All Forum Posts by: Richard Elvin

I've been through something similar and, unfortunately, at the bottom of everything the seller provides is a line to the effect of "buyer to verify any information deemed important". I lost over well over $30k... Bought a house that was sold as a 3/2. Seller signed that the septic was up to code on the disclosure. Turns out the septic wasn't even on file. Lot was too small to redo the septic. Both RE lawyers I consulted with said, "Read the fine print. It says buyer to verify.".

I hope you have a better outcome! Unfortunately the buyer is the one that takes on all the risk and the "professionals" (RE agents, inspectors, etc) make their money regardless of what happens after the sale. I'll continue to use the above, it just really opened my eyes to how little some "professionals" are worth. Others are worth their weight in gold! Having the right people is critical to success. 

I'm not a flooring guy, so take this with a grain of salt. It looks like caulking that has dried back. When I was in my teens, so it's been a minute, I used to caulk log homes as part of my job. I think what's happened is the caulk has shrunk, plus walking/moving/stepping on it has damaged it. 

I could be totally wrong, just my impression. :)

 I hope they found someone in the last two years! lol
(I've replied to old threads, I chuckle at myself also.)

@Michael Baum I think @Sarah Ware was referencing overpaying for a property based on using it as a STR. If it wouldn't cash flow as a LTR, then don't buy it as a STR unless you are willing to bet on regulations staying unchanged. (Which is a fair bet in vacation rental markets, but a risky bet in urban areas.)

"Just wondering if anyone actually gets caught by the city when operating STR without the permit?".

I don't know how agressive they are in catching violators, but it's $50/day to find out. I wouldn't take that bet...
"Sec. 16-632. - Operation without permit.
Any short term rental unit operating or advertising for operation without a valid permit shall be deemed a public safety hazard. The city may issue and the operator, the owner, or the local contact person may receive a civil citation for operating or advertising for operation without a permit and the penalty for such is fifty dollars ($50.00) per day." Knoxville , Tennessee - Code of Ordinances, Ch 16, Art XV, Division 3, Sec 16-632.

Oops, forgot the link: https://library.municode.com/tn/knoxville/codes/code_of_ordi...

@Luke Carl Newbie with STR's here, so forgive what may be a dumb question. :)

Do you have an example of a great view? As a newbie I would have been easily sold that's a good view. 

@Matt Selland 

@John Underwood has extensive experience in this area, in his home state of SC. If it were me, I would take what he said when you first posted this: 
"The previous owners could object but they would have to prove something was unlawful about the IRS seizing their land and auctioning it off. Don't be scared to do a Quiet Title if needed.".
Especially, as you've since mentioned, the previous owners showed up to contest the sale. They failed then, what has changed that would give them legal recourse to reverse the sale now? 
Do the quiet title and be move on with life. 
This is what I would do and is just someone's opinion on the internet. :)

I think you're over comlicating it, which is my area of expertise. lol

I'm not wanting to be rude, but this is truly baffling to me.

You stated, "This is exactly what my attorney recommended.". 
If your attorney has already given you advice, why are you asking strangers on the internet?

@Casey Millsaps I don't have any intel on Robbinsville. Personally, and this is just my opinion, I would think cabins in the mountains/woods would do better than tiny homes. I could be completely wrong though. :) 

You could plan out the whole resort, but start with one and see how it goes. If no one rents at least your family would have a nice place to hang out and you're not out of pocket for an entire resort.

Just my thoughts.

I mostly agree with @John Underwood and he has experience in this area, so take what I say for what it's worth. (about what you paid for it)
You stated that they're "very litigous", which I inferred as being difficult to work with. That inferrence may be inaccurate, but if it is correct I would be hesistant about approaching them directly. 

The direct approach does have the advantage of instant settlement, if agreement can be reached. (I'm not experienced in this area, but I would be very cautious in what I say that could be used against me by "very litigous" people.) 

If I decided to meet them, it would be in a very public place. I would also have backup, your dad and uncle, nearby. Having someone else in the same area if things go sideways would give you more confidence, which is likely to lead to a better outcome as you are coming from a place of strength.

Last thing, paragraphs are helpful and *might* give you more responses. Some people will immediately move on vs reading a wall of text. 

Best of luck/discernment in dealing with this!