Agreement of Sale: What You Need to Know as a Buyer

How do you make an offer on a home? The process hinges on the agreement of sale, or purchase agreement, and it involves more than the price of the property. Since it is a legally binding contract, it is important for buyers to understand the entire process before you sign and while the document can be quite long and often complex, as you will see in this blog, it can be easily comprehended with some basic knowledge.

What is an Agreement of Sale?

The Agreement of Sale is the formal, written offer that describes the terms and conditions under which you’re prepared to buy the home. It includes the price you’re willing to pay but also the closing date, the conditions under which you can cancel the deal, and other specific conditions. Generally, once the amount of your offer is decided upon, your agent will help you complete the agreement and then deliver it to the seller’s agent for you. While some buyers are tempted to prepare the purchase agreement without the assistance of a real estate agent, this is not recommended.  Since the Agreement of Sale is a customized document, it is also very helpful to retain a real estate attorney to ensure all legal aspects are fully accounted for.

Key Elements of an Agreement of Sale

While these documents differ on a case-by-case basis, most do include these 9 key elements.

1. Price

The price covers the home itself and its “fixtures.” Fixtures are anything permanently attached to the building or the land, like ceiling fans or fences. It also covers anything else you’d like to take part in the deal, such as the washer and dryer, as outlined in the property description. If your offer is lower than the asking price, you’ll need to explain why. For example, you may decide to offer $10,000 less because of the fact that the house needs a new roof.

2. Earnest Money

Earnest money is a deposit, in the form of a check or money order, that shows the seller that you are a serious prospective buyer. Typically, it is 1% of the purchase price, but in a seller’s market, it can be much more. If your offer is rejected by the seller, you will get your deposit back, while if your offer is accepted, it will be applied to the price when you close. In the meantime, the seller’s broker holds the money in escrow, and if you back out for any reason not outlined in the purchase agreement, the seller can keep the money.

3. Costs

Here the buyer and seller agree on the specific details of who will pay for the closing costs and inspections. In a buyer’s market, sellers sometimes offer to pay closing costs. In a seller’s market, not so much. Buyers are almost always responsible to pay for the professional inspections they want to have done.

4. Timelines and Deadlines

An Agreement of Sale also specifies how long the seller has to respond to your offer and when you’d like to close on the home. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the real estate market, buyers, generally speaking, give the seller three to five days to respond to their offer. In a particularly hot market, you may want to ask for a short window so there’s less chance for other buyers to step in and outbid you. However, when a seller is getting multiple offers, they might set a deadline, after which they will open and consider them all. The agreed-upon timeline will also include the closing date, which usually is 30 to 60 days from the date the purchase agreement is finalized. That might sound like a long time, but you’ll need it for inspections, final approval of your loan, and the title review. If any repairs are a condition of the sale, the seller will need time to get them done. This date is often a point of negotiation. You and the seller will try to accommodate each other’s needs. Sometimes, flexibility on the closing date can push your offer above the others.

5. Property Description

This section includes the exact street address, the legal description of the property (usually as found on the deed), and anything that’s not clearly a fixture that you expect the seller to leave in the house: appliances, blinds, etc.

6. Contingency Addendum

A contingency addendum lets you cancel the purchase agreement and get your earnest money back under certain, agreed-upon conditions. Since it is important for buyers to protect themselves, it is very rare to make an offer without contingencies, however, sellers understandably do not like to include too many, and when the market’s tight, they don’t have to. Some common contingencies include financing, appraisal value, and inspections.

7. Financing

Here, you state how you’ll pay for the home. For most buyers, this will be a mortgage loan. Even if you’re preapproved for a loan, the purchase agreement should be contingent on your lender’s final approval of the loan.

8. Property inspections

This section will indicate whether you’ll do any professional home inspections, including any specialists for pests, radon, lead, etc.

