Just Sold – 1187 Pipeline Rd #203

We have just sold this apartment in PINE COURT. Lovely building, centrally located. Enjoyable living in this beautiful and well cared for one bedroom suite with nice updating and insuite laundry. Gorgeous kitchen features updated cupboards, countertop, faucets, sink and beautiful stainless steel appliances including an inverter microwave fan. Living room with natural gas fireplace, cozy and warm. Attractive laminate flooring throughout and nice tile floor in bathroom. Master bedroom has walk-in closet. Close to everything! Easy walk to Lafarge Lake, The Coquitlam Centre, Library, transit and so much more! Great opportunity!

Advertisements

B.C. Supreme Court rules in mother-daughter housing dispute

A RECENT B.C. Supreme Court battle should serve as a caveat for relatives thinking of jointly buying property.

Gavel_0

Reblogged from The Georgia Straight | Carlito Pablo

This one pitted a daughter against her mother in connection with a home purchase where they did not put their agreement in writing.

In a July 18, 2014, ruling, Justice Barry Davies reminded us about the pitfalls of “undocumented or under-documented inter-generational ventures entered into amongst family members”.

As Davies observed in his reasons for judgment: “All too often…the best of intentions result in sorrow.”

In the case filed by Catherine Ann Cerenzie and her husband against the woman’s mother, Mary Teresa Duff, “what is lost by all involved…is far more than money.”

“The real loss,” Davies wrote, “is the love and trust which gave rise to the venture in the first place and which likely will never be regained.”

Wading through conflicting testimonies, Davies was able to piece together a narrative around the purchase and eventual sale of 1064 Buoy Drive in Port Coquitlam.

The property was purchased by Duff and her daughter in 2008 out of the younger woman’s desire to have a stable home for her three children. When mortgage financing of $464,000 was first approved, it was contemplated that both Duff and Cerenzie were to be the mortgagors.

“It was only later, after Mrs. Duff advised Mrs. Cerenzie that she would eventually qualify for lower property taxes, that the Buoy Drive Home was conveyed only to Mrs. Duff rather than jointly to her and Mrs. Cerenzie, with Mrs. Cerenzie then becoming a guarantor rather than a co-borrower on the mortgage obtained for its purchase,” Davies recalled.

Duff made a $137,000 down payment, and the Cerenzies contributed $5,000. The Cerenzie family occupied the upstairs of the house, while Duff moved into a suite on the lower floor.

Although there is “insufficient evidence of the specifics of the arrangements”, Davies noted that there was “general agreement” between the parties on buying a suitable home that they could all “collectively afford”.

One aspect of this agreement was that Duff would contribute $500 monthly toward paying off the mortgage and the Cerenzies would shoulder the balance of mortgage payments.

In the spring of 2012, Duff “began to assert sole ownership rights by unilaterally determining to sell the Buoy Drive Home”, Davies wrote.

Davies didn’t go into why there was a falling-out. He noted that there had already been “sufficient discord and recrimination in this litigation to likely irreparably poison the once good relationship between the parties”.

The Cerenzie family was evicted, and Duff sold the house.

During the trial, Duff testified that the Cerenzie family was her tenant, an assertion that the judge rejected. Davies agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim: “In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Cerenzie submit that evidence establishes that they are entitled to a share of the Sale Proceeds both by imposition of a resulting trust or by application of the equitable principle of unjust enrichment.”

The judge determined that the Cerenzies contributed a total of $83,913.86 toward the purchase of the house: their down payment of $5,000 and mortgage payments totalling $78,913.86.

Duff contributed $155,510.66, which is the sum of her down payment of $137,000 and her monthly mortgage payments.

Although Davies agreed that the Cerenzies are entitled to a share of the sale proceeds of $192,682.45, he denied their suggestion that the amount be divided on a pro rata basis or in proportion to overall contributions.

One reason is that Duff made a bigger initial investment to acquire the home, and that should “accordingly entitle her to a greater share of the Sale Proceeds”.

After some adjustments, Davies ruled that Duff is entitled to $136,800, and the Cerenzies, $55,882.45.

Davies also dismissed Duff’s counterclaim that the plaintiffs owe her for damage to the home and loans made by her to Mr. Cerenzie.

As in many cases similar to this, Davies noted, when courts are called to sort out issues, the “result will never be totally satisfactory to the parties”.

