Selling your primary home without living in it I already own a house and I am booking a new construction house. I am planning use it as my primary home. However, I do have a question can I sell the house without staying in it for a single day? Are there any law on how many days/months I should wait before selling it. I am aware of the tax law and pre-payment penalty.
You can legally sell a house twenty minutes after you buy it, if you or the buyer can have the documents prepared that fast. You will not be eligible for certain tax benefits on any profits you make. The house was never really your &quot;primary home&quot; if you never lived in it, but a house does not need to be a primary home for you to sell it - that matters for some mortgages, and in some tax situations. People doing &quot;house flipping&quot; often sell a house a short time after buying it, indeed that is much of the point of &quot;flipping&quot;. There is nothing criminal or unlawful about doing that, as long as you do not deceive anyone involved in the transaction about the length of your ownership of the house or the time you lived in it. (such deception might be fraud, if the matter is material to the transaction, which it might be.) Arizona law does require disclosing &quot;material information about the property that the seller actually and personally knows of&quot;. The Arizona Association of Realtors has drafted a disclosure form, the Residential Seller's Property Disclosure Statement which is often used for this purpose, but is not specified by law. This does include a line on which the seller is asked to disclose the date that the seller purchased the property. But as long as this disclosure is made honestly, it does not block a sale. In fact, the date of previous purchase is normally a matter of public record, and is included in real estate listings, so disclosure should be redundant, but is nonetheless safer. (This was called to my attention in a comment by user Mindwin.) What made you think there might be a minimum stay?
The problem with "as soon as possible" is that one could then say "Well, I've got a lot of bills, so it's not possible to pay you until Uncle Bill dies and I get my inheritance". A good contract leaves no doubt about who does what, when. A specific date is best, though if there is a certain amount of backing and forthing, "July 30" could be "tomorrow", and therefore "within 14 days of acceptance" would still identify a specific date -- provided that the date of acceptance is there in the contract. (It usually is, but doesn't absolutely have to be).
Can a court order a large asset to be sold if the defendent lost the case on a relatively small amount? Say a defendent owns land worth $200,000. The defendant lost the case and has to pay $9,000. He does not have any money to pay. Could courts order the land to be sold? In most U.S. law jurisdictions, yes, a high value assets can be ordered sold to satisfy a small money judgment or a small secured claim (i.e. a mortgage or the equivalent in real of personal property), subject to some exceptions that don't precisely target this concern but do alleviate it somewhat. Forcing a sale is mostly a decision made by the collection lawyer and the judge has very little discretion in the matter in most cases, so long as all formalities are observed. In most U.S. jurisdictions there are not minimum dollar amount of a debt that can be collected by execution and levy (i.e. seizure and sheriff's sale) on property of arbitrary value (although I am sure there must be at least one out there that does have a minimum dollar amount). Some kinds of property are completely exempt from creditors claims (e.g. defined benefit pension plans). Some kinds of property are protected up to a certain dollar amount of equity (most exemptions for household property and for homesteads, although a small number of homestead exemptions are unlimited). This allows courts and parties to disregard homes with little equity and low value personal property, focusing collection efforts on higher value property. There are also laws in some states require that creditors attempt to collect the debt from all other known assets with equity that can be collected through a formal process (other than a personal residence), before attempting to sell the personal residence (unless the debt is a voluntary mortgage or mechanic's lien on the personal residence and no other assets). There are several ways that the injustice of this can be avoided, if the debtor doesn't simply have the cash to pay off the debt. First, the debtor may be able to borrow the small amount of the debt owed from someone else to pay it off and avoid the foreclosure of the asset. Second, the debtor can take out a loan with the property as collateral to pay the debt, even if the debtor has few other assets. Third, the debtor can sell their own property to pay the debt probably producing a better price than would be obtained at a sheriff's sale. Fourth, someone other than the debtor and the creditor could bid at a sheriff's sale an amount closer to the fair market value of the property than the amount of the debt. Usually, the sheriff's sale price is still far below the fair market value, but it could be a lot more than the debt, and in those cases the excess goes back to the debtor. In some jurisdictions, bids for personal residences must be supported by appraisals that show what the fair market value of the property is and can't be less than that (apart from litigation costs and costs of sale). Fifth, someone could file for bankruptcy and negotiate a payment plan for the small debt in that context.
My question: Do I need to declare this income when filing my 2018 tax return? considering that I was actually losing money. Yes. If you would otherwise have to file income taxes if you didn't have this money losing venture, you need to report this income. If you otherwise wouldn't have to file an income tax return, you don't have to file an income tax return simply to report a loss from a money losing rental, but you would still want to do so, because reporting the loss in this year could reduce your income taxes in future years. When you lose more money than you earn from sources other than capital gains, you have what is called a "net operating loss" or "NOL" for short, that can be carried forward to future years to reduce your income for income tax purposes. An exception applies if a business or rental losses money year after year after year. In that case, the IRS considers the business or rental to be a hobby rather than something done with an intent to make money and the loss is disallowed. But, obviously, that exception does not apply to your case. If the answer is yes: How do I also declare the rent I paid to the agent, to show that I actually didn't earn anything. What tax form do I need? Usually, you would report the rents received as income on Schedule E to your primary tax form (probably a 1040NR) and list the money paid to the agent and any other expenses you incurred as expenses. This will generate a net loss and can be used to reduce your income subject to taxation from other sources. Under the tax law that takes effect in 2018, you can't deduct as many expenses related to the rental as you could in prior years. But, you can still certainly deduct the rent you paid for the property that you then leased to a third party in short term rentals. Airbnb issues W-9 form for US person, W-BECI for non-US person with TIN, and W-8BEN for non-US person without TIN. A Social Security Number (SSN) is one of several forms of Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN). So you would provide Airbnb with a W-BECI. Airbnb will then send a Form 1099 to you early next year, and will send another copy of that Form 1099 to the IRS. The fact that the IRS will learn about your gross rental income from short term rentals from Airbnb is one of the main practical reasons that you should file a tax return declaring that income.