9. Property Taxes, Utilities, Other Expenses

Here will include details on how to handle the rest of the year’s property taxes, plus utilities and other expenses that might be incurred before you take possession of the home. Depending on when the various bills were last paid and for what period of time, the seller might have to pay a prorated share, or you might have to reimburse them. In addition, the seller must tell you whether they’ve gotten any notices about future tax assessments or increases.

It is highly recommended to have an experienced and knowledgeable real estate attorney review the agreement, particularly complicated ones with a large price tag. At Nochumson P.C., we are more than legal counsel. We are people serving our neighbors and community in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Knowing that real communication between real people can help lead to real positive results, our team of attorneys is available 24/7 to help answer your legal questions and to fight for you with skill and fortitude, whatever the case may be. When you hire us, you can expect a sensible and cost-effective approach to legal counsel. We think fast, think ahead, and get things done. Contact us today or call us at (215) 399-1346 to see how we can represent you.

Post Excerpt Since the agreement of sale is a legally binding contract, it is important for buyers to understand the entire process before signing.

Vertical Position 60%


Natalie Klyashtorny Appointed Judge Pro Tempore

In her role as Judge Pro Tempore, Klyashtorny will conduct settlement conferences of major jury cases currently pending in the Court of Common Pleas to attempt to facilitate their settlement.

About Natalie Klyashtorny

Natalie Klyashtorny is a Shareholder of Nochumson P.C., where her practice focuses on business and commercial counseling and litigation and employment law. In addition to litigating in both state and federal courts, Natalie counsels and represents individuals and small and medium-sized businesses in commercial transactions, real estate disputes, business disputes, and with regards to their employment and workforce issues.

She is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Natalie received her undergraduate degree from American University and graduated from Temple University School of Law.

Post Excerpt We are excited to announce Natalie Klyashtorny was appointed by the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County to be a Judge Pro Tempore.

Vertical Position 30%


Natalie Klyashtorny Appointed Partition Master

As a Master, she will facilitate the division and sale of real property and the apportionment of the proceeds between the prior owners.

What is a Partition Action?

A partition action is a lawsuit in which a court determines whether a property with two or more owners is to be partitioned or sold. When two or more owners cannot agree on the disposition of the property in question, any of the owners can file a partition action in the appropriate court.

To initiate a partition action in Pennsylvania, a co-owner must file a partition complaint at the Court of Common Pleas in the county in which the property is located. The partition complaint will include the names of the co-owners, the property description, the co-owners interest in the property. The partition complaint will also often include claims for damages, such as taxes, mortgage payments, maintenance, or other property-related expenses.

Learn more about partition action in Pennsylvania here.

About Natalie Klyashtorny

Natalie Klyashtorny is a Shareholder of Nochumson P.C., where her practice focuses on business and commercial counseling and litigation and employment law. In addition to litigating in both state and federal courts, Natalie counsels and represents individuals and small and medium-sized businesses in commercial transactions, real estate disputes, business disputes, and with regards to their employment and workforce issues.

She is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Natalie received her undergraduate degree from American University and graduated from Temple University School of Law.

Post Excerpt We are honored to announce Natalie Klyashtorny was appointed by the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County to be a Master in a real estate partition action.

Vertical Position 30%


Understanding the Real Estate Development Process

Real estate development is about taking ideas on paper and turning them into real property. It is a process that delivers a product in order to meet some form of consumer demand. The real estate development process is also intricate, as it involves participation from a wide variety of professionals, including architects, landscape architects, civil engineers, site planners, attorneys, environmental consultants, surveyors, title companies, lenders, architects, general contractors, and subcontractors, amongst a variety of others. Before making any decisions to invest in a real estate development project, it is important to understand how the entire development process works.

Below are 6 major steps in the real estate development process will allow you to be able to track the progress of your investment:

Site Acquisition

Using multiple sources of information, commercial real estate developers look at all available properties within a designated trade area that meet basic site requirements. Some of the most important factors that go into determining the right site are:

  • Property size
  • Visibility
  • Traffic flow
  • Demographics
  • Zoning Restrictions
  • Surrounding Infrastructure
  • Potential Access Points
  • Competitors (and their performance)
  • Nearby tenants (and their sales data)

There are additionally a whole host of additional factors that play into finding the right property to fit the client’s needs.

