News   Jul 12, 2024
 875     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 784     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 328     0 

Buyers hit with big bills for surprise adjustments

Ore

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Buyers hit with big bills for surprise adjustments

November 7, 2009
Bob Aaron

As many as 244 purchasers received a nasty surprise at the end of September when they got hit with thousands of dollars in "fictitious" charges on final closing of their new condominium units.

The development in question is a 244-unit medium-rise building near Warden Ave. and Enterprise Dr. in Markham.

The builder's agreement of purchase and sale contains an escalation clause typical of those used by local builders.

The clause contemplates that prior to final closing, there may be increases in the municipal levies or development charges, which were in place prior to construction.

The agreement states that in the event there is an increase in any of these existing levies after the day the document has been signed, "the purchaser shall pay the increase to the existing levy ... as an adjustment" to the builder on closing.

This means that the purchasers have to pay the builder the amount of increases in any government charges, which come into effect between signing and closing. Of critical importance, the clause is silent on whether the purchasers must reimburse the builder only for increases actually paid by the builder, or as well for increases imposed by the Town but from which the builder is exempt because the levies were prepaid.

Toronto lawyer Stephen Shub represented a number of purchasers in the Markham project. He told me that on closing, all of his clients were shocked to see that they were being charged between $7,680 and $11,283 for increases in existing levies.

A schedule attached to the builder's statements of adjustments for each purchaser detailed the amount of levy increase charged.

Shub discovered that the builder had not actually paid the amounts set out in the schedule. At the time the building permits were issued in May 2007, the builder had prepaid less than $300 in levies for each unit. When the town subsequently imposed thousands of dollars in higher levies, the builder did not have to pay those amounts because the increases were not retroactive.

On behalf of his clients, Shub took the position that the builder had no right to charge purchasers for levies it had neither incurred nor paid. The disputed clause in the agreement, he said, "can only apply to monies paid by the builder to the Town of Markham and not to monies never paid by the builder."

Despite Shub's objections, the builder insisted it was entitled to recover levy increases that had been implemented by Markham but that it had not been required to pay.

In a letter to Shub, Michael C. Volpatti, solicitor for the builder, said that the purchase agreement entitled the builder to charge purchasers for "any new levy" after the date the agreement was signed, and "without regard to the date of payment" by the builder.

Translated from legalese, the builder's position is that, according to the agreement, it has the right to recover any new levies, including those that it was in fact exempt from.

Eventually Shub closed the transactions on behalf of his purchasers, and the amounts in dispute are being held in trust by the builder's lawyer until further resolution.

In a detailed letter to me, Shub estimated that the builder has pocketed as much as $2 million in "unreal, exaggerated, surprise closing adjustments" from 244 "unsuspecting buyers."

To make matters worse, the buyers had to come up with the cash for these charges, and could not add them to their mortgages.

Calling the builder's actions a "rip-off," Shub wants builders to commit to voluntary upfront disclosure of all closing adjustments. He also calls for regulatory intervention by the Ontario government so that builders will not spring "surprise attacks on the unsuspecting public."

I agree with him. Any attempt to force purchasers to pay thousands of dollars in fictitious charges does no credit to the public image of Ontario's homebuilders.

http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/721269--buyers-hit-with-big-bills-for-surprise-adjustments
 
I am pretty sure this applies to Remington's Downtown Markham project ... specifically this is referring to the first 4 "Rouge Bijou" towers~

such a scam ...
 
so not only is Remington building their usual cheap, poor workmanship, bad quality and mass produced crap but their now trying to scam people for a few thousand each ...... great, let's see how this thing turns out.
 
so not only is Remington building their usual cheap, poor workmanship, bad quality and mass produced crap but their now trying to scam people for a few thousand each ...... great, let's see how this thing turns out.

I disagree. It sounds to me that these adjustments were provided for in the agreement. If the buyer or his lawyer missed that clause it's not the fault of the developer.
 
I disagree. It sounds to me that these adjustments were provided for in the agreement. If the buyer or his lawyer missed that clause it's not the fault of the developer.

