Hidden fee could hit homebuyers hard
by Tim Gillie
Nov 17, 2009 | 2981 views | 6 6 comments | 48 48 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Broken “for sale” signs dot the side of a lot in the South Rim Estates subdivision near Stockton Tuesday morning. A large parcel of land in South Rim, as well as the Maples development in Tooele, are the first developments in Tooele County to include a “private transfer fee” that a seller must pay each time a property changes hands.<br>- photography / Maegan Burr
Broken “for sale” signs dot the side of a lot in the South Rim Estates subdivision near Stockton Tuesday morning. A large parcel of land in South Rim, as well as the Maples development in Tooele, are the first developments in Tooele County to include a “private transfer fee” that a seller must pay each time a property changes hands.
- photography / Maegan Burr
slideshow
Two county developments among first in state to kick back money to developer each time a property sells

Real estate industry professionals are rallying against a controversial new fee being implemented at two developments in Tooele County.

The Maples in Tooele and South Rim, just outside of Stockton, are the first developments in the county to have covenants, codes and restrictions that require that any time a property is sold, the seller must pay a “private transfer fee” of 1 percent of the gross sales price to the developer and stipulated associates. The fee is paid each time a property changes hands over a set time period, usually 99 years.

Private transfer fees are a fairly new mechanism being used in other states to generate additional income for developers. In Utah, however, the practice is not widespread and has been criticized by those in the real estate industry as an unfair way to price-gouge sellers.

“It is perfectly legal,” said Calleen Peshell, Tooele County recorder. “But I don’t like it.”

Peshell is concerned the transfer fee can sneak up on sellers.

“It should be on the title report and noticed by both the buyer and the seller,” said Peshell. “The problem is too often we don’t look at things too closely when we are buying a home. This is buyer beware. Buyers will need to read their CCRs before agreeing to a purchase.”

The Utah Land and Title Association has taken a stand against transfer fees.

“We are completely against the transfer fees,” said Susan Houghton, examiner/escrow officer of Tooele Title and vice-president for the central region of the Utah Land and Title Association. “The money benefits the developer. It does not go back into the subdivision or project.”

The transfer fee recently recorded at South Rim does not affect the current Benches subdivision project, but does apply to a large adjacent parcel of land owned by the developer of South Rim, the Hogan family. The transfer fee would apply to any future subdivisions built on the property, according to Mark Nelsen, president of B&D Title in Tooele.

Joyce Hogan, speaking on behalf of the family, said the transfer fee isn’t an attempt to hit future homebuyers with an additional cost.

“The transfer fee we recorded is a part of a private business transaction,” said Joyce Hogan. “It does not at this time affect anybody except us as the current property owners, and it does not in any way affect the Benches at South Rim. I may go and withdraw the document from the recorder’s office this afternoon.”

The controversy surrounding transfer fees has already impacted one local real estate broker, Dan Egelund of Re/Max Platinum in Tooele, this year.

“We were representing two buyers on new-built homes in a development in Tooele and the title company made us aware that documents requiring a transfer fee had been recently recorded,” Egelund said. “Under the pressure of loosing two sales, the developer withdrew the requirement.”

Utah Realtors as a whole are cautious in their opposition to transfer fees, according to Chris Sloan, broker of Group 1 Real Estate in Tooele and president of the Utah Association of Realtors.

“It is not necessarily a bad thing. The money should recoup costs of improvements the builder or developer makes to the project,” Sloan said. “But there needs to be proper disclosure of the fee. If everybody knows about it up front, there should be few problems and surprises down the road. We expect there to be legislation this year that will require prominent notification.”

Vicki Griffith, broker for Prudential Utah in Tooele and president of the Tooele County Board of Realtors, said she is opposed to private transfer fees.

“Realtors certainly don’t benefit from transfer fees,” Griffith said. “They just make the transaction more costly to the buyer, which certainly doesn’t help attract buyers when you are trying to sell property.”

Peshell doesn’t think the fee will be in existence long in Utah.

“It has been outlawed in Texas and I hope our legislature follows suit,” Peshell said. “People who are familiar with real estate will either negotiate the fee away or go somewhere else to purchase their home. Think about it, you are agreeing to pay 1 percent of the sales price of your home when you sell it in the future, and whoever buys it has to agree to the same thing when they sell. These things [transfer fees] have a life of 99 years.”

