[Russ_Boston]

I was asked to provide 20% of my purchase price upfront to begin the building with the other 80% at close in 75 days (give or take).

Did anyone else get away with only 10% and 90% at close? Hate to fork over that extra money when I could keep it in the bank (albeit at low interest rates).

[Dan =^..^=]

20% here.

[pooh]

20% here, too.

[laryb]

Count me in on the 20% too.

[Kelsie52]

I was told 20% which includes any upfront $ to hold the lot

[zcaveman]

It was 20% back in 2001

[Shimpy]

I was told that 20% was there policy whether paying cash or financing.

[kb8tpw]

Nice try Russ, can't blame you, but think of it this way - You are in good company. If that doesn't work wait until closing day and just imagine the goose bumps.....

[Russ_Boston]

Can't blame a boy for trying!

[bmarlo767]

You have to put 20% down to start but then you could work 10% with the
bank and get a refund at closing.

[YodaMom]

We just signed the papers on Tuesday and had to put down 20%.

[villages07]

Just as an aside, but, the 20% down requirement probably made/makes the Villages a fundamentally stronger community. It sure discouraged speculators during the boom times who were otherwise getting no/low money down loans. I think the 20% was a big contributor to the very low rate of foreclosures/defaults within The Villages.

[bkcunningham1]

Requiring 20 percent down on conventional mortgages, like in the old days before loans were given to people who couldn't afford them, gives you automatic equity in your home. In most cases 20 percent down does away with private mortgage insurance requirement on your part. More than that, it gives the lender a head start on recouping their loses in case you default.

[Pats2010]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Requiring 20 percent down on conventional mortgages, like in the old days before loans were given to people who couldn't afford them, gives you automatic equity in your home. In most cases 20 percent down does away with private mortgage insurance requirement on your part. More than that, it gives the lender a head start on recouping their loses in case you default.

I think the whole world would be in better shape if the 20% rule was in place the last 10 years. There is no reason for people not to walk away from homes. They did not vest any real money.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by villages07

Just as an aside, but, the 20% down requirement probably made/makes the Villages a fundamentally stronger community. It sure discouraged speculators during the boom times who were otherwise getting no/low money down loans. I think the 20% was a big contributor to the very low rate of foreclosures/defaults within The Villages.

Good morning V '07,

The 20% thing would most certainly have helped during those nutso years. Also, do I remember correctly that TV put something in place that said that property had to be held for a certain amount of time? -- in order to prevent flipping or to discourage it anyway.

Our first visit to TV was in 2007 in the fall. Things were just coming off the high times when buyers had a half hour to make up their minds or it was on to the next one on the list. TV would have been a flipper's paradise for sure had something not been in place to prevent that.

Am I remembering correctly? Was there a required time for a buyer to hold property before selling or forfeit some or all of the profit?

Even though that might sound draconian to some, like the developer was protecting his own interests in selling new, in reality, such restrictions in place during those times would have protected everybody's investment by discouraging flippers who not only wanted to make small down payments but were after a dizzyingly fast buck. Slowing down flippers would have been a good move.

So anyway, I am depending on you V '07 to tell me if I just made all that up.

Thanks.

Boomer