Closing Costs Part 4 – Miscellaneous Charges

In the first three installments of my series on closing costs, I addressed real estate tax credits, title charges and lender costs.  This fourth, and final, last installment will address the last category of closing costs – everything else.  As you review your closing costs with your attorney at the closing table, it may feel like everyone is taking their pound of flesh from the transaction.  That is because it is essentially true.

Transfer Taxes

Whenever you buy or sell real estate, the government sticks its hand in your pocket.  The amount of the tax depends largely upon the location of the parcel.  The State of Illinois always gets $1 per $1,000 of the purchase price and the county gets half of that.  Municipalities have the authority to set their own individual taxes.  Some have none at all (eg. Palatine), and some are fairly hefty (eg. Chicago – $7.50 per $1,000 of the purchase price for the buyer and $3.00 per $1,000 of the purchase price for the seller!).  Unfortunately, in most instances these taxes are unavoidable.

Real Estate Broker Commissions

The brokers are paid from the Seller proceeds.  The amount they are paid is determined by the terms the listing agreement.  The brokers’ commission is usually 5% or 6% of the purchase price.  Regardless of the total commission, the listing broker gets a broker co-op commission of 2.5% of the purchase price paid by the listing broker from the total commission.

Recording Fees

The title company will record the deed and mortgage at the county recorder’s office to let the whole world know that you now own the property (and a mortgage on said property).  Of course, the buyer is expected to pay the recorder’s for this.  The cost is usually between $120 and $130 total.

Survey

If the property is a single-family, detached residence, the seller is required to provide the buyer and title company with a survey.  The cost of a survey is roughly $450.  If the property is a condominium, no survey is necessary.

Attorney Fee

Obviously, this is the most important cost of all!  It is crucial to have a good attorney (like me) to protect you when hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake.  Attorneys, such as myself, who handle residential real estate transactions charge a flat fee paid at closing.  At the time of publication, LoftusLaw charges $500.  What a bargain!

Thus concludes my series on closing costs.  Your experience may vary, as each transaction is unique.  If you have questions about closing costs, or any other real estate matter, as always, you can contact me at patrick@loftus-law.com or 773-632-8330.  To see what my clients have to say about me, please visit me at avvo.com or on my Google + page.

New IHDA Program Offers Up To $50,000 In Assistance To Under Water Homeowners

The painful memories of the housing bubble are quickly fading amidst the red-hot real estate market here in the Chicago area.  However, the good news is not universal.  Some homeowners live in sort of a limbo where they can just afford their mortgage payment, but they cannot possibly sell their home due to the fact that they owe more than the property is worth.

There may be hope for some of you.  The Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) has introduced a program for qualifying homeowners to receive up to $50,0o0 toward the balance due on their mortgage and refinance into a more affordable loan based on the market value of their home.  The following eligibility requirements must be met:

  • Current on your mortgage for at least 12 months
  • Live in the home as your primary residence
  • Credit qualify for a new IHDA mortgage through a participating lender
  • Be within IHDA’s income and home price limits 
  • Credit score must be at or above 640
    • 640 for Conventional, VA and USDA
    • 660 for FHA
  • Pre-assistance combined loan-to-value must be greater than 110%
  • Post-assistance loan-to-value will be 90-97%

The income and home price limits for the Chicago area vary depending on the number of people in your household and whether your home is new construction, existing or multi-unit.

If you qualify, I would strongly encourage you to reach out to one of the participating lenders.  Free money, after all!

If you have questions about this program, or any other real estate matter, as always, you can contact me at patrick@loftus-law.com or 773-632-8330.  To see what my clients have to say about me, please visit me at avvo.com or on my Google + page.

Checking Your Significant Other’s Email For Evidence of Cheating May Violate Federal Law

As if divorce cases weren’t bizarre and petty enough, an “innovative” divorce litigant has figured out yet another way to torture his soon-to-be former spouse.  According to an article in the ABA Journal:

“Paula Epstein, the defendant in the case, was sued by her husband, Barry Jay Epstein, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports. The couple are in the process of divorcing, according to the opinion (PDF), and Paula accused Barry of “serial infidelity.” His attorney asked for proof, and her attorney produced email correspondence between Barry and several other women. According to the opinion, Barry did not know that Paula had access to his emails until they showed up in discovery. He alleges that she must have arranged for his emails to be automatically forwarded to her.”