Adjustments are typically used by the builder to recover the costs of increased levies and development charges imposed by the municipality (ie: purchaser buys unit in 2006, but building permits are issued in 2008, builder needs to pay development charges at 2008 rates and charge back purchasers the difference between 2006 & 2008 DC rates) ...

however in this case I understand that Remington is charging purchasers 2009levy rates, which are in fact not even what they paid to the municipality, and they also charged purchasers the cost of "Cash-In-Lieu-of-Parkland" which is a development cost that is typically NOT transferred to purchasers and in fact should be part of the 'development cost'....

its shameful that a large builder such as Remington is pulling of stupid stunts like this scamming purchasers ... I fully hope that this get publizied to shame Remington's name

for everyone else considering a new condo, this is the exact reason why one should always ask for an amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement to "cap levies & recoveries"
 
Adjustments are typically used by the builder to recover the costs of increased levies and development charges imposed by the municipality (ie: purchaser buys unit in 2006, but building permits are issued in 2008, builder needs to pay development charges at 2008 rates and charge back purchasers the difference between 2006 & 2008 DC rates) ...

however in this case I understand that Remington is charging purchasers 2009levy rates, which are in fact not even what they paid to the municipality, and they also charged purchasers the cost of "Cash-In-Lieu-of-Parkland" which is a development cost that is typically NOT transferred to purchasers and in fact should be part of the 'development cost'....

its shameful that a large builder such as Remington is pulling of stupid stunts like this scamming purchasers ... I fully hope that this get publizied to shame Remington's name

for everyone else considering a new condo, this is the exact reason why one should always ask for an amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement to "cap levies & recoveries"


So allege the buyer and Bob Aaron. We don't know the developer's side of the story. Why not wait until all facts come out before passing judgment unfairly?
 
for everyone else considering a new condo, this is the exact reason why one should always ask for an amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement to "cap levies & recoveries"

Having used Stephen Shubb's office for 3 condo purchases, I'm really surprised they didn't do this. It was standard practice for me.
 
So allege the buyer and Bob Aaron. We don't know the developer's side of the story. Why not wait until all facts come out before passing judgment unfairly?

Before I made my post, I've contacted Town of Markham Planning Department staff and confirmed that the information contained in The Star article is in fact accurate

It is true that Remington is charging purchasers recoveries for fees they did not even pay :mad:
 
Having used Stephen Shubb's office for 3 condo purchases, I'm really surprised they didn't do this. It was standard practice for me.

I don't believe Mr. Shub reads agreements anymore. I think he use to do it for a couple hundred.

He just closes deals now I believe. Tons of them. All he does is real estate.
 
Before I made my post, I've contacted Town of Markham Planning Department staff and confirmed that the information contained in The Star article is in fact accurate

It is true that Remington is charging purchasers recoveries for fees they did not even pay :mad:

Did Markham planning staff review this?? It's the first time that I have heard of a planning dept reviewing closing adjustments and legal docs.
 
I don't believe Mr. Shub reads agreements anymore. I think he use to do it for a couple hundred.

He just closes deals now I believe. Tons of them. All he does is real estate.

I don't think that that is true.
I've never met or dealt with Mr. Shub, but I've always used Mario within his office and I always sit down and go through the agreement with him. We come up with an amendment list to propose to the builder and one of them is always a cap on the closing costs.
 
I disagree. It sounds to me that these adjustments were provided for in the agreement. If the buyer or his lawyer missed that clause it's not the fault of the developer.

A lot of times the lawyer will find the clauses but the developer won't agree to cancel and the purchaser will still go ahead. In that case it is unfortunately the purchaser's fault no? Still it is quite "unfair" and I do feel bad for the purchasers.

On another note, is Shub any good? It's so hard to find a good real estate lawyer! I've only dealt with one of his associates who was quite unpleasant.
 
I don't think that that is true.
I've never met or dealt with Mr. Shub, but I've always used Mario within his office and I always sit down and go through the agreement with him. We come up with an amendment list to propose to the builder and one of them is always a cap on the closing costs.

I'm just reporting what someone that works there told me a couple months ago. She also stated that he is extremely busy due to the market upturn. Maybe its a recent and/or a temporary thing while he gets through the rush. Maybe it only applies to him, and not his associates.

Mr. Shub has one of the lowest "all in" fees in Toronto, I find. When shopping for a good lawyer, always factor in all the miscellaneous fees they will charge you. Many lawyers don't tell you upfront, and charge you many itemized items beyond what you expected, driving up the cost. It happened to my uncle, who paid nearly double what he was quoted (which apparently is just the base fee).
 

Back
Top