1
General Discussion / Re: Island property in Gravenhurst Muskoka
« on: March 12, 2020, 07:20:39 PM »
There were more issues on this one than the crown liens.
News:
Tax List Property Listings Forum
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
General Discussion / Re:Sherriffs sales this weekend
« on: July 21, 2017, 05:11:00 PM »
I'm not even going to bother looking into this one...
good luck to anyone who is!
good luck to anyone who is!
Get out your guns....
SHERIFF'S SALE OF LANDS UNDER AND BY VIRTUE OF a Writ of Execution filed with the Sheriff of the DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA, dated April 22, 2016, under writ file number 130 -16 , the real and personal property of JAMES PETER DOYLE, Debtor, at the request of CASSANDRA LEIGH DOYLE, Creditor(s), I have seized and taken in execution all of the right, title, interest and equity of redemption of JAMES PETER DOYLE, Debtor(s) in and to: ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situated, being: Lot 7, Plan 35M-61 9, Gravenhurst, District of Muskoka Property Identifier No. 48039-0007 (LT) Municipally known as: 1020 Balfour Woods Road, GRAVENHURST, ON All of which said right, title, interest and equity of redemption of the JAMES PETER DOYLE, Debtor(s), in the said lands and tenements described above, I shall offer for sale by Public Auction subject to the conditions set out below at, 3 Dominion Street, Bracebridge ON P1L 1E4, on 26th July, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. CONDITIONS: The purchaser to assume responsibility for all mortgages, charges, liens, outstanding taxes, and other encumbrances. No representation is made regarding the title of the land or any other matter relating to the interest to be sold. Vacant possession is not included in the sale of this property. Responsibility for ascertaining these matters rests with the potential purchaser(s). TERMS: Deposit of 10% of bid price or $1,000.00, whichever is greater. Payable at time of sale by successful bidder; To be applied to purchase price Non-refundable. Ten business days from date of sale to arrange financing and pay balance in full at 3 Dominion Street, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1E4. All payments to be provided in cash or by bank draft, certified cheque or money order made payable to the Minister of Finance. A Deed Poll provided by the Sheriff only upon satisfactory payment in full of purchase price. Other conditions as announced. THIS SALE IS SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION BY THE SHERIFF WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE UP TO THE TIME OF SALE. Note: No employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General may purchase any goods or chattels, lands or tenements exposed for sale by a Sheriff under legal process, directly or indirectly. Date: June 15th 2017 Sheriff, District Municipality of Muskoka 3 Dominion St., BRACEBRIDGE ON P1L 1E4
3
General Discussion / Re: No Sherriffs sales this weekend
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:38:16 PM »
I think the "why" did they redeem is easy to answer. The writs were about 265k and I don't think anyone could justify paying that much for the equity in a sheriff's sale (apart, of course, from a newb who didn't understand what they were buying). There is so much uncertainty in these sales and, as Jayz mentioned, the mortgage amounts aren't necessarily exactly known to the buyer.
If the full amount of the writs wasn't realized at the sale, the owner is still on the hook for the rest. Better to try to sell on MLS and get real market value and hope you can cover all the debts.
Kind of amazing that someone that bought property in the 90s in Toronto seems to have lost money in T.O. real estate.
If the full amount of the writs wasn't realized at the sale, the owner is still on the hook for the rest. Better to try to sell on MLS and get real market value and hope you can cover all the debts.
Kind of amazing that someone that bought property in the 90s in Toronto seems to have lost money in T.O. real estate.
4
General Discussion / Re: No Sherriffs sales this weekend
« on: July 20, 2017, 03:33:46 PM »
Both of these were cancelled. Lyndhurst was cancelled last minute. After spending a lot of time doing due diligence on this one, I don't think it would have been much of a deal but it certainly an interesting set of facts and a good example of why you really need to understand how sheriff sales work (i.e., what you are actually buying) before bidding.
It seems that the buyer bought the house for about 500k in 1991 and decided to undertake an extensive reno around 2009. Sometime around the reno it looks like the owner took out a 3rd mortgage for 660k at 10.5% interest (yikes). All-in the mortgages would be more than 1 million to discharge.