Although the federal district court dismissed Barry’s complaint, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision in part and reinstated the claim against Paula.  To its credit, the Seventh Circuit seems a bit disgusted with itself for essentially choosing form over function as it pertains to enforcing the Wiretap Act, with Judge Posner stating in his concuring opinion:

“Her husband’s suit under the Federal Wiretap Act is more than a pure waste of judicial resources: It is a suit seeking a reward for concealing criminal activity.  Had the issue been raised in the litigation, I would vote to interpret the Act as being inapplicable to—and therefore failing to create a remedy for—wiretaps intended, and reasonably likely, to obtain evidence of crime, as in this case, in which the plaintiff invoked the Act in an effort to hide evidence of his adultery from his wife.”

However, the fact stands that the case will move forward against Paula back in  district court.  Regardless of the outcome, the tactic seems to have worked in terms of creating leverage for Barry in the divorce case, as Paula will have to consider potential liability in the federal case as it pertains to the remaining issues in the underling divorce.  I’m sure that is what Congress intended when it enacted the Wiretap Act.

As it stands now, if you are going to snoop on your no good cheating husband, you’d better bone up on your knowledge of the Wiretap Act.  Otherwise, you might find yourself being sued in federal court in addition to being embroiled in a messy divorce.

Credit to today’s ISBA E-Clips for pointing this story out to me.  Further credit to ABA Journal and Stephanie Francis Ward for authoring the article.

New Illinois Law Brings Common Sense Approach To DUI And Pot

This is not about real estate.  However, some of you (wink, wink, no judgment here) should be aware of an important change in the DUI laws, which provides a more common sense approach to the issue of pot use and driving.

Until Governor Rauner signed SB 2228 into law last week, pot smokers were at risk of a DUI conviction unless all traces of THC (the intoxicating compound in pot) had left the system.  Although the intoxicating effects of pot last a few hours at most, it can take weeks for all of the THC to flush from the system.  This unreasonable standard resulted in many unneccasary arrests and convictions, often putting otherwise good people in jail and unnecessarily ruining lives.

The case of Alia Bernard is a prime example of the absurd results produced by the old law. People v. Bernard, 2014 IL App (2d) 130924.  In 2009, Bernard was involved in a fatal car accident, which occured when she rear ended a vehicle while fishing around the car for her sunglasses.  Two days prior to the accident, she had used marijuana.  Although the proscutors freely admitted that Bernard’s use of pot played absolutely no role in the accident, they charged Bernard with reckless homicide and aggravated DUI, based solely on the trace amount of THC detected in her blood after the accident.  Facing an unwinable case under the old law, Bernard entered a guilty plea to the aggravated DUI charge.  The judge threw the book at Bernard, sentencing her to seven years in jail.  But for the trace amounts of THC in her blood, the worst she could have received was a traffic ticket.  The old law made so little sense that had the driver of the car that Bernard rear ended been found with any THC in his/her blood, they would also have been charged with DUI!

The new law provides a new standard whereby a person can have up to five nanograms of THC in their blood, or ten nanograms in their saliva, before they can be charged with DUI.  As unpopular as it is, and should be, to relax DUI laws, the new law provides a more common sense approach.  Let me be clear, no one shoud be driving around whilst stoned.  However, once the concentration of THC in your blood is less than five nanograms, there is no longer any intoxication present.  No one should be convicted of DUI when they are not driving impaired.

So, for those of you who like to occassionally puff, please, for the love of God, do not drive stoned.  However, once you come down, feel free to go pick up the kids without the fear of going to prison for seven years after someone t-bones you after they run a red light.

For more, please take a look at the article from the Chicago Reader linked below.

The state’s new marijuana law sets a benchmark for driving under the influence of weed, but attorneys say it’ll be hard to enforce.

Source: New Illinois law defines ‘stoned driving’