ErikOk 10 Report post Posted January 12, 2012 What do you all think of the information in the following attachment? LEASE_OPTIONS_OF_TEXAS_RESIDENTIAL_PROPERTY.pdf I am trying to interpret the third paragraph, page 2 where it reads, "Note that options not combined with a leaseas well as options on commercial property are not affected." But above that the law reads, "An option to purchase realproperty that includes or is combined or executed concurrently with a residential leaseagreement,..." Ok, so does that mean that you can sign a lease with a tenant buyer, then sign a separate option agreement, and then the law doesn't apply because it is not a combined lease-option contract, but is a separate lease AND separate option? I don't think you can, because it mentions "concurrently". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
<Steve> 82 Report post Posted January 12, 2012 I can't speak for Texas....but I have similar verbage in my state. The past benefits of a separate lease and option in the same deal is irrelevant. They might as well be put together. Perfect example how gov’ment regulations hinder private business. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MichaelC 160 Report post Posted January 13, 2012 Seems contradictory to me, Erik. But that's the state of the legal system, legislation, and governments on all levels mucking up the works. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
David Alexander 1 Report post Posted January 13, 2012 Lease Options in Texas... are fraught with risk... It started with contract for deeds...being killed.... in 2001... Then in 2003... Lease Options fell under the same laws... The only way around them..is to do them under 6 months... Tread lightly... the penalties are stiff... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot76180 51 Report post Posted January 13, 2012 Actually...that was 2005 David.... You asked a question on another thread so I'll see if I can catch them all here. You can sublease a property, but in order to do a sandwich LO, the seller must have fee simple title..in a sandwich LO, you are the seller to the end buyer...but..you don't have fee simple title..the original seller does...Theoretically, you could also just sign a lease with a purchase agreement and Title 2 Chapter 5 wouldn't apply to you. My docs are 20 pages long, but cover every aspect of the law, in regards to disclosure, verbiage etc. Signing the docs at different times really doesn't make a difference..it's still a lease option, so, just use the proper docs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErikOk 10 Report post Posted January 13, 2012 You can sublease a property, but in order to do a sandwich LO, the seller must have fee simple title..in a sandwich LO, you are the seller to the end buyer...but..you don't have fee simple title..the original seller does... Hi John, Sublease & sandwich LO are considered the same right? I understand that the seller must have fee simple title (they are the owner of the property), but if they were leasing the property to somebody it wouldn't be a sandwich lease. So with the Texas requirement of fee simple title, it seems that there is no way the investor could enter a sandwich LO. From what I am reading, it looks like Sec. 5.085 (a) kills the right to sub-lease/option because you would still remain an active party in the agreement, and this is forbidden by law. On the other hand you can still sign an option or lease option with a seller and then assign that to another party, this being allowed because you will be totally out of the deal. Do I have it right? Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot76180 51 Report post Posted January 13, 2012 Correct..you can sublease all day long, but for a SLO you would be the "seller" on the LO to the end buyer, and you would not have fee simple title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
David Alexander 1 Report post Posted January 14, 2012 Hey, I'll let ya'll do all themLease Options ya'll want... Me I'll keep being the bank..and just owning the paper... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot76180 51 Report post Posted January 14, 2012 Nothin wrong with that at all David!!I'm not a bank..I'm more of an ATM..and the family keeps making withdrawals.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
