• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
REI WEALTH MONTHLY

REI WEALTH MONTHLY

Your Digital Guide to Real Estate Wealth

  • Home
  • About Us
  • News
  • Contribute
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • SUBSCRIBE

legal advise

U.S. Department of Justice Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Landlord

July 3, 2020 by Realty411 Team Leave a Comment

By Stephanie Mojica

The U.S. Department of Justice recently filed a lawsuit against an Iowa landlord alleging that he sexually harassed and committed acts of retaliation against a female tenant.

The defendants in the lawsuit are Juan Goitia and 908 Bridge Cooperative in Davenport, Iowa, according to a press release from the Department of Justice. The reported incidents occurred between March and August 2018 and are blatant violations of the Fair Housing Act, according to the Department of Justice.

Goitia, an owner and manager of residential properties, allegedly touched a female tenant’s body on multiple occasions without her consent and made repeated and unwanted sexual remarks, according to the Department of Justice. When the woman filed a fair housing complaint with the Davenport Commission on Civil Rights (DCRC) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), he engaged in acts of retaliation against her, according to the Department of Justice. The press release did not elaborate upon what those alleged acts of retaliation were.

“No woman should have to endure sexual harassment to keep her home,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division said in the press release. “The Fair Housing Act protects tenants from sexual harassment and retaliation by their landlords, and the Justice Department will vigorously pursue those who engage in such reprehensible and illegal conduct.”

After the DCRC and HUD investigated the woman’s fair housing complaint, they forwarded it to the Department of Justice for further action. The lawsuit filed on June 29th calls for the woman to be compensated financially. Also, the Department of Justice asked for a court order to be issued to prevent further discrimination against the woman.

“Women have a hard enough time finding a decent affordable place to live without having to be subjected to unwanted sexual advances,” Assistant Secretary Anna Maria Farias of HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Office said in the press release. “HUD applauds the action the Justice Department is taking in this matter and remains committed to working together to protect the housing rights of women when those rights are violated.”

Filed Under: landlording, legal advise, legal tips, news Tagged With: rental homes

Types of Deeds

February 25, 2020 by Realty411 Team Leave a Comment

You need to login to view this content. Please Login. Not a Member? Join Us

Filed Under: legal advise, legal tips Tagged With: deeds

Incorporating in Nevada

November 21, 2019 by Realty411 Team Leave a Comment

By Jay Butler

During the 18th century, corporations in America were formed by an act of congress for public projects and services, such as the building of damns or creation of manufacturing jobs.  Charters were revoked for the violation of law or upon the life of the project.

Originally owners and managers of corporations were held liable for the mismanagement of all company affairs and criminal acts. These corporations could not own stock in other companies, possess ownership of non-essential property, nor make political or charitable contributions to influence law-making decisions within the legislative branch of the United States government.

Large central banks didn’t care for this and pushed New Jersey representatives to pass legislation called the General Revision Act in 1896, which privatized corporate charters.  Delaware passed similar laws shortly thereafter and became known as the premiere state in which to incorporate in America for the next 101 years.

In 1997 Delaware began disclosing stock ownership information with the Internal Revenue Service and, combined with an 8.7% state corporate income tax rate, may no longer be the best choice for forming a private corporation.  However, Delaware has some of the best anti-takeover clauses in the United States and is a worthy consideration should you wish to take your company public.

Wyoming has risen through the ranks as a viable alternative state in which to incorporate.  Although they disclose available stock ownership to the IRS, Wyoming does not keep any records on file and therefore has no available information to disclose. It is a very clever strategy and certainly places the low cost of incorporating in Wyoming above most other every state in the union.

Nevada improved upon Delaware laws when forming their Nevada Revised Statutes in 1987 (later revised in 2001), wherein personal liability protection is determined by state statute and not by judicial determination on a “case-by-case” basis as in California courts.  In Nevada, individuals are not subject to the unpredictable rulings applied by any particular judge, rather one can count on stable outcomes based on foreknown Nevada state law.

Nevada has developed a strong precedence for protecting the corporate veil, making it the most difficult to pierce of any state in the country. In fact, since 1987, only one Nevada “C” corporation has ever had its veil pierced. [Polaris Industries Corp v. Kaplan]. Under NRS 78.747 the protection and anonymity for officers, directors and stockholders in Nevada “C” corporations are unparalleled with any other state in the union as the nearly insurmountable burden of proof rests entirely on the Plaintiff to prove all three of the following NRS requirements to pierce the veil.

