Coalition targets long string of transfer fees

By Kenneth R. Harney

Syndicated columnist


WASHINGTON — Can you name a housing controversy that pulls Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, consumer advocates, labor unions representing transport and government workers, the title-insurance industry, the National Council of La Raza, libertarian and property-rights groups and the National Association of Realtors all together into a protest coalition demanding quick action from the Obama administration?

A more unlikely collection of bedfellows is hard to imagine. Yet at the end of July, 11 groups with widely divergent agendas and memberships formed something called the Coalition to Stop Wall Street Home Resale Fees.

Their target: private transfer fees being attached as liens on homes and requiring successions of property owners to pay a fee every time the house or lot resells during the coming 99 years.

Though proponents say the concept helps real-estate developers raise capital for projects by bringing in Wall Street investors, critics contend the liens amount to a perpetual money machine that lowers equity values for unsuspecting consumers and complicates real-estate sales.

Here’s how the plan works. Say you buy a $300,000 house in a subdivision where the developer is participating in a private transfer-fee program and has recorded liens on every lot. What the developer may not have disclosed to you, however, is that when you later sell the property, you will be required to pay a fee of 1 percent of the price you receive.

The money must be disbursed out of the closing proceeds and sent to a trustee representing investors. Those investors fronted cash to the developer in exchange for the right to receive streams of payments for decades as individual houses sell and resell.

To illustrate: If you buy a house this year for $300,000 and resell it for $325,000 a few years from now, you will owe $3,250 at closing. Even if the house drops in value, you will still owe the 1 percent fee.

And if you refuse to pay it, the deal will not close because a lien has been recorded that runs with the title to the property and mandates that every seller pay.

Your purchaser might not like the fee requirement, either, and might demand a lower price as compensation.

When your purchaser later goes to sell, the same rules will kick in. And so on, through successions of sales until 2109, when the covenant recorded in 2010 disappears.

Along the way, assuming modest appreciation in real-estate values, investors and their estates stand to reap huge amounts of cash.

In the words of Kurt Pfotenhauer, chief executive of the American Land Title Association, “It’s a pretty slick way to make money, but it’s bad public policy and bad for consumers.”Pfotenhauer’s group and the National Association of Realtors have spearheaded drives directed at state legislatures to ban or restrict private transfer fees.

But now the focus has shifted to the federal level, where the 11-member coalition wants the Obama administration to prohibit transfer fees on all mortgages purchased or backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The FHA has already indicated the fees violate its rules, said the coalition in a July 29 letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which both operate under federal conservatorship, follow suit, the underlying mortgage-financing fuel supply powering transfer-fee programs effectively will be shut off.

Along with the FHA, Fannie and Freddie now account for an estimated 95 percent of all mortgage financings.

The principal advocate for the private transfer fee, Freehold Capital Partners of New York, did not respond to repeated requests to comment.

In an e-mail sent to me earlier this year, Curtis Campbell, a spokesman for Freehold, said that “private transfer fees represent an adaptation in how to pay for development costs” incurred by builders “at a time when funding is not available” to them on “reasonable terms.”

On its website, Freehold claims that major real-estate development firms controlling “hundreds of billions of dollars in real-estate projects nationwide,” including some of the “largest, most well respected,” have participated in the program. However, the company has declined to identify any.

Members of the new anti-fee coalition said they have very specific reasons for joining.

For example, Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of, said military families generally move every three years, and have been disproportionately hard hit by the real-estate bust. Because of their frequent moves, “these fees hurt the military more than anyone,” he said, and “take advantage of unsuspecting homeowners and buyers.”

Kenneth R. Harney:

One response to “Coalition targets long string of transfer fees”

  1. CRE says:

    The author fails to distinguish between transfer fees used to support public uses, such as environmental restoration and homeowner associations, and those going to dedicated trusts used to securtize annual cash flows.

    In the articles that follow CRE will make these distinctions abundantly clear.

    Readers are encouraged to comment on this important public policy issue.

    Informed comments will a be of considerable assistance to federal agencies working this issue when they visit this Interactive Public Docket.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.