Read the original article and more here

Just Sold – 8707 Hudson #201

I have just sold this amazing opportunity in the LANDMARK HUDSON; a beautiful, spacious one bedroom, CORNER unit in a newly remediated building; cedar siding, brick work, vinyl windows and patio doors and modern glass balconies. The suite features a great, functional layout; large living room with cozy gas fireplace and gorgeous built-in cabintery. RENOVATED BATH with contemporary, dark wood and elegant fixtures. Wrap-around balcony drenched in west facing sun. Two storage areas; one in-suite plus a locker. Pets allowed. Unbeatable value!

Just Sold – 3075 Primrose Ln #303

I have Just Sold this fabulous unit at Lakeside Terrace- in the heart of  Tri-City,all levels of schools, incl. Douglas College,business, medical & shopping centre,all within walking distance of transportation hub- West Coast Express train,future Evergreen Skytrain, existing bus system; LaFarge Lake across the street, children play / water park …you pick your activity,resort style living with play/work feeling.2 bedrooms / 2 baths renovated suite facing the waterways,fountain and garden,huge 148sf covered balcony, private and cool. Kitchen area accommodates a full size table; pantry & laundry,lots of counter space,no wasted space. Walk to Glen Elementary School, Coquitlam Town Sports Centre. Great investment value & great living.

Just Sold – 5355 Boundary Road #209

We have just sold this bright and modern 1 Bedroom Plus Den! Living room features an open floor plan and laminate flooring. Gourmet kitchen with Maple Cabinets, Stainless Steel Appliances, insuite laundry, fireplace, 1 underground secured parking, 1 storage locker, balcony. Rainscreen Technology Build Building. Close to shopping, school, Central Park and 8 minutes to Joyce Station.

Gardens go communal in Southeast False Creek

Let’s be clear here – communal sure, but more in the way that elite posh private schools are communal and their students are free to use the facilities. But not to fear – you too can have access to the gorgeous rooftop oasis of a communal garden, with the small one time investment of $438,000 which gets you exclusive use of 1 bed 1 bath 550 sq ft apartment on the second floor – and unlimited access to the rooftop and skylounge. Feel free to contact me for more information!!

JamesGarden-SH-1

Reblogged from The Georgia Straight | Stephen Hui

FROM THE ROOF of the James in southeast False Creek, the 360-degree view includes downtown Vancouver, City Hall, and the North Shore mountains. The terrace atop the 155-unit condo building at 288 West 1st Avenue, built by Cressey Development Group in 2012, features a barbecue, kids’ play area, and lounge.

James residents Matt Cooke and Carlson Hui gave the Georgia Straight a tour of the three raised beds and six pots that comprise the communal garden that occupies the rest of the 14th-floor space. The largest bed is home to 12 plots named after nearby streets, the pots contain herbs, and there’s a compost bin, which will soon be joined by a rain barrel.

“We have all of our lettuces and tomatoes here,” said Cooke, who is a food, nutrition, and health student at the University of British Columbia. “Around the corner, we have mint.”

Although the typical community garden consists of plots maintained by individual users as well as common areas, this rooftop garden is a truly collective endeavour. Participating units pay $25 a year to join the provisionally named James Garden Club and then take part in scheduled planting and harvest days.

According to Cooke, the year-old communal garden has “brought the building together”. Residents have an incentive to help out on harvest days, because they get a share of the crops.

Hui, who works for Lululemon Athletica, noted that strata members approved the communal-garden concept at a meeting in early 2013. He maintained that the garden has been the catalyst for residents to organize events such as barbecues, bike rides, hikes, and potlucks.

“This year, what we found interesting is how this has provided a foundation for community for the entire building,” Hui said. “So, it’s sort of gone beyond gardening.”

Read 342 more words

Boys and Their Toys – Alture MidCity

The Alture MidCity ground breaking event was held last week in Sunny Calgary! Fortunately catching the one sunny day in a week long rainy stretch, the boys have dusted off the hard hats and started off to work.

Questions for Property Transfer Tax (BC)

20140219-224133.jpgIf you are like me, then you probably have tons of questions about Property Transfer Tax. Do I have to pay it? What happens when I sell my house? What if I want to give my house to my children? Are there any rebates, discounts or first-time homebuyer benefits?  I’ve come across a nice article from David Simon – which is quite helpful in some of the odd particulars of Property Transfer Tax, like adding someone’s name to title – does that constitute a sale subject to property transfer tax? I’m by no means an expert nor a lawyer – should you consult your own lawyer if you have a particular situation or question? Yes. If you want to shoot me over a quick question, or get some recommendations on who you should really be speaking to, please hit up the comment section below or on my contact form.

