Fee Simple vs Leasehold

[PropertyEconomics]

I think that is the final bone of contention. Not that we won't find another. The fee simple does not cease to exist due to a lease, it is simply split in two.

Actually I dont think its split two equal parts ... the holder of the LEASE HOLD position does not have near the bundle of rights the Leased Fee holder does ...

He / She cannot mortgage the property, They can sell their leasehold position but NOT the property,

The Leased Fee holder can do all of those things at any time without the permisson of the other party.

The Fee is not gone .. it is split .. and as such both parties do not have an interest in the FEE.

If either of you disagree Im sure you will say.

 

[xm72mhd]

Actually I dont think its split two ... the holder of the LEASE HOLD position does not have near the bundle of rights the Leased Fee holder does ...

He / She cannot mortgage the property, They can sell their leasehold position but NOT the property,

The Leased Fee holder can do all of those things at any time without the permisson of the other party.

The Fee is not gone .. it is split .. and as such both parties do not have an interest in the FEE.

If either of you disagree Im sure you will say.

Disagree, I do!

 

[PropertyEconomics]

That is not the question to ask in order to get the information to support your assertion that the fee does not exiost until after closing.

Absolute fee will only exist when the leased fee interst and the leasehold interest are joined .. from the split you have noted earlier. Until such time .. they remain separate interests. One in an ownership position and one in an occupancy / enjoyment position.

You said I should list them as both sellers ... IF the tenant is not signing as a seller .. then it is the question necessary to support YOUR assertion.

 

[Fred]

while I am happy you choose to describe the world according to Santorapedia (and I mean that with respect to you).. I dont think anyone else has access to it and as such I use terms acceptable to the profession.

I would be more than happy to take credit for inventing the language - the landlord's interest and the tenant's interest - but if there is anything my "pedia" does it is cite, footnote, source and acknowledge. So, I can't take any credit for inventing anything.

If you want to try to make the case that the terms landlord's interest and tenant's interest are not "acceptable," I'll buy tickets to that one.

Mr Santora,
I do not agree with Edd that there are two owners of this property

That could be just another semnatic issue, this one on the word "owner." Does a tenant "own" anything wih respect to the leased real estate?

The Fee is not gone .. it is split

I thought was what Edd wrote.
--------

Then again, on second thought, I am not sure you think

Actually I dont think its split two

The Fee is not gone .. it is split

How's that for an example of the term "leased fee" creates confusion?

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I would be more than happy to take credit for inventing the language - the landlord's interest and the tenant's interest - but if there is anything my "pedia" does it cite, footnote, source and acknowledge.

If you want to try to make the case that the terms landlord's interest and tenant's interest are not "acceptable," I'll buy tickets to that one.

That could be just another semnatic issue of the word "owner."

Mr Santora .. I would not argue with you about Landlord Rights and Tenant Rights .... IN FACT ... if we use them (interchangably with Leased Fee and Leasehold for argument sake) the tenant rights will not merge with the landlord rights until the time of closing and as such .. appraising the COMPLETE ownership position prior to that is not appropriate in my opinion without a HC.

And as a matter of respect .. I would NEVER quote Santorapedia for fear of doing so poorly. That is left to you wholly.

 

[xm72mhd]

Absolute fee will only exist when the leased fee interst and the leasehold interest are joined .. from the split you have noted earlier. Until such time .. they remain separate interests. One in an ownership position and one in an occupancy / enjoyment position.

Now we may be getting somewhere. And what else in our example does it take to make a fee simple? I think that is about it.


You said I should list them as both sellers ... IF the tenant is not signing as a seller .. then it is the question necessary to support YOUR assertion.

I said list them both as owners if you want to appraise the fee simple. Being an owner and being a seller are not the same. The tenant may not be legally able to sell the landlord's interest, and the landlord may not be legally able to sell the tenant's interest, but together they can agree to sell their own interests. Particularly to the same party at the same time. Viola! Fee simple.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I said list them both as owners if you want to appraise the fee simple. Being an owner and being a seller are not the same. The tenant may not be legally able to sell the landlord's interest, and the landlord may not be legally able to sell the tenant's interest, but together they can agree to sell their own interests. Particularly to the same party at the same time. Viola! Fee simple.

Ok .. list them as owners .. THEY ARE NOT BOTH OWNERS ... one owns the real estate .. one holds the right of occupancy / enjoyment.

When you appraise an apartment complex ... that is being sold .. do you list evey tenant as an OWNER?

NOTE ... I dont want to appraise the fee simple .. I want to appraise the appropriate ownership interest that exists as of the date of the appraisal. I reiterate if the lease is in place and in force .. the seller can only sell the leased fee interest in the property or in Santora terms the Landlords Rights.

 

[xm72mhd]

Does a tenant "own" anything wih respect to the leased real estate?

The tenant "owns" some part of this abstract notion of fee that we are trying to grapple with, and in most situations, and apparently this one, it includes the right to possession.

 

[Fred]

And as a matter of respect .. I would NEVER quote Santorapedia for fear of doing so poorly. That is left to you wholly.

At some point, I think we need to put a stop to this. I think you playing games with my name is unacceptable. What's more, I am posting under my real name, while you hide behind an alias. That makes it eggregious.

If you intended it as a compliment, thanks. However, it is not appreciated.

Mr Santora .. I would not argue with you about Landlord Rights and Tenant Rights .... IN FACT ... if we use them (interchangably with Leased Fee and Leasehold for argument sake)

The whole point is that they are not interchangeable. That's why everyone understood my original analysis of the three possible interests, but gets snowed under by the leased fee maelstrom.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

The tenant "owns" some part of this abstract notion of fee that we are trying to grapple with, and in most situations, and apparently this one, it includes the right to possession.

Edd .. Do you list evey tenant in an apartment complex as an owner?