Due Diligence and Feasibility

In this phase of the commercial real estate development process, steps are taken in order to satisfy legal requirements and ascertain the risks and advantages of the transaction. As a prospective buyer, real estate developers must thoroughly examine zoning restrictions, potentials liens, and possible encroachments on the property. The real estate developer must ask themselves if the assumptions about the proposed development (legal, physical, economic, market) are valid or have been verified. Once you have adequate information and have a specific site selected, that is when you really dive into the process. Working with the city planner, you will establish that for a specific site, the plan to build for a specific user. This will give the city an idea of what your general development plans are.

Entitlements

In simple terms, entitlements mean that you get approval from all necessary parties in order to be able to develop and construct what you are wanting to develop and construct on the property. Usually, this means getting approval from the city you are developing in, state departments as necessary, and other vested parties who the real estate developer requires authorization from. Entitlements can be as simple as checking with the city that you are allowed to build what you are trying to develop, to complex enough to warrant getting an attorney involved to walk the project through the process. With extremely large projects, this phase can take years before entitlements are received.

Design

The design consists of getting all of the drawings and plans done so that the project can begin construction. This mostly consists of working with the architect, engineers, and other project consultants to bring your project to life (on paper). While this seems like a simple step in the process, depending on the project, this phase is oftentimes one of the most time-consuming.

Financing

Usually, real estate developers do not have all the money on hand to develop and construct their projects. This is the most typical stage where equity investors and lenders are brought into the deal. Real estate developers are expected to take on most of the risk and rightfully so because that is why they get paid a developer fee. Equity investors are necessary for commercial real estate deals because lenders will only lend up to a certain percentage of the total project cost. Think of it as a down payment on a home. Because of this need for equity investors, real estate developers often give up huge portions of ownership in their projects to equity investors.

Lenders are also an essential piece of the financing puzzle and lenders should be carefully selected by the real estate development team. Not all lenders are created equal and it is important to use the right lender in the right situation.

Construction

Some real estate developers think that they are done when the project gets to construction, but that is how you can tell an experienced developer for a novice. Experienced real estate developers will never just turn over the reins to a construction company to build the project. The real estate developer should be communicated with the general contractor frequently and regularly. Construction can be very tricky and there is a lot of mistakes that can be made at this stage. Experienced real estate developers have the foresight to see problems coming down the pipeline and solve them before they become huge delays and money pits.

If you are working with any contractor for your real estate development projects, it is also important to check certain boxes during your search for one so you can protect yourself from potential pitfalls. One of our attorneys, Natalie Klyashtorny, recently discussed some crucial steps in finding a contractor. You can read more about it here.

If you’re considering investing in a new real estate development project, it is important to understand the steps that go into the entire process. New real estate development is usually not as clean-cut as an acquisition of an existing asset, but they also have the potential to be much more lucrative. Understanding this process will help you be an informed investor and be able to react to and anticipate situations appropriately with your partners. Our team has the experience and knowledge to help guide you through this process in order to turn your dream into a reality.

At Nochumson P.C., we are more than legal counsel. We are people serving our neighbors and community in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Knowing that real communication between real people can help lead to real positive results, our team of attorneys is available 24/7 to help answer your legal questions and to fight for you with skill and fortitude, whatever the case may be. When you hire us, you can expect a sensible and cost-effective approach to legal counsel. We think fast, think ahead, and get things done. Contact us today or call us at (215) 399-1346 to see how we can represent you.

Post Excerpt Before making any decisions to invest in a real estate development project, it is important to understand how the entire real estate development process works.