The owner seemingly paid an initial contractor 475k. There was a falling out and it looks like the renos were only partly completed. The contractor sued the owner since there was still a balance owing under the contract. The court sided with the contractor and awarded 94k + legal fees (65k). The owner didn't pay this and a writ was filed. The owner's lawyer also filed a writ, presumably for unpaid legal fees, for about 55k. Meanwhile, the owner hired another contractor to finish the work. The new contractor quoted 660k+HST. The contractor claims to have sent accounts for about 400k but was only paid about 275. The new contractor then had a construction lien of 132k added to the property. So, assuming the lien is valid, the existing owner was on the hook for mortgages of ~1.05 mill, a lien for 132k + interest, legal fees of about 115k AND the house still isn't finished.
Based on the contractor #2's quote, there is still probably 300k of work to be done. The owner seems to have dumped almost 1 million into this project, excluding legals, and the house is still not done.
Did I mention the owner is a lawyer...
Based on my due diligence, I had already given up on this but if this one went all the way to the sale, I expect a buyer would have showed up and bid something like a million on this place not understanding what they were buying (i.e., that the mortgages and the construction lien do not magically disappear from title after the sale). When it comes to sheriff sales, it seems that 18 times out of 20 they are cancelled and 1 time out of 20 someone who doesn't understand what they are buying "wins". Starting to wonder why I bother with these. Doing proper due diligence on these takes a lot of time and expense.
It seems that the buyer bought the house for about 500k in 1991 and decided to undertake an extensive reno around 2009. Sometime around the reno it looks like the owner took out a 3rd mortgage for 660k at 10.5% interest (yikes). All-in the mortgages would be more than 1 million to discharge.
The owner seemingly paid an initial contractor 475k. There was a falling out and it looks like the renos were only partly completed. The contractor sued the owner since there was still a balance owing under the contract. The court sided with the contractor and awarded 94k + legal fees (65k). The owner didn't pay this and a writ was filed. The owner's lawyer also filed a writ, presumably for unpaid legal fees, for about 55k. Meanwhile, the owner hired another contractor to finish the work. The new contractor quoted 660k+HST. The contractor claims to have sent accounts for about 400k but was only paid about 275. The new contractor then had a construction lien of 132k added to the property. So, assuming the lien is valid, the existing owner was on the hook for mortgages of ~1.05 mill, a lien for 132k + interest, legal fees of about 115k AND the house still isn't finished.
Based on the contractor #2's quote, there is still probably 300k of work to be done. The owner seems to have dumped almost 1 million into this project, excluding legals, and the house is still not done.
Did I mention the owner is a lawyer...
Based on my due diligence, I had already given up on this but if this one went all the way to the sale, I expect a buyer would have showed up and bid something like a million on this place not understanding what they were buying (i.e., that the mortgages and the construction lien do not magically disappear from title after the sale). When it comes to sheriff sales, it seems that 18 times out of 20 they are cancelled and 1 time out of 20 someone who doesn't understand what they are buying "wins". Starting to wonder why I bother with these. Doing proper due diligence on these takes a lot of time and expense.
5
General Discussion / Re: Welcome summer, more Sherriffs Sales
« on: June 19, 2017, 02:33:13 PM »
It is also the third time they have tried to sell this half share. I understand the first time the buyer walked away from their deposit (I suspect they didn't realize they were buying half a house). Does anyone know what happened the second time?
6
General Discussion / Re: Township of Muskoka lakes
« on: March 29, 2017, 06:15:43 PM »
Tax sale cancelled.
7
General Discussion / Re: Township of Muskoka lakes
« on: March 27, 2017, 01:27:33 AM »
No way this doesn't get redeemed.
8
General Discussion / Re: No Sherriffs Sale This week
« on: February 13, 2017, 07:14:52 PM »
There is an property scheduled to go to sheriff sale in the GTA this week that was not advertised in the gazette. Sadly, I'll be on vacation and unable to attend. I know it is last minute, but I'll pass along details by PM to contributors to the forums.
Sorry lurkers...
...and sorry to anyone else who already knew of the secret-ish sale and doesn't want more competition!
Sorry lurkers...
...and sorry to anyone else who already knew of the secret-ish sale and doesn't want more competition!
