<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>MCAR Blog &#38; Forum &#187; Permits and Records</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mcarforum.com/category/government/permits-and-records/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mcarforum.com</link>
	<description>MCAR Blog &#38; Forum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:38:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Records&#8230;What Records?</title>
		<link>http://mcarforum.com/2008/09/recordswhat-records/</link>
		<comments>http://mcarforum.com/2008/09/recordswhat-records/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lorelingner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Permits and Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deed restrictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sellers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcarforum.com/?p=41</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[



The County, Cities and Water Management have  failed to accurately keep track of permits.  I have spoken with several escrow  officers to see if they would be agreeable to record documents and permits for  properties in order to have a permanent, accurate record.   As Realtors, we so often encounter problems where a governmental [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="30" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="Arial,serif;" valign="top"><span class="296415515-06092008"><br />
The County, Cities and Water Management have  failed to accurately keep track of permits.  I have spoken with several escrow  officers to see if they would be agreeable to record documents and permits for  properties in order to have a <strong><span style="underline;">permanent</span>, accurate</strong> record.   As Realtors, we so often encounter problems where a governmental  agency states there was no permit for whatever.  Water Mgmt. has incorrect  records (I just went thru this on a CV property).  If the plans and permits had  been recorded, it could have saved the Seller money, saved the Realtors many  hours and a lot of gas driving from one governmental agency to  another.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">As Realtors, looking out for our Buyers&#8217; and  Sellers&#8217; interests, I think we would do them a great service to immediately  implement a procedure where all plans and permits are recorded through the title  companies,   Just like CC&amp;R&#8217;s, deed restrictions, easements, the plans and  permits would be preserved, long after specific properties have changed hands  once, twice or more times.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">Too often, we run into issues where cities dig  in their heels and state there was no permit for whatever.  An example, I sold  one house in Monterey three times over the years.  The first two sales had City  Inspection Reports and passed without an issue.  The third time, the City said  there was a porch enclosure without permit.  The neighbor who lived next door  for over 30 years stated the house had been the same during the entire time she  lived there.  When I approached the City with the two prior City Reports and the  neighbor&#8217;s written statement, their response was &#8220;we are not responsible for our  errors&#8221;. (Only the governmental agencies can get away with a statement like  this.)  The net result was that the Seller had to pay thousands of dollars to  hire a structural engineer, architect, contractors and pay for a permit to bring  the porch up to current code requirements.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">Another example &#8211; the City Inspector said the  second bath was without permits, it had to be taken out.  No one had the plans  on the house that was over 50 years old (the City has <span style="underline;">no documentation</span> and the owner/builder was deceased).  Luckily, the agent representing the Buyer  had gone thru this before and was smart enough to check with the Assessor&#8217;s  office.  As it turned, out the Assessor had been taxing the house with two  baths.  Once we got the document from the Assessor, the City had to back off.   What astounds me is that cities can make a statement <span style="underline;"><strong>without  documentation &#8211; <em>they</em> no longer had the building permit or  plans</strong></span> yet, were able to state there is no record of a 2nd  bath.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">How many Sellers have been blackmailed into  paying for something, at point of sale, that was legally permitted but no one  had the old records?</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">Water Management was a  <strong><span style="underline;">major</span></strong> recent issue.  The home I sold was going to the  third owner.  Water Management had come to the house at the time of sale from  owner one to owner two.  At the time of the sale to my Buyer, Water  Mgmt. declared that we had seven wash basins, their records only showed five.   The current owner stated that the house was exactly as the way it was when the  purchased it (did not add two wash basins).  We had two sets of plans that  showed seven wash basins.  Without the &#8220;permit stamp&#8221;, Water Mgmt. did not want  to accept the plans as a &#8220;legal record&#8221;.  Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and  Water Resources and bought permits for the two &#8220;<em>additional </em>sinks&#8221; in  order to get the transaction closed.  Water Mgmt. also showed one showerhead in  the Master bath &#8211; it had dual showerheads.  We got a letter from a contractor  stating that the plumbing fixtures in the Master shower were discontinued in the  80&#8217;s.  That did not matter, Water Mgmt. took the position it was added and  needed a permit.  Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and paid for the second  showerhead, which resulted in a <strong><em><span style="underline;">deed  restriction.</span></em></strong> I went to the Mty County Building Dept. because  the County Building Report showed that the plans had been microfilmed.   Unfortunately, the County got rid of the microfilm.  I went to the Assessor&#8217;s  office, they only had the number of baths, no fixture count.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">(Mty County Building said they will only keep  the plans for about three months after the permit is finalled and will not  microfilm.)</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">My Buyer and I requested a meeting with Water  Mgmt.  We went in armed with the plans, the contractor&#8217;s letter and photos of  all the baths.  Showed them the photos which helped our case that the prior  inspector may have missed two sinks if they ran through quickly.  We were able  to convince them that (a) it appeared that the sinks and showerhead were all  original and (b) they made an error on their prior inspection.  The Seller did  get <span style="underline;"><strong>some</strong></span> of his money back from the additional permit  fees and we were able to get the deed restriction released.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">I believe Water Mgmt. went on the basis of the  <strong>original</strong> permit <strong>application</strong> which showed 5  sinks when, in fact, 7 sinks were built into the house.  Probably what happened,  they used that for their basis and just kept going with the original application  document, not paying attention to what was built.</span></p>
<p><span class="296415515-06092008">Had we had recorded plans and permits, we  could have saved many hours on everyone&#8217;s part, gas and unnecessary permit fees  and a lot of aggravation.  It demonstrated to me how careless the government  agencies are and Sellers are forced to pay for something that was already  permitted.  The only way to avoid these issues is for owners to record their  documents with the title companies so there is a permanent record.  It could all  be so simple.</span></p>
<p><!-- The following line of code has been changed to make the template compatible for the Apply template fewature--></p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p><img src="http://www.templatezone.com/rs/users/Lore@LoreLingner-com/Signature/Sign.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Lore Lingner<br />
</strong>Realtor, Previews Property Specialist<br />
Coldwell  Banker Del Monte Realty<br />
<a href="http://www.lorelingner.com/" target="main">www.LoreLingner.com</a><br />
<a href="mailto:Lore@LoreLingner.com">Lore@LoreLingner.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://mcarforum.com/2008/09/recordswhat-records/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