Vertical Position 70%


Supreme Court Tackles CDC’s Eviction Moratorium and Its Effect on Philadelphia

In Alabama Association of Realtors vDepartment of Health and Human Services, the Supreme Court determined the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) exceeded its authority when imposing a nationwide moratorium on evictions of any tenants who live in a county that is experiencing substantial or high levels of COVID–19 transmission and who make certain declarations of financial need.

In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that included a 120-day eviction moratorium for properties that participated in federal assistance programs or were subject to federally backed loans. When the eviction moratorium expired in July, the CDC decided to renew it.

The new moratorium was broader than its statutory predecessor, covering all residential properties nationwide in addition to imposing criminal penalties on violators.

Originally, the CDC’s moratorium was scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2020, however, Congress extended it for one month as part of the second COVID–19 relief act.

As the new deadline approached, the CDC extended its moratorium through March, then again through June, and ultimately through July.

The Alabama Association of Realtors, a trade group of landlords and property owners, obtained a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacating the moratorium on the ground that it was unlawful. However, the district court stayed its judgment while the government pursued an appeal.

In June, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, declined to vacate a stay of a final judgment holding the moratorium unlawful. The Supreme Court reasoned that although it appeared the CDC’s moratorium exceeded its statutory authority, the moratorium would end in only a few weeks, and that time would allow for additional and more orderly distribution of congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds. Thus, it would be appropriate to leave the stay in place.

However, three days after the moratorium expired, the CDC reimposed it. The Supreme Court noted that the only material difference was the moratorium slightly narrowed the geographic scope. With the moratorium once again in place, the Alabama Association of Realtors returned to the district court to seek vacatur of its stay. Both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to lift the stay.

For the second time, the Alabama Association of Realtors applied to the Supreme Court for an emergency order vacating the stay.

The CDC claimed it had the authority to extend the moratorium pursuant to Section 361(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 264). That provision states:

“The Surgeon General, with the approval of the [Secretary of Health and Human Services], is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the states or possessions, or from one state or possession into any other state or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.”

See also 42 CFR Section 70.2 (2020) (delegating this authority to the CDC).

The CDC contends that the first sentence of Section 361(a) gives it broad authority to take whatever measures it deems necessary to control the spread of COVID–19, including issuing the moratorium.

In response, the Alabama Association of Realtors argued Congress never gave the CDC the breathtaking amount of power it claims. The Alabama Association of Realtors noted 42 U.S.C. Section 264, is a rarely used statute from 1944 that has generally been used to limit quarantining infected individuals and prohibiting the import or sale of animals known to transmit disease.

Furthermore, the Alabama Association of Realtors noted that Congress must expressly and specifically authorize an agency to resolve major policy questions before it can do so, and Section 264 contains no such authorization when it comes to regulating landlord-tenant relationships throughout the country.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Alabama Association of Realtors. The Supreme Court highlighted that the second sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 264, illustrates the breadth of the grant of authority by providing the kinds of measures that could be necessary: inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of contaminated animals and articles. As emphasized by the Supreme Court, these measures directly related to preventing the interstate spread of disease by identifying, isolating and destroying the disease itself.

In contrast, the CDC’s moratorium, according to the Supreme Court, relates to interstate infection far more indirectly: if evictions occur, some subset of tenants might move from one state to another, and some subset of that group might do so while infected with COVID–19.

The Alabama Supreme Court went on to state that reading both sentences together, rather than the first in isolation, it would be a stretch to maintain that Section 361(a) gives the CDC the authority to impose this eviction moratorium. Instead, Congress must speak when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’”

Furthermore, the Alabama Supreme Court was particularly troubled by the unprecedented nature of the CDC’s claim. In the opinion, the Supreme Court stated the provision’s enactment in 1944, no regulation premised on it has even begun to approach the size or scope of the eviction moratorium. And it is further amplified by the CDC’s decision to impose criminal penalties of up to a $250,000 fine and one year in jail on those who violate the moratorium.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the moratorium put the applicants, along with millions of landlords across the country, at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recovery. Accordingly, the application to vacate the stay was granted.

Although the Supreme Court’s opinion brings an end to the CDC’s eviction moratorium, the court clearly stated that if a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it. By doing so, the court’s ruling clears a path for intervention by Congress.

How Does This Affect Philadelphia Landlords and Tenants?

On Oct. 28, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Patrick F. Dugan, president judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, the authority to continue the Philadelphia Municipal Court landlord-tenant diversion program through Nov. 30, subject to continued, adequate funding in the emergency rental assistance program.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s order, landlords must first file an application for rental assistance, and participate in good faith, with the emergency rental assistance program through www.phlrentassist.org and then wait 45 days before filing a landlord-tenant complaint seeking possession based on nonpayment of rent.

— Clementa Amazan, an associate at Nochumson P.C., is the co-author of this article.

Reprinted with permission from The Legal Intelligencer © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382, reprints@alm.com or visit www.almreprints.com.

Post Excerpt Philadelphia’s residential eviction moratorium was initially discontinued upon consideration of the order entered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, (U.S. Aug. 26, 2021).

Vertical Position 25%


Did Phila.’s 2018 Selective Tax Reassessment Violate the Uniformity Clause?

In Duffield House Associates v. City of Philadelphia, 2021 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 520 (July 29, 2021), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently analyzed whether the city of Philadelphia’s selective reassessment in tax year 2018 of only commercial properties at current market value violated the uniformity clause and the assessment law’s requirement that the city assess all properties annually at actual market value.

For the 2018 tax year, the city reassessed 41,730 commercial properties in the city at current market values, imposing more than $118 million in additional real estate taxes on those properties, the opinion said. However, the city did not reassess 538,380 residential properties in the city, leaving their assessments at 2017 tax year values and imposing no additional real estate taxes on those properties.

According to the opinion, Duffield House Associates filed a complaint alleging that the city selectively reassessed only commercial properties at fair market value for tax year 2018, in violation of the uniformity clause and Section 8565(b)(2) and (c) of the Consolidated First-Class County Assessment Law (Assessment Law), 53 Pa. C.S. Section 8565(b)(2) and (c), which requires annual reassessments of all city properties.

Months later, the owners and tenants of approximately 700 commercial properties in the city, filed 12 other complaints against the city asserting similar claims. Eventually, the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court consolidated the 13 actions into the one originally filed.

The trial court issued a decree in favor of these taxpayers and against the city.

Relying upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Valley Forge Towers Apartments North v. Upper Merion Area School District and Keystone Realty Advisors, 163 A.3d 962 (Pa. 2017), the trial court concluded that the city deliberately targeted only commercial properties for reassessment in tax year 2018, thereby violating the uniformity clause.

Accordingly, the trial court struck the selective reassessment of the taxpayers’ properties, reinstated the prior tax year’s assessments, and ordered the city to refund the excess real estate taxes paid to the city.

On appeal, the city argued that the trial court erred in rejecting its ratio studies and mandating that only a method that revalues every property in the city would satisfy uniformity. The city claimed that uniformity does not require perfection; it only requires rough equalization.  According to the city, commercial properties were grossly under assessed for years. Thus, focusing only on the egregiously nonuniform properties constituted “rough equalization” as a matter of law and was not unconstitutional.

In response, the taxpayers argued that revaluing a small minority of properties in the city at current market value, while leaving the vast majority of properties at prior base-year values, violates the uniformity clause and Section 8565 of the Assessment Law, which requires the city to assess all properties annually at actual market value.

Prior to addressing the merits of the arguments, the Commonwealth Court in Duffield provided an overview of the uniformity clause.

The Commonwealth Court in Duffield noted that the uniformity clause precludes a taxing jurisdiction from treating similarly situated taxpayers differently.

According to the Commonwealth Court in Duffield, to establish the imposition of a tax violates the uniformity clause, a taxpayer must demonstrate that the administration of a tax deliberately and purposefully discriminates in the application of the tax.

