Condo/Townhomes

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Personally, I believe stupidity is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

Ignorance can be cured with education.

 

[Joyce Potts]

Personally, I believe stupidity is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

Ignorance can be cured with education.

Not always. I often find it difficult to establish the fine line that suggests where one starts and other other begins.

More often than not, it's a choice in both cases.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Well I guess Don is busy as well.
The Plat is often the key, but sometimes (as is the case with the property and plat that Don posted) it leaves more questions than it answers. I had never seen a note like note#1 of Dons plat. Is that common for other markets?

 

[Joyce Potts]

Score for the Donmiester

Well I guess Don is busy as well.
The Plat is often the key, but sometimes (as is the case with the property and plat that Don posted) it leaves more questions than it answers. I had never seen a note like note#1 of Dons plat. Is that common for other markets?

Change of tone, perhaps? Good question.

Looking forward to the posts hereafter.

 

[Otis Key]

Well I guess Don is busy as well.
The Plat is often the key, but sometimes (as is the case with the property and plat that Don posted) it leaves more questions than it answers. I had never seen a note like note#1 of Dons plat. Is that common for other markets?

Don't know if it's common, but we also have some condo complexes around here where the lot is platted with the unit.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Don't know if it's common, but we also have some condo complexes around here where the lot is platted with the unit.

Otis, The lot is NOT platted with the unit!!! Read Note #1 on the plat!

It cleary states that it is not a lot.

Also not that all the other lots outside the units development are labeled as lots.

I really don't know why I try sometimes.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Change of tone, perhaps? Good question.

Looking forward to the posts hereafter.

No no change of tone.

If you can't or won't accept the fact that the word "Ignorant" as defined is NOT an insult then re-read the thread and take comfort that the word was directed at the original poster and those appraiser's you called "perplexed" and not directed at you. Feel better now?

 

[Don Clark]

So now Don I think we would need to see a preliminary title report, and get in touch with te assessor for an explanation of the land assessment.

You give him a call Frederick. I will be glad to supply the number. BTW, the legals we use in this part of the country are by metes and bounds. in Virginia we are not stuck with that God awful rectangular survey system you use in california.

I am much to busy teaching a class of 30 appraiser wannbes from 6:00PM to 10:30PM each night. Beside, i don't have to prove anything to anyone. As I state, we also have 2 unit condos where the entire condo is just 2 units. Now who do you think would own the land unless it is the 2 owners of the condo units?

As to note #1, it clearly shows that the UNIT(as in Condo Unit) footprint. The rest of the site is LIMITED COMMON AREA. Each unit owner is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, cutting grass, driveway maintenance, etc as any single family property owner would be in a non condo. The unit owner owns the land under the footprint. And, no, i will not do a title search for you. If you really are interested I can recommend either a local Attorney or Title company who can do a search for you and explain it in more detail. Of course they will want to be paid. As for me, I am done. Got better things to do.

 

[Marcia Langley]

I have to say I have been watching this thread with quite a bit of interests. Everyone of the posts up to this point has been informative, and it is interesting to see some of the different examples in the various states. I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, so I can't respond to every post thus far. I did want to say Fred, your 4 step system is exactly what I was looking for. I had not even thought to look up the plats. It should have been obvious, but well, all I can say is I am glad I came here. Also with a little bit of effort, I am sure I can extract the difference in the # of the APN's that are condos in Texas. Once again, thanks for all of the posts as they all were really useful to get some perspective. I will try to post more to the other responses when I have a bit more time.

Mike,

Frederick's four steps are good indicators but there is only one final proof of the pudding and that is the Declaration of Condominium filed with the planning department. Several posters have said this but the conversation keeps sliding by the point. Don and Pamela have given some good examples where the unit owner in a condo actually owns the underlying land soley and seperately from the common areas. In these cases, the unit owner will also own their % of the common parts of the land (if any).

The point is that the form of ownership (either condo or non-condo) is not dependent on any factor except the Declaration of Condominium.

Your city of Houston may have some very confusing or unreliable data but don't judge them on this issue until you have checked for the Declaration of Condominium.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Didn't I say in the very beginning the major problem was ..."he is in Texas"?