- 6 Answers
- 1 First Answer
- 2 Useful Answers
I have been in the real estate business since I was 18 years old - first licensed in 1986. I have vast experience in disposition of REO properties and commercial real estate, along with the steady residential real estate business over the years. I am also a licensed residential real estate appraiser in both MA and NH (HUD approved appraiser as well).
James Norton's Questions (0)
James Norton's Answers (6)
James Norton hasn't asked any questions yet...
Check out real estate advice and opinions on
Trulia Voices!
Mike and Jon are both right - "in-law apartment" is a misnomer. You either have a single unit occupancy or multi-unit occupancy issued by the city/town you live in, end of story. There are instances where it might seem to be the exception, but it is very clear about "# of units" on a COO. Now, you can have a permit issued to install a second kitchen, for "accessory use", but that phrase has morphed over time into the oft-misused term "legal in-law apartment".
They may tell you over the phone at the Waltham Bldg Dept - but it doesn't hurt to go in person, ask for the jacket or file on your house and look for the COO - certificate of occupancy. If there isn't one, then ask to speak to one of the building inspectors and they might be able to decipher some of the data in the jacket/folder for you and give a determination on the spot.
James Norton
ERA The Norton Group
Somerville MA - Fri Apr 4 2008, 10:38
These suggestions are very good - I'm a little biased with Somerville, but, East Arlington, West Medford and Newton are all good choices as well for purchasing, living there for a few years and then rentability later on. Melrose isn't bad as well - the Orange Line is different type of commute, but doable - and Waltham isn't bad, but Newton is so much better and I think easier to navigate, especially to avoid traffic at different parts of the day. - Fri Apr 4 2008, 10:16
All good answers - at the end of the day, there is no "standard" response or plan of action. The reason why agents will put "agent must accompany buyer to receive commission" in MLS is in order to make sure the issue of procuring cause is clearly defined within the relationship of all parties. If you have a buyer agent, you should make sure you call him/her and ask their opinion before you go to a property without them - give them the opportunity to protect their ability to preserve the procuring cause portion that is relative to being paid. Of course, this really only applies to a buyer agent who is being paid from the commission on the property - which is 95% of the time in MA - and not to the original intent of buyer agency, which clearly defined that the buyer themselves paid their agent.
James Norton
ERA The Norton Group
Somerville MA - Fri Apr 4 2008, 10:11
Elvis has left the building - and is correct on the most commonly used verbiage.
It is definitely a "kick-out clause" - kind of like putting "00.00" in the "aggregate cost to cure" section of a home inspection.
Good question - good answers. Enjoy.
James Norton
ERA The Norton Group
Somerville MA - Fri Apr 4 2008, 09:59
I agree with these answers, and I just want to add simply that the right house is the right house - end of story. I have had my own horror stories as a selling agent and as a buyers agent with short sales and I can say this - a house that is on the market with an agent that hasn't already worked out with the bank and obtained approval by them to market the property as a "short sale", is just a tease - that's not a house that is ready to be sold. Unless the sellers agent is up front about having this "approval" from the bank, then forget it.
James Norton
ERA The Norton Group
Somerville MA - Fri Apr 4 2008, 09:52
Report this profile
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity