[Tom C]

I didn't want to hijack the other related thread , so I started this one about a different specific idea.

I wish all prices for homes included the amount to pay the bond in full. That sets a level playing field for shoppers.

I believe that the sales price of a home SHOULD include any outstanding bond. If the original seller was told the two were separate, ok.... but as a buyer, both are liabilities that go with the property. It would be like buying a pre-owed car and then after it looks appealing, you are told that the tires/wheels on the car cost extra.

Both are needed and you can not use the car (or the house) without the wheels (the bond).

This is my opinion, being on the outside looking inward. I wish all prices for homes included the amount to pay the bond in full so shoppers could compare apples to apples.

[manaboutown]

I agree. To me it is like buying a house or car having an existing lien on it without knowing the amount of the lien.

It would provide an apples to apples measurement of the true cost.

[Velvet]

The explanation I got was that since the bond is treated like property tax (sort of), it doesn’t reflect the price of the house itself. But it’s money out of my pocket one way or another.

[Kilmacowen]

The bond pay off price is on the flyer sheet on all listings with TV. Zillow or MLS listings online do not show bond amount. All agents downplay the bond, except when there is no bond. It is in bold capital print. The bond and selling price is the real price of the house. The interest on the bond is 6%. Add that to the price.

[villagetinker]

This is interesting discussion, because as noted above, there are 2 ways of looking at the bond cost, as an 'additional tax' for the remaining period of the bond, or as an 'additional cost' of the house if you want to pay it off. The information should be presented to the buyer UPFRONT, as it makes a significant difference if paid off monthly (aka escrow), and all at once, and the buyer needs this information to amke their best decision.