The Commonwealth Court in Duffield further clarified that the term deliberate in this context “does not exclusively connote wrongful conduct, but also includes any intentional or systematic method of enforcement of the tax laws.”

In light of the trial court’s heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Valley Forge, the Commonwealth Court in Duffield applied the principals of Valley Forge to the underlying appeal.

In Valley Forge, the taxpayers brought an action against a school district, as a taxing district, asserting that the school district violated the uniformity clause by systematically appealing only assessments of commercial properties. The trial court in in Valley Forge sustained the school district’s preliminary objections and dismissed the taxpayers’ complaint with prejudice. The Commonwealth Court in Valley Forge affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

On appeal, the Supreme Court in Valley Forge considered “whether the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution permits a taxing authority to selectively appeal only the assessments of commercial properties, such as apartment complexes, while choosing not to appeal the assessments of other types of property—most notably, single-family residential homes—many of which are under-assessed by a greater percentage.”

The Supreme Court in Valley Forge commenced its uniformity analysis by stating two key principles of law, drawn from prior precedent: “all property in a taxing district is a single class, and, as a consequence, the uniformity clause does not permit the government, including taxing authorities, to treat different property sub-classifications in a disparate manner”; and “this prohibition applies to any intentional or systematic enforcement of the tax laws, and is not limited solely to wrongful conduct.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court in Valley Forge held that “a taxing authority is not permitted to implement a program of only appealing the assessment of one sub-classification of properties, where that sub-classification is drawn according to property type—that is, its use as a commercial, apartment complex, single-family residential, industrial or the like.”

In an effort to distinguish the pending appeal in Duffield from the factual circumstances set forth in Valley Forge, the city asserted that it did not target nonresidential properties for reassessment in tax year 2018. Instead, the city claimed that it chose to reassess the taxpayers’ properties not because of their commercial nature, but because of the city’s ratio studies revealed that commercial properties were the “most underassessed” properties in the city and had been “grossly underassessed” for several years.

The Commonwealth Court in Duffield rejected the city’s argument based on the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the city specifically targeted commercial properties for reassessment in tax year 2018.

In doing so, the Commonwealth Court in Duffield highlighted the testimony of the taxpayers’ economic expert, Kevin Gillen, Ph.D. and the city’s expert, Robert Gloudemans.

At trial, Gillen’s testified that his studies found that residential properties were underassessed as compared to their market value for tax year 2018 by approximately $20 billion, the opinion said.

In addition, Gillen found that the housing market in Philadelphia grew from the years 2014 to 2018 by 31.5%, however, assessed values of residential properties during that same time period only increased only by 3.2%, the opinion said.

According to the opinion, Gillen went on to demonstrate the unreliable nature of the city’s ratio studies, opining that they were based on a “flawed” sales validation process.

Similarly, Robert Gloudemans, the city’s expert, testified that the city’s ratio studies were “unreliable” and had to be “taken with a grain of salt,” the opinion said.

The Commonwealth Court in Duffield also took into consideration that representatives of the city repeatedly stated, on numerous occasions, that, for the tax year 2018, the city was reassessing only commercial properties and that, for the tax year 2019, the city would conduct the first countywide reassessment since 2014.

For example, Michael Piper, the city’s chief assessment officer at the time, made reference to a “commercial reassessment” in tax year 2018 and a “citywide reassessment” in tax year 2019 during a senior staff meeting, according to the opinion.

By singling out the taxpayers’ properties for reassessment based solely upon their commercial nature, the Commonwealth Court in Duffield noted that the city engaged in disparate treatment of sub-classes of properties within a taxing district.

Ultimately, the Commonwealth Court in Duffield held that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Valley Forge, the taxpayers established that the city’s selective reassessment in the tax year 2018 of only commercial properties violated the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution and, as such, the trial court’s remedy of issuing tax refunds to the taxpayers was appropriate under the circumstances.

