes are extraordinary contrasted with those on villages built earlier. (I don't want to say "older," as a five- or ten-year-old home is not exactly falling apart....)
And what that first sentence and the previous quote don't say completely, the last sentence finishes it off. I bought my first home in TV with the bond paid by the previous owner; the home was 2.5 years old. By two years later I figured out, just from living here, exactly what I wanted. I sold and bought a home a mile away (built the same year) that still had its bond ... of $5,000 ... which I paid off in a breath.
Had the previous owners done themselves a good service or a disservice by paying 7% interest plus an annual management fee from 2004 to 2011? Better heads than mine who've posted in this thread could probably answer that accurately. All I know is that I benefited from "bond paid" on the first house and a very low bond on the last. And you're my witnesses: It IS the last house which I will leave feet first in a box....
Last year there was a thread that became pretty controversial about buying new versus resale, in which the bond was only one consideration. For those who are undecided, it might be worth a re-read.