Tim Gillie: tgillie@tooeletranscript.com

comments (6)
« dwalk wrote on Wednesday, Jan 06 at 06:03 AM »
mrEwog,

You are not up to date on this year's terminology.

It is not a "tax", it is a "Revenue Enhancement" this year. New term added to the "Public Trough" dictionary.

You are absolutely correct in that it is a tax levied by a private entity, though.

It will eventually be ruled unconstitutional, even though the constitution has lost meaning to our life-long politicians lately.
« MrEwog wrote on Friday, Nov 27 at 04:20 PM »
Logical, No matter how you “spin it” it is a sale tax levied by a private entity.

You must be affiliated with the developers in some way. I run my own business, and have upfront costs that are added to my prices. Developers should do the same, the customer can walk away if the price is too high. Full disclosure, if you can afford a lawyer to read the fine print.

« logical wrote on Thursday, Nov 19 at 11:34 AM »
MrEwog, not sure you are getting it. The "consumer" knows about the covenant "up front". If he/she wants to buy the property, they can accept sales price, negotiate sales price or walk away. Just like any other transaction. Nothing changes. If the "consumer" decides that they do not want to pay the 1% whenever they sale the home, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUY THE HOUSE. Not sure I can be much clearer. More than likely they would not care about the future payment because they are buying a home they like at an "accepted" negotiated price. The developer is not negotiating a sales price, coming to an agreement and THEN saying "oh yeah,I am also charging a 1% fee on top of negotiated price that you have to pay whenever you sale the home". It is negotiated into the sales price by a "willing buyer". Again, this is just a way to reapportion costs of the development over time. Instead of the initial homebuyer paying a serious premium on the purchase(because the developer has to make his "lick" up front) it is spread out over time. Basic economics. But I am sure none of this means anything to you. I am fairly certain I am wasting my time.
« notfairtosalers wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 10:01 PM »
why cant the county sale existing homes first instead of building more unsalable homes?

also why not wait till loans are assured before building?
« logical wrote on Wednesday, Nov 18 at 12:26 PM »
It sure is comical that the "real estate professionals" are really the only opposition to this concept. There is full disclosure up front regarding this covenant and the consumer can decide for themselves if they want to move forward with the transaction. The can move forward with the contract "as is", negotiate or walk away. There is no "gotcha" involved. There is innovative thinking out there to help developers with "liguidity" for present and future projects and ironically the "real estate professionals" are against it. Ever heard of "biting the hand that feeds"? If noone built anything, what would you sale? They are not signing up individual homeowners, just very large developments and real estate portfolios. Again, what would you sale if nothing was being built? I sure don't see the "real estate professionals" giving up any commission until the market turns around. Which, by the way, would MORE than make up for the 1% a seller pays when he/she eventually sales their property. Which he/she agreed to do at the original purchase. Consumers do have a brain, everyone in this country is not a victim as portrayed by your industry and the media. Have the "real estate professionals" ever thought that this actually may "jumpstart" your industry? It would actually make your job easier. More than likely, properties with this covenant attached would sale for less vs. competitive properties. The closing costs are less, the carrying costs over the time of ownership are less (again, making up for the 1% due at eventual sale). You guys spent millions lobbying for the extension of the homebuyer credit (taxpayer money, i.e. someone elses) to help you sale homes. This concept only helps your cause. Don't be so short sighted when you decide to be against something. Do the research and think a little bigger than you have in the past.
« MrEwog wrote on Tuesday, Nov 17 at 06:48 PM »
99 years, wow I think the money should be held in escrow for 99 years and the developers should be held liable for anything that comes up for the same amount of time. Is the transfer fee transferable if a developer goes of business? Good advertising for developers that don’t charge the fee. I thank you for the information I will tell anyone I know that is thinking of buying a home. A hot list maybe J

report abuse...

Comments will be posted after review. Please allow up to 24 hours for comment approval.

Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin. Abusive comments and users are subject to rejection or removal without notification.

We will reject and remove comments that contain any of the following: Potentially libelous statements; personal attacks, insults or threats; profanity or obscene references; copyrighted articles or information used without permission; promotional messages of a commercial nature; links to other Web sites; comments unrelated to the topic of the article.

By posting a comment, you are agreeing to abide by these guidelines. Violation of these guidelines may result in a user being barred from posting on the Web site.