Townhouse vs Condo

[Bob Ipock]

Would you agree that the above matters a lot in North Carolina, but doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on any property outside the state of North Carolina?

Those are NC statutes. Would not apply outside NC. Each state would have their own statutes

 

[J Grant]

A

1. (5) "Condominium" means the ownership of single units in a multi-unit structure with common areas and facilities. (6) "Declaration" means the instrument, duly recorded, by which the property is submitted to the provisions of this Article, as hereinafter provided, and such declaration as from time to time may be lawfully amended.
   File Size: 195KB
   Page Count: 12
   

   Chapter 47A. Unit Ownership. § 47A-1. Short title. § 47A-2. Declara…​

   View attachment 69979
   ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_47A.pdf

A wrong stray definition found somewhere does not mean condo ownership MUST be in a multi unit structure. Condo is a form of ownership and can be any style or design.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Those are NC statutes. Would not apply outside NC. Each state would have their own statutes

Thank you! We have a wave going! I can now count as many as four in this thread that comprehend this notion.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Condo is a form of ownership

That is established by the state. By your misinterpretation, I guess every state has the same law regarding abortion, since you simply don't like the ones you don't agree with, rendering them non-existent or meaningless?

 

[DWiley]

Those are NC statutes. Would not apply outside NC. Each state would have their own statutes

Given that the OP's stated location is NC, those statutes would seem most relevant to the OP's questions. '

 

[Mark K]

I think there is a difference between 'ownership type' and the 'ownership interest' and the two are being jumbled together in this thread.

As stated in Post #1...."I have a deed that says " The Grantor does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land and described as follows:" " Being Cottage x of "HOA y", a Condominium, as described in the Declaration of Condominium of "HOA y".

The 'fee simple' describes the ownership interest. "Condominium" describes the property type.

The "Montana" example describes a Townhouse in its definitions, typical of many laws. It would be helpful to see the term in action in the code to tell exactly why it was included in the Condo section of the law. It appears to describe a type of property and the restrictions thereon, not a type of ownership.

70-23-102. Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply:
(18) "Townhome" or "townhouse" means property that is owned subject to an arrangement under which persons own their own units and hold separate title to the land beneath their units, but under which they may jointly own the common areas and facilities.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I think there is a difference between 'ownership type' and the 'ownership interest' and the two are being jumbled together in this thread.

As stated in Post #1...."I have a deed that says " The Grantor does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land and described as follows:" " Being Cottage x of "HOA y", a Condominium, as described in the Declaration of Condominium of "HOA y".

The 'fee simple' describes the ownership interest. "Condominium" describes the property type.

The "Montana" example describes a Townhouse in its definitions, typical of many laws. It would be helpful to see the term in action in the code to tell exactly why it was included in the Condo section of the law. It appears to describe a type of property and the restrictions thereon, not a type of ownership.

70-23-102. Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply:
(18) "Townhome" or "townhouse" means property that is owned subject to an arrangement under which persons own their own units and hold separate title to the land beneath their units, but under which they may jointly own the common areas and facilities.

Having invested many hours into gaining my understanding of how it came about, around the early 1990s, folks here were having difficulty getting condominiums financed at rates and terms they liked. Along came some "crafty" attorneys to rectify the situation. They created the "townhome" by simply adding the description of the unit as being the unit "and the land under the unit" (which is never identified except by the exterior of an existing structure) plus the typical portion of the common elements. Somehow, this passed muster, and these townhomes were financed with rates and terms typically enjoyed for traditional SFR on a deeded site. For most of 25 years, there were probably as many of these created as there were condos, maybe more. The only problem was, the word townhouse or townhome didn't exist in state statute. It became a problem and was batted about during every legislative session for 15 years or so until the definition of townhome was added to the statute. Last I spoke with the attorney who provided most of that history to me, there as yet to be litigation, and thus precedent, regarding the exact status of those units that were created when the entity didn't exist.

I find it rather underhanded that it got off the ground, but at some point, it had to be resolved. So now, some must comply with subdivision laws while others can subdivide by including a sentence in a document without cost.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Regardless what - I won't appraise a Condo...big PITA here. PUD ditto.

 

[Mark K]

Having invested many hours into gaining my understanding of how it came about, around the early 1990s, folks here were having difficulty getting condominiums financed at rates and terms they liked. Along came some "crafty" attorneys to rectify the situation. They created the "townhome" by simply adding the description of the unit as being the unit "and the land under the unit" (which is never identified except by the exterior of an existing structure) plus the typical portion of the common elements. Somehow, this passed muster, and these townhomes were financed with rates and terms typically enjoyed for traditional SFR on a deeded site. For most of 25 years, there were probably as many of these created as there were condos, maybe more. The only problem was, the word townhouse or townhome didn't exist in state statute. It became a problem and was batted about during every legislative session for 15 years or so until the definition of townhome was added to the statute. Last I spoke with the attorney who provided most of that history to me, there as yet to be litigation, and thus precedent, regarding the exact status of those units that were created when the entity didn't exist.

I find it rather underhanded that it got off the ground, but at some point, it had to be resolved. So now, some must comply with subdivision laws while others can subdivide by including a sentence in a document without cost.

That explains the..."...which persons own their own units and hold separate title to the land beneath their units,..." They own their 'condo' unit plus the land, under separate title.

Pretty creative wordsmithing.

 

[TerryRohrer]

That explains the..."...which persons own their own units and hold separate title to the land beneath their units,..." They own their 'condo' unit plus the land, under separate title.

Pretty creative wordsmithing.

Exactly. And the separate title is by that statement alone. If you were to remove the units from the land, you would have a single tract of land again. The plat still shows the 2 to 30-acre site that was created by a legal subdivision. Effectively a condo without the baggage!