— Clementa Amazan, an associate at Nochumson P.C., is the co-author of this article.

Reprinted with permission from The Legal Intelligencer © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382, reprints@alm.com or visit www.almreprints.com.

Post Excerpt The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently analyzed whether the city of Philadelphia’s selective reassessment in tax year 2018 of only commercial properties at current market value violated the uniformity clause and the assessment law’s requirement that the city assesses all properties annually at actual market value.

Vertical Position 40%


Clementa Amazan appointed as the Young Lawyers Division Liaison of the Pennsylvania Bar Association

In this role, Clementa will serve as an intermediary between the Young Lawyers Division and the Pennsylvania Bar Association, as well as collaborate with other sections on topics of interest and legislative matters in furtherance of the Bar’s Action Plan.

About Clementa Amazan

Clementa Amazan is an Associate Attorney at Nochumson P.C., where she has a knack for providing thorough and creative solutions to a variety of legal issues as well as communicating with people – the easygoing and the difficult alike – which makes her a valuable asset for her clients.

Her ability to speak conversational Spanish and her fluency in Haitian Kreyol also allow her to effectively serve as legal counsel to a broad cross-section of communities and on behalf of her clients.

Clementa is also a leader within the legal community. This past year, she served as a co-chair of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Breakfast, which was sponsored by the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia. In addition to being actively involved with the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia, she also participates in activities with the Pennsylvania Bar Association Women’s Law Division.

Clementa is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She holds a B.A. degree in English Literature from Villanova University and a J.D. degree from the Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law.

Post Excerpt We are so excited to announce Clementa Amazan was elected as the Young Lawyers Division Liaison to the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Vertical Position 50%


Adverse Possession in Philadelphia

What is Adverse Possession?

Adverse possession, often referred to in non-legalese as “squatter’s rights”, is a phrase used to describe one method of acquiring ownership rights over a piece of property.  Adverse possession is a legal mechanism whereby one’s physical possession of the land of another is converted into the actual legal title to the land. In general, adverse possessors desiring to acquire title to the land of another must satisfy the common law elements of the claim.  In Pennsylvania, it used to take 21 years of “actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession” before someone could legally claim a property as their own and quiet the title.  The Clear Title Act, which was signed into law in 2019, has now shortened that waiting period to just 10 years in certain cases. The change to the law marks a departure from a distinct legal concept within the jurisprudence of adverse possession, and many landowners, including municipalities, may now have cause to reevaluate the status of their ownership of certain lands.

What are the pros and cons of pursuing adverse possession?

While adverse possession can be a helpful tactic for individuals or groups using otherwise vacant land for many years, it is a complicated process usually requiring a lawyer.

Pros

  • Clear and defined path to land tenure
  • It may be less expensive than buying property
  • A solution in cities with abundant vacant land, where no policy has prevented the land from continuing to exist unused

Cons

  • Adverse possession claims, or “quiet title actions” take time and resources
  • Gaining title through adverse possession does not rid you of the burden of unpaid debt, such as taxes or liens on the property that may have existed for decades on the property
  • The user must garden without the permission of the landowner for the statutory period to start, so short-term agreements with the owner do not help an adverse possession claim
  • Users must fulfill many elements for a long period of time

The Clear Title Act is designed to help long-term occupants of residential homes that have no legal owners and it is a situation that’s not nearly as rare as you may think.  Usually, it happens when a landlord abandons a property without notice or when the owner of a property dies without making any arrangements for the property to pass to another.

At Nochumson P.C., we are more than legal counsel. We are people serving our neighbors and community in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Knowing that real communication between real people can help lead to real positive results, our team of attorneys is available 24/7 to help answer your legal questions and to fight for you with skill and fortitude, whatever the case may be. When you hire us, you can expect a sensible and cost-effective approach to legal counsel. We think fast, think ahead, and get things done. Contact us today or call us at (215) 399-1346 to see how we can represent you.

