[ROCKETMAN]

Talking to a sales agent told me bonds on patio villas are over $40,000. Can anyone verify that. If that’s true bonds on two and three bedroom cottage houses must be $50,000. On a different topic I walk many routes and today a cul de sac off st. Charles I saw the view 3 or 4 designer houses have in their backyards is the three story apartment complex next to sandhill golf course. I’m sure they were told when they built the villages doesn’t own that land behind your house. I

[asianthree]

When my aunt bought in 2002 agent warned don’t buy the house that backs to pasture open land. Developers can build houses, commercial or multi story apartments or medical facilities. Doesn’t matter if the family owns that property or another developer…Cows never stay forever.

Same warning when my parents came in 2004, and when we came in 2007.

For our third house, scheduled to look at houses that backed to the area of St Charles you posted. Our agent actually if you buy, remember my warning..never buy next to open land. We didn’t, so glad we listened to the same warning since 2002.

As far as bonds one can look up any district in TV.

[gorillarick]

I know someone who bought in 2013. Agent told them TV would stop at Hwy 44.

No more new construction in TV. That's it.
( I'd guess he/she also added; 'better buy now, the prices can only go up; law of supply and demand.' )

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by ROCKETMAN

Talking to a sales agent told me bonds on patio villas are over $40,000. Can anyone verify that. If that’s true bonds on two and three bedroom cottage houses must be $50,000.

Would it make people sleep better if, instead of the bonds, the developer simply added the same cost to the total price of the house as they do pretty much everywhere else in the country? Bond-talk has been happening for years, and some people still don't get it.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

Would it make people sleep better if, instead of the bonds, the developer simply added the same cost to the total price of the house as they do pretty much everywhere else in the country? Bond-talk has been happening for years, and some people still don't get it.

No, but it would be a lot less misleading and more transparent.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

No, but it would be a lot less misleading and more transparent.

And the BS about having a bond does not affect the price ,

[retiredguy123]

I like the bond system and I fully understand it. The one thing that many people don't seem to understand is that a bond is not a personal debt or a liability against the homeowner's credit or any other assets the homeowner owns. The only liability is against the house. And, there is never a requirement to pay off the bond in full. As long as you make the annual bond payments, while you own the house, you never need to pay off the bond until the 30 year loan expires. If you sell the house, the bond stays with the house.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

It never ceases to amaze me, how little attention is paid to the Bond Liability, by purchasers of pre-owned home ... like the Bond really isn't part of the price.

It's part of the COST of the home, whether it's pre-owned OR new. What's so hard to understand about that? And why is it such a topic of complaint? Everyone here has (or had) the bond, and if it's still unpaid, it gets full disclosure. Many just choose to either ignore it or later claim they never knew at all.

But I guess there has to be something to crab about, right?

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I like the bond system and I fully understand it. The one thing that many people don't seem to understand is that a bond is not a personal debt or a liability against the homeowner's credit or any other assets the homeowner owns. The only liability is against the house. And, there is never a requirement to pay off the bond in full. As long as you make the annual bond payments, while you own the house, you never need to pay off the bond until the 30 year loan expires. If you sell the house, the bond stays with the house.

Finally, someone gives a clear and concise description.

Nominated for "Post of the Day."

[westernrider75]

Originally Posted by ROCKETMAN

Talking to a sales agent told me bonds on patio villas are over $40,000. Can anyone verify that. If that’s true bonds on two and three bedroom cottage houses must be $50,000. On a different topic I walk many routes and today a cul de sac off st. Charles I saw the view 3 or 4 designer houses have in their backyards is the three story apartment complex next to sandhill golf course. I’m sure they were told when they built the villages doesn’t own that land behind your house. I

It doesn’t necessarily matter what type of home is on the land as far as the amount of bond. What matters is how many homes are splitting the costs. Usually there are more patio villas because the lots are smaller and more will fit but not always, recently I have seen some smaller villa neighborhoods that would have a higher bond.

Our real estate professional advised us against buying a home with vacant land behind it because there was no guarantee what would be build there, so glad we took that advice.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by ROCKETMAN

Talking to a sales agent told me bonds on patio villas are over $40,000. Can anyone verify that. If that’s true bonds on two and three bedroom cottage houses must be $50,000. On a different topic I walk many routes and today a cul de sac off st. Charles I saw the view 3 or 4 designer houses have in their backyards is the three story apartment complex next to sandhill golf course. I’m sure they were told when they built the villages doesn’t own that land behind your house. I

I don't know where to find the bond information on the very newest homes but I can find the information for the newest declared "units" off this Districtgov Bonds page.

Of the few that I looked at, Villas are as much as $40K and homes are $60K.

[retiredguy123]

When a person buys a house:

1. If the house has a bond, the buyer has 2 options: they can pay off the bond or keep the bond. If the house has no bond, there are no options.
2. If the buyer needs a mortgage, the appraiser probably will not add any loan value to a house with no bond.

My advice is to keep the bond unless the interest rate is too high. You will not recover the bond payoff amount when you sell.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

Finally, someone gives a clear and concise description.

Nominated for "Post of the Day."

It's a clear and concise description, that is not correct.

It is indeed a "liability against the homeowner's credit or any other assets the homeowner owns." (So after Mr. JayHawk questioned this statement in a later post, I'm back to edit it, so it's clearer. A Bond is not a strict "liability against a homeowners "credit report", but it is a liability (similar to a RE Tax). If you don't pay your taxes (or your Bond), it can become a liability, but I don't know of any state that a tax lien of any sort, can reach someone's "other assets". To the extent "other assets" was included in my quote, I shouldn't have included that part of it.)

It is a lien against the property the homeowner "owns" ... no different than a mortgage. "Property" consists of (usually) a building and the land it's located on. In the case of The Villages (in the areas with bonds), the land portion of your property has a lien/liability attached to it. Until it's paid off, the "homeowner" does not have free and clear ownership of their property, it is encumbered by a lien.

It is not much different than a temporary easement or ROW, that burdens the property until paid or extinguised.

[MSchad]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

No, but it would be a lot less misleading and more transparent.

I will never understand what is misleading about it. Has anyone bought a house that has a bond and not known about it until after closing?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by MSchad

I will never understand what is misleading about it. Has anyone bought a house that has a bond and not known about it until after closing?

There have been 100's of post on TOTV over the last few years, from people who had no clue about the bond (or surely didn't understand it) and from buyers or prospective buyers, who were not informed by their Broker, there were bonds involved with most homes in The Villages.

What's misleading, is reading listings for real estate with an "asking price" that does not clearly indicate there is also a bond (or bond payment) that effectively increases the asking price, significantly.

In my opinion, it's no different than an Automobile advertisement, that doesn't mention the "Documentary Fee" or "Transportation/Shipping Fee" ... of course, the FTC prohibits automobile manufacturers and dealers from doing that.

At worst, I think advertising a property with a Bond, should at least be required to use the ubiquitous "asterisk".

& before someone says, "buyers should be smarter" ... if that was case, we wouldn't need any Consumer Protection laws.