Here’s one, and it’s not from the real estate industry.
Getting back to the OP, there’s another reason why houses are sometimes listed at $1. Lexis-Nexis, Accurint, and other property databases declare non-cash transactions of property (for example, intra-family transactions) as $1, probably because their database can’t handle zero or non-dollar amounts. If the property listing takes the last sale in Lexis as the starting point for whatever formula it’s using, the list price is probably going to be $1 (rounded up or down). Granted, all that means is that the listing site is lazy and/or has a bad algorithm for determining property valuation, but I’ve seen it happen quite often.
I’ve often wondered, in cases like this, why the tax obligation is transferred to the new owner. Is this something that happens automatically, or does the new owner have to explicitly agree to accept the tax obligations going back years?
While i recognize that property tax is, by definition, tax on property, it seems to me that any tax burden accrued during Person A’s ownership of the house should remain with Person A. The fact that Person B buys the house should not put him or her on the hook for taxes due during Person A’s ownership.
If there’s a lien on the property, then Person A essentially staked it as security for a loan or tax obligation. If a debtor could convert a secured loan to an unsecured loan just by selling the security, that would suck for the creditor.
But that’s not the way the laws are written. The property tax owed stays with the property. A buyer can have it put into the contract that the seller pays that, but if they fail to do so, the county will come after the buyer, as the property owner.
This is a protection for the rest of us taxpayers, to ensure that a seller can’t just sell the property and disappear, leaving the rest of us to cover his unpaid property taxes. (The same thing applies to utilities like electric, gas, etc. – the utility company won’t reconnect until the past-due utility bills for the property are paid.)
In addition to the above, I read an article that condominium associations were doing this quasi-legally just to get someone in there to pay the fees. If there’s empty units, the association can’t collect enough money to make their budget for needed repairs and taxes. If there’s an empty unit for X months, they’re even farther behind. However, the condo association doesn’t actually own the unit. They’re “borrowing” the unit from the bank until the paperwork is completed.
Not to ignore the rest of your post but I’ve just got a second at the moment.
Simply put, the word “realtor” is not a name. It’s not even a title–you don’t say “Realtor Smith” (if you did, you’d capitalize it.) It’s just… a noun… (I can’t think of any particular term for nouns like “doctor,” “lawyer” and “realtor.”)
There’s a widely held, nearly universally accepted convention that names should be capitalized.
There’s no such widely held, nearly universally accepted convention that nouns–even nouns like doctor and lawyer–should be capitalized.
And there’s no such widely held, nearly universally accepted convention that trademarked terms should be capitalized. That may be what the trademarking corporations would like, but that doesn’t make it a widely held, nearly universally accepted convention.
Once again: Let’s not mix up the issue of trademarking with the issue of proper names. They’re two different issues. Trademarking something doesn’t make it a proper name. “Realtor” is not a proper name, for example.
Why should I care what the Kleenex company is happy about?
Why should I care about whether brand names are devalued or not?
How is it that people are confusing what a corporation wants you to do with what is proper written English? Yikes!
Why is it that some people think “Because that’s the law” is an adequate response to a “should” statement. If i say “I think that marijuana should be legal,” arguing that marijuana is currently not legal is completely pointless.
At least this part of your answer has the virtue of addressing the reasons behind the policy.
I’m still not convinced, however, that the policy is reasonable. Why, in the name of protecting the taxpayers, should we force someone to pay a tax obligation that was accrued by someone else? If a property is 4 years behind on its taxes, the new buyer should not have to suffer for the delinquency of the previous owner. There might have been some justification for this sort of policy is a time when people could quite easily disappear, but in this electronic age that’s much more difficult to do.
I would prefer to have a system whereby the city or county places a lien on the property once the owner is more than X months behind in property taxes. Not sure what X should be. Maybe 3? Or 6? That would do a similar job of protecting the taxpayers, and have the virtue of actually punishing the person who was delinquent.
Similarly, i completely reject the principle that a utility company should be able to deny someone gas or electricity until they pay the bills accumulated by the previous owner or tenant.
You’re getting into some of the more subtle nuances of property law and what it means to actually own property. When we buy a house with a mortgage, we say we own it, but there’s an awfully big blemish on the title that we hold. If you don’t pay your property taxes, or don’t pay the contractors who improve your house, or borrow money secured by your house, you still own it in the colloquial sense, but your title is encumbered.
A lien is an encumbrance on the title of the property. Don’t want to deal with the previous owners’ debts? Don’t buy an encumbered property, or, make sure the encumbrance is cleared at the closing. This is utterly routine and is done 1000s of times per day across the country.