Post Excerpt Within Philadelphia, it is a familiar story. A homeowner, fed up with overgrown weeds and accumulation of various junk, decides to clean up a neighboring lot that belongs to an absentee owner. Once the lot is cleared, the homeowner decides maybe to park their car on the lot, or plant trees and gardens, and continue to take great care of the parcel of land. Neighbors have not seen the absentee owner in years. Eventually, the homeowner realizes that they have now acquired a legal interest in the abandoned parcel via adverse possession.

Vertical Position 100%


In the Zone with Clementa Amazan – Episode 3

On May 20, 2021, District Council Members Maria Quinones-Sanchez and Jamie Gauthier introduced bill number 210474, which was amended on June 24, 2021. As we discussed prior, sections 14-702-2 through 14-702-4 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code established a Mixed-Income Housing Bonus that provides bonuses for gross floor area, building height, and housing unit density if the property owner designates a certain portion of dwelling units as affordable under the Philadelphia zoning code.

Under the law, property owners can instead make a payment to the city of Philadelphia’s Housing Trust Fund to receive the Mixed-Income Housing Bonus rather than including affordable units. To do so, the property owner must sign an agreement with the city’s Department of Planning and Development, also known as CPD, and make the payment before the building permit may be issued. Payments are generally calculated based upon the zoning district, the category of the bonus, and the level of affordable housing that is being offered.

The payment in lieu option will now only be available for real estate development projects with at least 10 residential dwelling units. Previously, real estate development projects with at least 4 rei units were eligible to take advantage of the payment in lieu option. 

In addition, the calculations have drastically increased. For example, if a developer has a 5,000 square foot CMX-2 property, which is permitted 10 dwelling units as of right, under the moderate-income, two additional units would be permitted and the estimated payment in lieu would be $163,000, about. Under low income, 5 additional units would be permitted and the estimated payment in lieu would be $265,500. However, under the current law, the estimated payment in lieu for the moderate-income level would be $100,000 and the estimated payment for the low-income level would be $150,000. As you can see, there have been drastic changes in both the properties that are eligible, as well as the payment that must be made for said properties. 

So, also there have been changes for the Mixed-Income Neighborhood Overlay District, which we will be discussing in our next episode.

At Nochumson P.C., we are more than legal counsel. We are people serving our neighbors and community in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Knowing that real communication between real people can help lead to real positive results, our team of attorneys are available 24/7 to help answer your legal questions and to fight for you with skill and fortitude, whatever the case may be. When you hire us, you can expect a sensible and cost-effective approach to legal counsel. We think fast, think ahead, and get things done.

 

Post Excerpt ‘In the Zone with Clementa Amazan’ is a video series that discusses the bonuses provided by the city that allow for additional height, floor area, and density, a terrific option for developers trying to avoid the variance process. In episode 3, we will be covering changes for the Mixed-Income Housing Bonus.

Vertical Position 30%


Alan Nochumson Named “Modern Man” by Philadelphia Style

Alan Nochumson is featured in Philadelphia Style’s October 2021 issue. In this issue, the magazine presents some of the most distinguished and outstanding industry leaders in the Greater Philadelphia area, who are shaping the future of their respective fields.

For Alan, his knowledge, creativity, and dedication in finding a solution to help his clients navigate through the maze of the development rules and regulations in the City of Philadelphia were a vital part of being one of the Modern Man selections. He thinks like a chess player, always anticipating what is next. He is compulsively early, unflappable under pressure, and tough but fair. He also loves to play matchmaker, introducing his clients to business partners and investors who can help them grow their businesses.

When he is not lawyering or teaching, you can find him spending time with his family at local eateries, walking his dog, Knox, where he lives in Fairmount, or rooting hard for our beloved Philadelphia sports teams.

Be sure to check out Philadelphia Style to see what set Alan and other selected individuals apart.

Vertical Position 50%