1.) The corporation must be influenced and governed by the person asserted to be the alter ego. When a corporation is not operating as a true legal entity and is being used by its shareholders as a “shell” to control private interests and assets or debts, the corporation is said to be the “alter ego” of its shareholders. A corporation may appear to be the alter ego of its shareholders when:

  • No directors are elected;
  • No corporate records are kept;
  • No records are maintained by the shareholders;
  • Personal funds or assets of shareholders are co-mingled with those of the company;

  (e.g. no separate bank accounts).

If the shareholders have themselves disregarded the corporate form, the law will disregard the entity and shall not offer shareholders the protection normally granted to the corporation.

2.) There must be such unity of interest and ownership that one is inseparable from the other;

3.) The facts must be such that adherence to the corporate fiction of a separate entity would, under the circumstances, sanction fraud or promote injustice.

After the deplorable June 24th, 2010 Florida Supreme Court Ruling in Olmstead vs. FTC, Nevada amended their charging order protection under NRS 86.401 to specifically provide single-member limited liability companies the same exclusive remedy for a judgment creditor as with multi-member LLC’s.  And with legislation enacted on October 1st, 2011, Nevada went a step further under NRS 78.746 to become the only state in America extending such charging order protection to “C” Corporations.  Now Nevada “C” corporations are afforded the highest degree of protection from lawsuits filed by disgruntled creditors and zealous attorneys.

Tax, what tax?  The great state of Nevada has no gift tax, no sales tax, no luxury tax, no property tax, no franchise tax, no capital gains tax, no succession tax, no tax on corporate shares, no individual income tax and no corporate income tax for entities whose gross revenues do not reach or exceed $4 Million per annum.  Nevada entities are only subject to Federal income tax IF the respective entity has a profit upon reaching its fiscal year-end. 

Nevada corporate stock holders and directors are not required to be U.S. citizens and meetings may be held by proxy anywhere in the world.  Nevada requires no minimum paid-up capital and there are minimal reporting and disclosure requirements.  Only the names and addresses of the corporate officers, directors and resident agents are on public record, but again Nevada recognizes privacy and permits the use of nominee officers and directors.

The primary business which may be exempt from paying the annual Nevada state business license fee under NRS 76.020 are government entities, non-for-profit organizations, motion picture studios, and limited types of insurance companies.

Choose a jurisdiction in which to incorporate wisely and always be sure to “Cover Your Assets”.  Please contact our offices today at https://www.assetprotectionservices.com/apsa/contact/contact-us.php to receive your free private consultation and for assistance with forming an entity in the state which best suites your needs.


Asset Protection Services of America

701 South Carson Street

Suite #200

Carson City, NV 89701-5239

Office

(775) 461-5255

Fax

(775) 461-1155

Mobile (239) 309-8214

Skype Jay_Butler

E-Mail [email protected]

Website www.AssetProtectionServices.com

 

Filed Under: asset protection, legal advise, legal tips, tax, tax lien Tagged With: asset protection

Is the Secrecy of a Land Trust Lawful?

August 22, 2019 by Realty411 Team Leave a Comment

By Randy Hughes, Mr. Land Trust

Land Trusts have been used in the United States for over 100 years, primarily for privacy of ownership. Many people, for various reasons, want to own real estate without public knowledge. Perhaps they are a celebrity, politician (President Obama owns his house in the Chicago suburbs in a land trust) or an individual that just doesn’t want the general public to know their private business. Such persons might also fear the wrath of disgruntled tenants, vendors or building inspectors. Further, if it were public knowledge that the richest man/woman in town owned local rental property perhaps rent increases and maintenance requests would be perceived differently.

Since title to property ownership is public information many real estate owners and real estate investors opt to take title to their real estate investments in land trusts. Land trusts hold title in the name of a Trustee and the trust itself. The Beneficiaries of the Land Trust are not disclosed to the public and are only named in the Trust Agreement (a non-recorded contract between the Trustee and the Beneficiary). The Beneficial Owners can be individuals, a corporation, a Limited Liability Company or another trust. Consequently, the true beneficial holders can be buried deep for privacy and asset protection reasons (with no document on the public records indicating true ownership and control).