For all you lucky Albertan’s, you’ve probably never encountered nor will you ever hear about this strange thing we call property transfer tax.

“I am often asked how a person can add someone to a title without paying property transfer tax. Usually that person contributed to the acquisition and has been helping paying the mortgage. Unless the person is a “related individual” as defined in the Property Transfer Tax Act and the transferor or the transferee has been living there as his/her principal residence for at least 6 months, then property transfer tax has to be paid. A related individual under the Act is a direct relative, e.g. son, daughter, parent grandparent. Siblings and aunts and uncles do not fall within the definition and the transfer tax has to be paid for transfers to them.

 I have been asked if a company can transfer its property free of property transfer tax to its shareholders. The answer is no as the company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. Only if the company was holding the property in trust and the trust declaration was registered when the transfer to the company was registered, can the transfer be done free of property transfer tax.

 From an income tax point of view, the law is that on any disposition, or deemed disposition, of capital property, tax is payable on any capital gains. The main exception to this is for dispositions of a primary residence. There is no tax payable on the capital gains from a disposition of a primary residence.  A deemed disposition occurs when a person dies, there is a gift of property or there is a change of use of the property, e g. it goes from being your primary residence to a rental property, or from a rental property to being your primary residence. The gain has to be determined at that time and any applicable tax paid. So before anyone takes title to, or transfers title to, all or part of a primary residence or any other property, even if a family member is involved, they should consult with their tax advisor as to possible tax consequences. Once you do something it is difficult and potentially costly to undo it.”

Just Sold – 5932 Patterson Av #402

I have Just Sold this Bosa built, Arthur Erickson designed building close to transportation Patterson Skytrain, Central Park, shopping. Bright 2 bedroom corner suite. Great wrap around balcony. Marble foyer entry. Great kitchen, stainless steel appliances. No disappointments here.

West End residents take Vision Vancouver to court over market housing policy

RENTING A CONDO may be cheaper than owning one, but it doesn’t mean that the rental unit is affordable.

This is a central argument in a new legal challenge against the City of Vancouver program that provides incentives to developers of market rentals.

VancouverCityHall-SH_2010_0_0

Reblogged from The Georgia Straight

On February 3 this year, the West End Neighbours Residents Society filed an amended petition seeking a court declaration that Rental 100: Secured Market Housing Policy—and its now-expired predecessor, Short Term Incentives for Rental Housing, or STIR—violates the Vancouver Charter.

The two policies were introduced by the ruling Vision Vancouver party.

“They’re giving away too much to developers in return for not enough back to the public,” WEN director Randy Helten told the Georgia Straight by phone on February 18.

According to Helten, the case will be heard by the B.C. Supreme Court on April 9 and April 10 this year.

In effect since 2009, STIR and the subsequent Rental 100 allowed council to waive development-cost levies (DCLs), reduce parking requirements, approve smaller apartment sizes, and allow developers to build more units than they would otherwise have been permitted, all in return for producing affordable market rental housing.

According to the WEN petition, the city waived about $10 million in DCLs between 2010 and 2013.

The Vancouver Charter allows council to forgo development levies only on three types of projects, one being “for-profit affordable rental housing”.

Moreover, the charter mandates that council defines through a bylaw what constitutes an eligible development.

In September last year, WEN launched a court challenge against STIR and Rental 100. It claimed, in part, that the city didn’t define what constitutes affordable rental housing to justify the non-collection of development levies.

Because of the suit, the city agreed to amend its rules. On December 3 last year, the Vision Vancouver–dominated council defined for-profit affordable rental housing as those whose initial rents do not exceed the following: $1,433 a month for a studio unit; $1,517 for a one-bedroom; and $2,061 for a two-bedroom.

In its amended petition, WEN argued that what the amendments do is simply allow the waiver of development-cost levies for “market rate rental housing” but not necessarily affordable rental housing.

It noted that the average monthly rental rate for a bachelor unit in the West End is $902, and $714 in Marpole. This means that the city “deems developments, with potential rental rates almost twice the City average, to be ‘affordable’ rental housing simply because they are rental as opposed to freehold”.

The amended petition also stated that staff were given “unfettered discretion to waive DCL’s for projects that are not ‘affordable’ at all, but simply market rental”.

Read the original article and follow author Carlito Pablo here.