Plus, if there is a lien on the property, the type of conveyance matters, and as a buyer, you need to know exactly what you are buying.
Did you get a quit claim deed? Then you’re taking the property with all the encumbrances that may be on it, and if you want to clear those encumbrances, you’re going to have to pay the lien holder.
Did you get a warranty deed? Then you can turn around and sue the seller for not passing you clear title.
Did you get title insurance? Then it’s the insurance company’s problem. If not, why not you cheap bastard?
In these sorts of $1 auctions, it’s not like they’re hiding the ball. They tell you up front that you aren’t taking fee simple absolute title to these properties. There’s no need to cry for the poor home buyer–he’s told exactly what he’s going to get.
But for me it’s not so much a question of crying for the buyer. It’s more a general question of equity and responsibility.
Properties are subject to property tax. That tax is supposed to be paid at regular intervals, by the owner of the property. I simply believe, as a matter of fairness, that the tax accrued during a person’s ownership should follow the owner, not the property.
So are you arguing against tax liens only, or against the whole system of liens against property?
I’m not saying your argument is wrong, but it would upend about 800 years of settled common law 
I don’t know what mhendo is arguing against, but I’d definitely like to upend some of that law. I had a contractor working on my house once. A couple of months later, I discovered there was a lien against my property, filed by someone I’d never heard of. I tracked him down and called him. Turns out he was a subcontractor on the job. I paid the contractor, but the contractor didn’t pay him. So he was actually granted a lien against my property! I’d never met him, never had a contract with him, never made a commitment to him, and I’d paid all my bills, but he was allowed to slap a lien on my property. That’s just wrong.
Well, i’m not sure i have a complete reform program in mind. 
I just think, as a matter of principle, that the person who is initially obligated to pay something should also be the person that the creditors go after if they fail to pay up. And that should be the case, in my opinion, whether the “creditor” is a government chasing taxes or a sub-contractor chasing fees.
I only recently learned of the sort of situation that Gary mentions, where subcontractors can put a lien on property even if the property owner did not contract directly with them. I started a thread about it a few weeks ago.
I don’t like that principle either. If i make a contract with someone to have work done, and pay that person, then any contract he makes to help him fulfill his contract with me should, i think, be only between him and the sub-contractor. Although, as i noted in that thread, California law does have some protection for property owners who are having work done on their place; for example, it is illegal to request or accept payments before work is done or materials are delivered, or to divert funds from a construction project to any other purpose.
As far as taxes, I think the principle is that the property is being held in lieu of the unpaid taxes. It’s like collateral on an unpaid loan. So you’re not paying off somebody else’s taxes to acquire the property. You’re paying the town for its share of ownership in the property that it acquired in lieu of those unpaid taxes.
Frylock said:
It is a name - it is a brand name. Like Ford Mustang.
You apparently think the word “realtor” is a generic job description, like doctor or lawyer or engineer or flight attendant. It is not. It is a trademarked brand name for real estate agents that are members of a particular association. Many people are not aware of this fact, and so mistakenly use it as the generic descriptor for a real estate agent. That trade association would like to make people aware that they are in error, and they would like to protect their trademarked brand name.
I provided a cite that brand names are proper nouns and should be capitalized.
Brand names are proper nouns, and proper nouns are capitalized. “Realtor” is not a generic job description, it is a brand name.
However, ignorance is affecting common usage, and that is genericizing the word. Something the brand owner is fighting.
I gave you a cite that proper written English capitalizes brand names. That is independent of the wishes of corporations, it is “the rules”. Trademarking is how companies establish and protect their brand names.
It doesn’t matter what you care about how corporations feel. The issue was if trademarking makes it a proper noun, and thus by “the rules” requires capitalization. I have provided a cite that brand names are proper nouns, and thus are supposed to be capitalized. You can decide you do not wish to comply, you can not care one whim what the companies think and genericize their product names at will. That will not affect me, and I don’t really care.
The issue was to answer the factual question about trademarks being proper nouns. I have provided a cite that says so. You have not provided anything to say otherwise, only your lack of acceptance of the answer that was given, because you don’t like the answer.
Another cite:
More about trademark genericization, i.e. the loss of trademark through common use.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/capitals.htm
http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#brand
And from the UK:
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node27.html
AHH, I finally figured out what you meant by “Realtor is not a proper name” in contrast to McDonalds. You are correct, “Realtor” is not a person’s name that was turned into the brand name. It was a neoligism. But it is still a proper noun, being a brand name.