The beneficial interest holder of a land trust is liable for what happens on the property that is held in a land trust. Therefore, most real estate investors will own the beneficial interest via another entity (i.e. a corporation or limited liability company). Unfortunately, some land trust beneficiaries are unscrupulous and attempt to conceal ownership to avoid conflict of interest and/or building code violations. Consider for example, Chicago alderman, Thomas Keane, who owned an interest, through a land trust, in a corporation that obtained a lucrative parking lot with city owned O’Hare International Airport. The alderman did not reveal his ownership interest when he voted to grant the contract (see Land Trust Secrecy—Perhaps a Secret No More, 23 DePaul L. Rev. 509,511 n.10 (1973)).

The technique in using a land trust to hide ownership has been raised to an art form in Cook County, Illinois. It is estimated that over 90% of the property owned in Cook County is held in a land trust!

So, why is it important to record title in an individual’s name or the Trustee of a land trust? Everyone who owns property places in the public records some kind of document recording their interest. Failure to do so raises the risk that subsequent purchasers or creditors of a previous owner may deprive the present claimant of his title. But it is also true that the recorded title need not disclose the personal name or identify him/her in any way! Instead, a nominee, corporation, trustee or other entity may be interposed as legal title holder. Its relationship with the beneficial interest holder may be (as mentioned previously) represented by a private unrecorded document that is not disclosed to anyone without a court order or discovery process instituted.

Is it immoral to not reveal the true identity of the controlling party of a piece of real estate? Some would say yes but, once you own real estate in your own personal name and experience some of the inherent legal risks you might be more understanding of those who do not want to own title in their individual name. Real estate ownership carries risk and sometimes excessive oppressive risk. While it is true that real estate ownership should carry with it some responsibilities (i.e. to maintain, comply with building codes, meet minimum housing standards, etc.), it should not be a target source for contingency fee lawyers and other frivolous legal attacks.

Furthermore, some real estate investors are concerned about Federal and State government intrusion in their lives (read: Patriot Act). Since there is no requirement to itemize specific property ownership details on your IRS 1040,  holding real estate in a Land Trust keeps the investor’s name out of all city, county, state and federal databases.

Since Land Trusts are not registered at the State or Federal level (unlike Limited Liability Companies –LLC’s and Corporations), they are the last useful non-entity entity available to owners of real property (land, improved property, commercial buildings, residential buildings, real estate options, real estate contracts, etc.). Yes, LLC’s and Corporations offer more direct asset protection benefits, but the Land Trust provides more privacy of ownership and indirect asset protection benefits. Therefore, it is best to link Land Trusts, LLC’s and Corporations together for the best of both worlds.

By structuring the Land Trust with an LLC or Corporation as the beneficiary, the real estate investor creates a unique structure with symbiotic benefits. For example, changing ownership of the beneficial interest (being held by an LLC), would effectively change the owner/control of the title holding Land Trust without public notice or knowledge. Not only would this be a deeply private transfer of ownership and control but taxing authorities would be left out of the loop resulting in substantial tax savings!

Some theorists contend that property should be owned only in individual names so the “public good” can be served by holding owners accountable for what occurs on property (liability for people and condition). At the Federal level some even refer to two statutes of importance: The Freedom of Information Act (1976) and the Privacy Act of 1974 as reasons to compel ownership in the name of individuals and not trusts (or at least limit the privacy of Land Trust’s through legislation).

In Arizona, for example, the fear of organized crime prompted action by its legislature (see New York Times, March 30th, 1976 at 20, col 4). The AZ legislature enacted, as an amendment to the recording statute, a provision requiring every conveyance to or from a Trustee to include the names and addresses of the beneficiary or persons representing the beneficiary. However, it is unclear under this law if the Trustee of another Trust (i.e. a personal property trust), a corporation, or a nominee can be listed as the beneficiary and still comply with the law.

In Illinois the land trust statutes seemed to have evolved from legislative apprehension over slum housing problems and corruption among public officials (as with the previously stated Thomas Keane case). A 1963 law enacted in Illinois requires full disclosure of a Land Trust beneficiary “within 10 days of receiving a notice or complaint of violation of any ordinance relating to condition or operations of real property affecting health or safety.” The apparent intent was to force disclosure of the “true owners” of buildings with housing code violations. While there is a $100.00 per day penalty for non-compliance of the law, no- where does it spell out specific procedures to compel disclosure.

