Consumers considering investing in residential properties that have not been stratified under the Condominium Act should get all the facts before they buy. Because the selling of undivided interest in rental properties is n new kind of transaction, it could be confused with condominium sales.

Consumers should be aware that:

• Purchasers of undivided interests do not actually own a suite. Instead they own a share of the property as a whole.
• Owners of undivided interests in property may not have the same rights and remedies available to condominium purchasers and owners through the Real Estate Act and the Condominium Act.
• Owners of undivided interests who have less than 50 per cent ownership may not be considered landlords under the Residential Tenancy Act and may not be legally entitled to evict the occupant in order to use the unit themselves.
• Owners of undivided interests may be liable should other owners default on the mortgage.
• Co-owner agreements are contractual in nature therefore disputes may have to be resolved through civil litigation.
• Consumers need to know how management of the property will take place in the absence of a strata council.
• Potential purchasers of undivided Interests should assess the maintenance fees, how maintenance will be authorized and what future obligations could develop.
• Properties sold as undivided Interests may not be required to receive municipal approval and may not meet the same stratified under the Condominium Act.
• Sales may be on an “as is, where is basis”. There may be no possibility of future action against the owner/developer if the building is unsound in any way.
• If the contract contains a reversionary clause or states that the undivided interest or user agreement can be terminated, it could mean that if the contract is violated, even on a very minor point, the share of property reverts back to the seller.
• Potential purchasers should always obtain advice from an independent legal counsel and have their own lawyer or notary perform their real estate transfer.

不可分割利益

當消費者考慮購買尚未依共同居住治理法分割的住宅, 有必要搞清楚自己所買的房地產是否有所謂的不可分割利益. 因為此類房地產跟市面上的公寓單位非常相似, 但是屋主所需負的責任和享有的利益有天壤之別.

消費者應該注意:

• 購買所謂的不可分割利益之房地產, 買家並不擁有所有權. 買家所購置的是一個共享居住空間的一部分.
• 這類房地產中, 每一戶所享有的權利和補償並不一定相等.
• 擁有低於50%所有權的屋主, 在住宅租戶法中, 不能算是地主, 更不可能有權利叫現已住在屋內之租客離開.
• 如果其他住戶出現房貸欠款, 其他所有住戶都有責任承擔.
• 住戶合同是契約性質, 因此如有爭端則要介法律途徑解決.
• 住戶有必要知道如何管理這一共享的房地產, 如果管理委員會不在的話.
• 買家有必要評估和了解目前管理費是如何審定以及未來可能所須負的責任.
• 此類房地產買賣不一定須要地方政府的認可, 也未必符合共同居住治理法令.
• 買賣可能出現”原樣, 原地”的條件. 這會限制買家在未來對賣家所做出的法律追訴, 如果此房地產有問題的話.
• 如果合約中有包括倒退繼承的條件, 買家可能會因為觸犯某種條款而必須退還給原屋主.
• 如果買家想購置此類房地產, 請一定要您的律師和您詳細討論契約中每一條法令, 確保您的利益.

After months of bombardment from media, we should all be very familiar with the term – “subprime mortgage” as well as the economic disaster caused by it. Many of us living north of the economic epicenter believe that Canadian banking and financial system is rigidly regulated when compared to our counterpart to the South. Is this really the case?

A recent news article claims otherwise. “A Globe and Mail investigation into more than 10,000 foreclosure proceedings has uncovered a burgeoning subprime mortgage problem that many, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have insisted does not exist in Canada.” (Globe&Mail)

The investigation also revealed that many people with poor credit history get their loans readily. Does it sound familiar now? “Data obtained from both the governments of British Columbia and Alberta, as well as from two private companies that specialize in tracking foreclosure proceedings, show that lenders are foreclosing on the homes of overextended borrowers at an alarming pace. Even more startling is that more than half the foreclosures in 2008 were initiated by a mish-mash of subprime lenders who targeted riskier borrowers with tarnished credit histories.” In fact, the foreclosure rate in B.C has gone up by 30% since the beginning of the economic turmoil. Depsite the fact the number is relatively trivial compared to the number of foreclosed properties in a typical American city, it could be the tip ice berg.

“Since the subprime mortgage meltdown in the United States, Canadian leaders have assured the public that a similar tidal wave of foreclosures can’t hit here.” (Globe&Mail) What many do not know is that many credit unions and financial institutions are lending at a rate which is considered “criminal” for people with tarnished credit history. And B.C government does not seem to have a system that actively follows the number of foreclosures as a way to measure the health of the real estate market. It is very unclear whether we are following the steps of our counterpart from south. Anyway, we might have to rethink about the assurance made by our Canadian leaders.

加拿大的次貸問題?

經過幾個月的媒體轟炸, 次貸這詞和它所引起的災難已經是耳熟能詳了.  對於我們這些加拿大人來說, 我們的金融體制和銀行似乎比較安穩. 但是, 真的是這樣嗎?

最近一篇本地的報章似乎有不同的看法. 全球郵報對最近的一些法拍屋進行了一份調查, 赫然發現其中不乏許多是因次貸的高利息造成的. 這跟許多人所想的, 甚至是總理SH所堅持的 – 加拿大不存在次貸問題, 有很大的出入.

這項調查清楚的指出許多信用不良的人仍可以輕鬆的借到貸款. 這和我們南面鄰居所面臨的問題聽起來好類似. 從卑思和亞伯大兩省的政府和私人公司統計來看, 許多放款公司已經開始對其下的借款人的房產做出法拍的行動, 而且數量和數度越來越多. 就拿2008來說, 一半的法拍是由於寬鬆的放款所造成的. 自從次貸危機以來, 本省的法拍屋已經激增了30%. 雖然和美國的任何一個大城比起來算是微不足道, 卻有可能是冰山的一角.

加拿大的領導階層保證類似美國的次貸風暴決不可能傷到加拿大. 可是加拿大政府所沒看到的是一些信用聯盟和金融機構以近乎是吸血的利息放貸給信用不良的代款人. 卑思省政府似乎不像是美國一樣能主動的收集法拍屋的據體資料, 以便做為一個測量房地產市場健康程度的數據.  目前未可知我們是否正跟隨美國的後塵, 但是這些資料已經足夠讓我們對加國政府所做的保證產生懷疑.

VANCOUVER – The B.C. SPCA is crying “fowl” after Vancouver city council voted in favour of a bylaw that makes it legal to keep chickens in backyards.

SPCA spokesman Shawn Eccles says he’s concerned that people who never would have considered having a chicken of their own will now give it a try because of the attention the bylaw has received.

Eccles says those individuals might not have the knowledge or experience to deal with chickens, meaning it’s the animals who will suffer in the end.

He says there’s much more to taking care of chickens than most people realize, including the fact that the birds can attract rodents.

Vancouver will not be the first Lower Mainland municipality that allows residents to raise chickens outdoors, as Burnaby and New Westminster already do.

Residents in New York, Seattle and Portland are also permitted to keep the birds.

(CKNW, CBC, The Canadian Press)