All Forum Posts by: Matt Devincenzo

@K S. unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with SB to comment specifically on what you were told. That said my go to 'line' in situations like this is something to the effect of: "Thanks for clarifying that requirement for me, could you point me to the specific section or sections in the code that covers this?" In your case another question could be "Could you share the code section on STR guidelines for condos in the area?"

There are plenty of times that planners are 'interpreting' a section that doesn't say exactly what they imply it does. That interpretation may be the policy and what Senior management are directing, but being clearly specified in the code vs. a policy/interpretation can have two different ways of resolving it. In San Diego I'm familiar with the codes and I know how and where to look myself, but I still ask those questions because I want them to tell me where they think the requirement comes from. If possible I use that same section to refute the requirement...or provide an alternate path to approval. 

Once you have the specific section they reference go look it up and read it yourself, and see if you can do the same. Does it actually say what they're telling you it does? If it does, does it also have a section that gives another option? Or does it provide details for when it applies that  maybe don't apply to your site? All are reasonable options to identify how you meet the code when it is correctly applied.  

Quote from @Jeremy Taggart:

You could make it your mailing address for a year and keep it empty, which should satisfy that requirement. 

This does not satisfy the occupancy provision. The guidelines are clear that what counts as occupancy is the place you sleep the majority of the nights. So you need to physically move in and sleep in the home more nights than anywhere else for that year. 

I do land use planning in SoCal but not SB specifically. From a quick read of the SB ordinance I don't think you adding the ADU has anything to do with it. Their STR ordinance only allows STR in mountain and desert areas and does not allow it in MFR structures at all. So adding the ADU isn't somehow making the site ineligible for a STR, the use as MFR is what makes it ineligible.

Of course site specific details could change my take above, but based on what you shared you need to buy a SFR in the two allowable areas above in order to obtain a STR permit.

Who cares if he's over estimating materials, is his price for the work being done reasonable? And more importantly is the quality for the price appropriate? If so then if he keeps a couple hundred in extra materials vs charging it as profit the result is the same. 

I'm not sure of the legality so I can't comment there....either way though I'd just go get a personal loan for a balance that low or transfer the property sub-to...(title transfers but the loan stays in place and is not formally transfered to you via an assumption). You may be able to find a local bank that would hold the note if you bought it outright, but anything under $50k and most times under $75k is hard to borrow against...it's just too low for a bank to make any money without triggering usury or State/Federal fee limits like they mentioned.

Where is the rule about equal equity coming from?...at its most basic titling the TIC, does not require equal contributions it's just a deed defining percentages. So the requirement must be from some other aspect of the deal....funds are coming from a 1031 or SDIRA etc that is driving this requirement.

As far as the contribution/buy out idea and being dilluted, I don't see how that is any different than your original proposal. In both three people end up contributing all of the equity and one manages the project. The only difference being the fourth temporarily funds equity for a few days/weeks until you refund him...

Pay for the survey, $700 is probably a good price, so I'd do it. Surveying has a lot of 'art' and nuance to it as well as the mathematical component. I work as a civil, but have survey support experience as well. 

I currently have a client who is looking to buy a parcel it's around 1 acre. The west and possibly north boundary of the lot have a 1-1.5' gap and an 18' "shift" to the east. Also the course decribing the lot doesn't close by 35'...three parcels adjacent to ours that we share a boundary with have completed record surveys over the last 40 years and have identified and attempted to reconcile the issues using good survey theories (the art behind the math, who gets what and by how much and why). The problem is taking them collectively results in new problems for our lot...the three solutions work when you look at just one of our shared lines, but when you look at all three the math falls apart...my surveyor will have to take their collective work, his new field investigation and then apply his own good theories, and hopefully our property is the missing piece in the puzzle for how to resolve this.

I share that because those three surveyors are all names I or my boss know, and do good work. Their work isn't low quality but I disagree with some of the conclusions they came to in determining boundaries that are adjacent to ours...if I just went and marked their pins my client could 'lose' 18'-35' of their property...or almost worse, build 18' too close to the street ROW likely putting their house into the City easement...

Intent is the key word here, which it sounds like you clearly meet. The other is demonstrating efforts to meet that intent.

Between now and the pending closure I would actively look for work in your area and keep emails and letters to show that you did that in case it comes up. I would also start considering what a move may look like and initiate interviews with possible employers in the new area. Consider if a modified schedule would work (like Tue-Thurs in the new town), or if you could drive there and back Mon morn and Fri afternoon...not for long term, but just long enough to keep the occupancy a few months longer.  

You also said you purchased a few months ago and you the employer isn't shutting down for a few more months...I'd try to ride out staying where you are as long as possible. The 1 year requirement is described as your primary residence is the location that you sleep the majority of the nights or something very similar to that phrase. So you're quickly approaching 6 months which would be over the 'majority' of your 12 month requirement. That wouldn't be enough to just decide to move out for FNMA, but with a legitimate employment issue you've clearly demonstrated an intent that met the loan covenants. 

No, the principal isn't an expense because she will be repaid the amount. Think about it, if she somehow could deducted the principal then she would also have to declare it as income when it was repaid later...it isn't an expense it is a loan, the income is the interest and the principal payment is just a return of her own money.

You can search on the forums for lots of posts about how to determine class, some even delve into local criteria like asset price etc. Every area will have its own distinction....like NY/Boston/Chicago etc there may be A properties that are 100+ years old and there may also be brand new to market assets. The age is part of the local neighborhood quality without degrading the asset to an inferior condition.

Here is a discussion on MFR asset classes...it gives aome key points for what makes up the quality of an asset:

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/797178-multi...