Iowa’s primary concern when it comes to privacy of ownership is the possibility of hiding ownership of property by nonresident aliens. Under Iowa law (see Property Rights of Aliens under Iowa and Federal Law, 47 Iowa L. Rev. 105) a nonresident alien may not own more than 640 acres located outside the corporate limits of a town or city (see Iowa Code Ann. 567.1). However, the prohibition on nonresident alien ownership in Iowa speaks of “acquiring title to or holding” real estate. It is unclear whether indirect ownership (i.e. via a Land Trust or nominee) is prohibited. It is also interesting that the Iowa law mentions no penalty for non-compliance!

What is interesting about some states attempt to control Land Trust information (and force disclosure) are their statutes are event-based. The event that triggers disclosure is the transfer of title into or out of the trust. Occurrences after conveyance into the trust, such as beneficiary changes or amendments to the trust agreement, need not be disclosed.

There is an inherent conflict between those who want to own property privately and the interests of the general public (and some governmental agencies). While it is true that some nefarious characters will attempt to use a land trust to avoid code requirements, tax re-assessments or the due-on-sale clause, a vast majority will not. Most people who utilize a land trust do so with good intentions in mind. (i.e. estate planning, privacy concerns, asset protection, etc.).

Certainly public officials should not be allowed to use land trusts to defraud the public (and building code violators should be held accountable), but in the typical residential real estate sales transaction the buyer is protected via the seller disclosure laws, title companies and attorneys involved in the transaction (regardless of whether a land trust is used or not). Further, the liability for the property held inside a land trust flows through to the beneficiary. While an LLC or other entity can be the beneficiary to a land trust, ultimate liability is not avoided by using a land trust.

Because our American legal system has run amuck and contingency fee lawyers abound, I do not favor the free flow of information as it relates to property ownership. Since there is no Federal land trust law (only state-by-state), the likelihood of legally compelling land trust beneficiaries to disclose information voluntarily about the title or condition of their property is unlikely in most states, if at all.


P.S. If you want more information on Land Trusts, please text “reasons” to 206-203-2005 for my FREE booklet with over 50 reasons to use a Land Trust (title holding trust). You can also attend my FREE Land Trust webinar by going to: www.landtrustwebinar.com. Or, call me. I actually answer my own phone! 866-696-7347.

 

Filed Under: land trust, legal advise, legal tips Tagged With: land trust, legal tips

New Capital Gains Tax Rule Could Alter U.S. Property Landscape

November 22, 2018 by Realty411 Team Leave a Comment

A new change to the capital gains tax rule could have a big impact on the U.S. real estate market.

By Fuquan Bilal

Not much noise has been made about this ‘small’ tweak to the tax code yet. At least not compared to other changes in the new tax bill. Yet, it could have a very big influence on the industry, in a variety of ways.

Manipulating the Capital Gains Tax Break

Until now US homeowners could be exempt from up to $500,000 in capital gains on the sale of their homes, providing they lived there for at least 2 of the previous 5 years. Under the new tax plan homeowners would have to stay put for 5 years in order to get the break.

This could bring in mountains of cash for the government in the next few years from American homeowners who planned to sell, or who aren’t aware of the change. Yet, according to projections from Zillow, it could hit some in high value areas with $70,000 or more in additional taxes on the sale of their personal residences.

Note that this doesn’t change the rules for real estate investors.

Slowing the Flow of Home Sales

With homeowners needing to stay in their homes for 5 instead of 2 years, we could see the time many spend in their homes more than double. That means far fewer real estate transactions for real estate agents and the economy. In turn that could mean far more limited inventory becoming available for home buyers.

In an already tight market, that is likely to push up property prices further as buyers compete even more fiercely for the few homes that do become available.

End-of-Year Listing Surge

With the new twist on the capital gains tax rule expected to kick in on January 1st, 2018, we could see a surge in homes being listed for sale in December. Home sellers need to beat the tax deadline, or face losing tens of thousands of dollars in proceeds from the sale, or more. This could be an opportune time for investors to capitalize on motivated sellers and competing inventory, and create win-win solutions, providing they have the capital to close in a matter of days.

Better-Performing Mortgage Notes

With homeowners and borrowers likely to stay in homes for much longer periods, mortgage note performance may improve as well. This is especially true for more mature home loans with higher interest rates. Those who have been on the brink of default or foreclosure, may also work extra hard to catch up, and retain those homes, instead of selling and taking an even larger and longer-lasting financial hit.

Find out more about investing in secured debt and real estate, go to NNG Capital Fund.

Filed Under: investing tips, legal advise

Primary Sidebar

city invest

Copyright © 2023 · ReiWealth.com