9
Announcements / Re: Trent Hills results and upcoming legislative changes
« on: November 28, 2016, 05:45:52 PM »jt
Revenue maybe more important then you think. see news article
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjoHXzxYXH4AMfwXFwx./RV=2/RE=1480380296/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parrysound.com%2fnews-story%2f6982590-seguin-budget-surplus-from-unexpected-tax-sale-proceeds%2f/RK=0/RS=yd5Ln3hIexSDeqy.JTElQX.hKnM-
[/quote]
This is a very unusual circumstance and not something they count on. Indeed, the article presents this as being a surprise windfall - something they hadn't budgeted for.
10
Announcements / Re: Trent Hills results and upcoming legislative changes
« on: November 28, 2016, 02:43:26 PM »Dave2, one beer it is. I think you may just be wrong this one time, since the Province is overspent. If the province is going to have an increase in the minimum sale amount eat into their new found revenue source you can bet they will put pressure on the municipaliities to justify and reduce charges. OTS is correct, the minimums will go down.
Most importantly you seem to be confusing the City of Toronto Act, 2006 with the Tax Sale Act that we are all familiar with. They are different, especially with respect to the excess proceeds and crown liens. Once again I have to agree with OTS. Tax sales will occur earlier and if you thought the redemptions just before the sale are high now, just wait, they will get even higher.
Dave2, please keep up the great job you are doing of posting the sheriff's sales - with tax sale properties going up earlier the redemption rate could be so high that Sheriffs sales become the better bet. At least with the Sheriff's sale a CRA lien is quantified and not hidding in waiting for an unsuspecting newbee.
I doubt the province is worried much about the revenue from this. The excess doesn't get forfeited to the province for 10 years. Ontario doesn't think that far into the future. Also, I expect that the numbers aren't going to be incredibly large. By the time you factor in redemptions (both pre and post sale) and properties where someone (either the ex-owner or a creditor) asks for the surplus , I suspect the amount of money left over is not significant to Ontario.
I also don't buy the argument that this will lead to lower minimums. I think a tax sale is really a bit of a pain for the municipality and they aren't that eager to conduct them. Towns get dragged into court over tax sales more often than they would like. Also, municipalities really aren't that eager to take people's houses.
My guess is that the change will not increase or decrease minimums.
11
Announcements / Re: Trent Hills results and upcoming legislative changes
« on: November 25, 2016, 04:04:05 AM »
Dave, thanks for posting the results. Not surprising that property 4 was redeemed.
Yes, it looks like under the new act the surplus will go to the province and not the municipality. I don't quite follow your logic as to how this will lead to higher minimums. The minimum is based on the cancellation price, which is set according to a formula in the act. Other than possibly inflating their "reasonable costs", it doesn't seem like the municipality has a lot of control over the minimum.
Yes, it looks like under the new act the surplus will go to the province and not the municipality. I don't quite follow your logic as to how this will lead to higher minimums. The minimum is based on the cancellation price, which is set according to a formula in the act. Other than possibly inflating their "reasonable costs", it doesn't seem like the municipality has a lot of control over the minimum.
12
General / Sheriff Sales
« on: November 18, 2016, 06:35:11 PM »
There was an interesting development affecting sheriff sales yesterday:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc50/2016scc50.html?resultIndex=1
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc50/2016scc50.html?resultIndex=1
13
Property Information / Re: For those bidding Toronto - Manor Road Property on CBC
« on: September 07, 2016, 01:08:50 PM »
52 laing might have been one of the best buys in a long time. It is now for sale for 1.5m:
https://www.realtor.ca/Commercial/Vacant-Land/17357761/Rear---52-LAING-ST-Toronto-Ontario-M4L2N2-Greenwood-Coxwell
https://www.realtor.ca/Commercial/Vacant-Land/17357761/Rear---52-LAING-ST-Toronto-Ontario-M4L2N2-Greenwood-Coxwell
14
Announcements / Re: Sheriffs Sale of Lands Halton 2
« on: January 19, 2016, 02:00:02 AM »
It was nice of the sheriff to mention that it is a "half-share".
15
General Discussion / Re: Sheriff's Sale Lament
« on: January 18, 2016, 02:30:19 AM »
If it is one of the GTA sales, a simple search of the debtor's name may highlight some very unusual problems.