Asking this question on behalf of someone who asked it of me:
Regarding real estate contracts (purchase, lease, etc.)
Every time I see a Lease, Mortgage or other Real Estate form, they always have this in the Witness part, "NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), the covenants and obligations contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: "
Who gets the $10? The Landlord, Tenant, Vendor, Homebuyer?
When I bought my last boat we signed two contracts, one had the actual price and the other had the “ten dollars and other valuable considerations”. That is just a way of having a valid contract without having to disclose the actual price. I can prove I bought the boat without having to disclose the price.
BUT, if the fees to file the deed are based on the sale price, there might be “revenue stamps” affixed to the deed. Here in Oklahoma, I need only look at the revenue stamps and divide by 0.0015 to figure out how much the sale price was. This varies from state to state… Kansas doesn’t seem to use revenue stamps, or at least affix them to the deeds themselves (in the counties I’ve appraised real estate, at least, which is mainly the southern ones like Montgomery County).
But if you buy anything in Oklahoma, I’ll know all about how much you spent
Not necessarily: In Calif., where I
sold real estate a number of years ago, we also had the same system. The minimum number of stamps you must buy are reflected by the sale price. Some people would buy extra stamps to place on the deed. There was no law to say you couldn’t buy more. This was done by speculaters to “inflate” the price they paid for the property in the eyes of a new purchaser who used this system to find out what the speculater paid for it. This would come into play during price negotiations at resale.
The law is probably the same in in Oklahoma, you can’t buy less stamps but you can buy more.
Possibly, I’m no expert on real estate law around here. I’ve never seen much a difference between the actual sale price and the revenue stamp equivalent, but I work in commercial real estate where the last thing anyone wants is for the tax assessor to think they paid more than they actually did (we’re a non-equalization state, which means we stick it to the new guy). Also, if a speculator tries this 'round here, appraisers like me will figure it out in short order
I also verify any sale I use independently with the seller’s broker
California also sticks it to the new guy; increased property valuations for tax purposes are limited, but are raised to sale price when propery is transferred. I suspect that nebco9 either dealt in real estate back in the '70s, or is referring to short-term speculations wherein the speculator paid no property tax.
I find this hard to swallow; if two contracts existed, they have to remain unified or you run the risk of having one repudiated. Of course, it’s possible that the seller didn’t know that.
More likely, and getting back to the OP, you’re running into a common problem with real property transactions in general: conservatism. In some states, the real property laws specify certain elements of a valid contract, using specific language, and everyone in the business (including judges) is afraid to stray from that language, lest the contract later be found invalid. In this case, the statute perhaps states that a contract must include consideration of not less than ten dollars, plus any additional consideration, etc., and this gets transferred to every contract as boilerplate. It relieves all concerned of any obligation to think.
It just takes a bit of practice and after a few times you’ll like it
>> if two contracts existed, they have to remain unified or you run the risk of having one repudiated. Of course, it’s possible that the seller didn’t know that.
The sale was done by a broker’s office and that seems to be their SOP. I can assure you I have two identical contracts except that one says “ten dollars and other valuable considerations” and the other one says the actual sales price. I do not understand how you “run the risk of having one repudiated”. Both copies of the contract attest to the same transaction and they do not contradict each other, rather they are in agreement. I see no problem. BTW, they are done on official Coast Guard forms.