To put it as nicely as possible, you're not being very smart by threatening to make the house guest's predicament the worst mistake they ever made. Drawing up a notarized contract with a financial penalty is ludicrous and likely simply illegal in terms of contracting for something that is against the law. Beyond that, any threats you make to against house guest could be grounds for them to file a civil suit against you, either for eviction or physical harm, and you'll end up in court rather than simply getting the house guest to leave. An Unlawful Detainer applies if there is verbal or written lease, and as such you would have to go through the formal eviction process. But if this is a simple house guest issue, with no lease or rental agreement in the past, and they are not a family member with some legal right to be in the house, law enforcement is the way to deal with it. It's very simple: set a move out date and say you will call the police or county sheriff if they don't move out on that date. If they don't leave and you do call the police or sheriff, simply say you have a house guest who won't leave, i.e. a trespasser. Law enforcement will come out and you will explain the story; they will likely make the determination that you are the property owner and the guest is indeed not welcome. Law enforcement will tell the guest to leave or be arrested, as per Florida Law - Chapter 810. You can call the police or county sheriff ahead of the move out date and determine the appropriate laws; and get advice on what you might need to do on the actual move out day. If the house guest has property, law enforcement will stand by at that time while they retrieve their property, or make arrangements for them get it at a later date, with or without law enforcement.
Let's analyse the landlord's claims: You have an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The fact that there isn't a written contract doesn't change this as a verbal agreement is legally binding. That's true. A tenancy exists even if this was never written down, and it's an AST by default if the requirements for being one are met. Payment of rent constitutes acceptance of these terms. Payment of rent by the tenant, and its acceptance by the landlord, is sufficient for a tenancy to be regarded as existing. The tenancy can only be terminated early from the permission of the landlord. That's rubbish. A tenant can always end a tenancy, but there may be restrictions. In particular, a tenant cannot end a tenancy before the end of a fixed term without the agreement of the landlord, but the landlord has an obligation to find new tenants if this happens. However, I've been unable to find any information as to whether a fixed term exists if there's no written agreement. Assuming there is no fixed term, then for a month-to-month tenancy, the tenant must provide one month's notice to end the tenancy, with that month ending at the end of a rental period (i.e. the day before the next payment would be due). If you leave early this is legally abandonment and you are still responsible for paying rent for the duration of the tenancy That's true. ... if you do leave next month I'll consider you in rent arrears and pursue payment through legal means That is possible - but if you give notice as described above, then the tenancy will end, and (assuming you're up to date with the rent) you'll no longer be liable.
Whether or not the estate has an obligation to pay the mortgage is really dependent on the terms of the estate plan and the solvency of the estate. The fact that someone is on the deed to a property (whether a deed of gift or a transfer on death instrument) that automatically passes upon death of the original owner to a relative has little or nothing, really, to do with the estate plan. While it may have been part of the person's ultimate plan for the disposal of their assets in life and at death, that is different than being part of the actual estate plan, which deals with the disposition of assets upon death, setting out the wishes of the deceased as it pertains to all property. There are lots of people who end up in this position, even though the original person on the deed did not intend to purchase or leave the other any property. It happens a lot when say a child does not have adequate credit to secure a mortgage to buy a home, but has the money to pay a mortgage. So, in that scenario usually a parent or grandparent will put the mortgage in their name (the other will live there and pay the mortgage) and then in the event the "helper" dies, they have it pass to the other at death, either thru a "TOD" or a "joint tenancy", so that in the event they die intestate, or if the will is challenged, there will be no question who owns the house...the equity in it, anyway. It (the instrument) is its own separate entity, not subject to the will except to the extent the deceased makes it subject (I'm getting to that part). Like a life insurance policy, that pays on death but is not subject to any terms of the will, it can stand alone since deed is its own instrument, separate from any wills or trusts. Under federal law, the mortgage must be allowed to remain in effect without changes when it passes from one person to another because of a death. This negates any due-on-sale clause in the mortgage. Who pays for the remainder of what is owed, however, generally depends on the deceased's will. The will might stipulate, for example, that the heir receive the home, free and clear, with the estate to pay all monies due. In this case, the executor will either use liquid assets, or sell other non-liquid assets in the estate to pay off the mortgage. Other times, it will say that the heir get the equity, plus X amount of dollars, which the heir can put toward the home's mortgage or not. If the will is silent on the issue, it is the responsibility of the heir/person to whom the property transfers (they needn't even be an heir) to pay the mortgage upon its normal term due, or sell the property to satisfy the debt. In the event the property is worth less than the remaining mortgage, the bank will usually take the house in "deed in lieu of foreclosure" rather than seek overage from the estate.
In the United Kingdom there is a law that for any online purchase or other purchase away from the businesses own premises, including insurance policies, that you have a 14 day cooling off period to cancel without penalty. The applicable parts of the law are the Consumer Contracts Regulations and if there is any form of credit agreement involved the Consumer Credit Act. It is a point of the law that the purchaser must be clearly made aware of these provisions.