Newer O.C. apartments suffer more vacancies

Taken from the Lasner on Real Estate blog, posted by Mary Ann Millbourn

REIS Inc. reports that during the first quarter, O.C. apartments built after 1999 had 2.5 times the vacancy rate of the county as a whole.
Countywide vacancies were 4% in the 784 O.C. complexes that REIS studied. Units constructed after 1999, however, had a 10% vacancy rate. The oldest apartments — built before 1970 — had the fewest vacancies at 2.8%.

Rents made the difference. Apartments built before 1970 rented for $1,359 while those constructed after 1999 went for $2,055. The average county rent was $1,550.

Year Built Vacancy Rate
Before 1970 2.8%
1970-1979 3.2%
1980-1989 4.2%
1990-1999 3.6%
After 1999 10.0%
All 4.0%

Apartment resident safety

Apartment.com has some helpful tips for resident dwellers. It is important for apartment managers to make sure the tenants are safe, and feel secure in their own apartment complex. Here are some tips that managers should tell their tenants, and make sure the units in their care will be a safe place, and keep their tenants happy, because tenants will pick up and move if they feel unsafe in their own home.


Our biggest “mom” tip is to purchase renter’s insurance to protect your valuables. Even with insurance you still need to take steps to protect yourself. Here are some other easy ways to make you, your apartment and your belongings much safer.


Do…

* Write only your last name or initials on your mailbox.
* Although you may have to pay a small fee, it’s a good idea to have an unlisted phone number for safety reasons. Having an unlisted number will also cut down on solicitation calls.
* Make sure the locks on all doors leading into your apartment have been changed since the last tenant was living there. You may need to make copies of your keys for roommates but most apartment owners forbid copies made for anyone not living in the apartment. This includes your best friend, boy/girlfriend and parents. For safety reasons, keep copies of keys in your hands only.
* Apartment doors should all have peephole viewers. If you don’t have one, ask your landlord to install one.
* On the elevator, avoid riding alone with a stranger. If you get stuck with someone you do not know, stand near the control panel so you can exit in an emergency or if the stranger makes you feel uncomfortable in any way.
* Stay alert when entering your apartment. Don’t talk on your cell phone or look preoccupied when walking toward your building. Criminals look for a weak target and are more likely to pass up someone who appears focused, aware and strong.
* Report bad lighting or overgrown shrubbery to your landlord. You are never being too picky when it comes to your safety.
* Inventory the description, serial number and cost of your valuables. Keep a copy of your records online, in a fire-proof locked box or in a safe deposit box in a bank. Take pictures of your most valuable items and attach those to your receipts to make any insurance claims run as smoothly as possible.
* Keep a broom handle or other long stick in the track of sliding glass doors. This may deter a break in.
* Purchase light timers and set them so that your lights turn on when you’re away from home in the evening.
* Take in your newspaper and packages on a daily basis.

Check out this real estate blog

Pied Piper Speaks:

Since 2005, Pied Piper Speaks On Real Estate has been a recognized real estate blog leader, providing literally thousands of North America's finest agents with the kind of creative, dynamic, effective and powerful marketing ideas they need to survive and succeed in the fiercely competitive arena of real estate.

Real estate contest

We are pleased to announce that we were allowed to enter into a contest hosted by FHA Mortgage Center. They are holding a contest for blogs about the real estate industry, and I decided to enter the Apartment Management blog, and see what damage we could do. It would be awesome if you could support us and vote for our blog. Thanks.

Vote for this site

Real Estate Blog Contest

presented by FHA Mortgage Center

 

Taxpayer Wins Victory in Wealth Transfer Case

New article by Michael Trainotti

On March 26, 2008 the IRS lost a major case in the tax court dealing with family wealth transfers not being included in the decedent’s estate. As will be discussed below, the tax court found that there was a sufficient business non tax purpose in creating a LLC to manage family assets for the next generation and making lifetime gifts into trusts. This is a very important point in the successful outcome against the IRS.

Facts of Case. Decedent and her physician husband had a long history of having and encouraging a close knit family, having three daughters and regularly taking an annual family vacation which included family meetings considering business and investment matters and often involving accountants and attorneys as invitees. Dr. Mirowski had been developing an implantable defibrillator device and to pursue its development and funding, the family moved to the U.S. in 1968, and within 10 years Dr. Mirowski was successful in developing an implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD) thereafter achieving success with implantation in humans.

Mrs. Mirowski at all times was an astute and involved financial manager, as stated by the court, "a careful,
deliberate and thoughtful decision maker, especially with respect to financial matters." She worked with an investment advisor at Goldman Sachs to handle a rapidly growing investment portfolio, eventually agreeing to the principle of diversification, and in early 2001 consolidated all investments with Goldman Sachs.

The concept of using an investment entity, here a limited liability company (LLC), as a vehicle for pooling of family assets first came up during a presentation to decedent by U.S. Trust.

Thereafter, the family attorney, on August 31, 2000, provided draft articles of organization and an operating agreement for the proposed LLC; however, there was about a year's delay since decedent usually waited for the annual family meeting to consider major decisions so as to involve her daughters in considering same. Thus, it was August 14, 2001 before the LLC plan was reviewed with the family members, and in the meantime, Mrs. Mirowski was suffering from a foot ulcer and was being treated for this affliction considering her diabetic condition. However, her overall health had not, and was not, deteriorating.

The LLC documents were finalized following the August 14, 2001 meeting, and now, beginning at page 18 of the Tax Court's opinion, the findings of fact chronicle the purposes of the LLC, the steps in formation and funding, the gifts by the initial sole member, the decedent, of 16% interests in the LLC to each of the daughter's trusts, all leading up to the sudden September 10, 2001 deterioration of decedent's health and her death the next day, the infamous 911 tragedy.

Tax Court Analysis And Conclusions. The Tax Court considered first the transfers of assets by decedent to the LLC, and separately the gift transfers by decedent to her daughters' trusts. These were deemed separate transactions, even though the overall intention of forming MFV was to fund it and then that the sole member, the decedent, would make gifts of interests therein.

The legitimate and significant non-tax reasons for creating the entity were identified, the court stating, at page 50 of its opinion, that these reasons were as follows:

1. Joint management of the family's assets by her daughters and eventually her grandchildren,

2. Maintenance of the bulk of the family's assets in a single pool of assets in order to allow for investment opportunities that would not be available if Ms. Mirowski were to make a separate gift of a portion of her assets to each of her daughters or to each of her daughters' trusts, and

3. Providing for each of her daughters and eventually each of her grandchildren on an equal basis.

Decedent retained outside MFV significant assets, totaling $7.5 million in overall value, of which over $3 million was in liquid form. The court found that there was no express or implied agreement that any LLC distributions would be made to allow decedent to pay gift tax on the gifts of MFV interests. Decedent had substantial liquid assets in her name, the LLC was mandated to make annual distributions of net cash flow, and decedent could have borrowed as needed to pay the gift tax due.

Then the court turned to the gifts by decedent of a 16% MFV interest to each of the three daughters' trusts.First, no express retained income or enjoyment retention under 2036(a)(1) was found by the Tax Court. The IRS contended that since decedent was the managing member (General Manager) of MFV, her authority "included the authority to decide the timing and amounts of distributions from MFV."

Not so, said the court, pointing to the operating agreement and State law limitations on such General Manager authority. As to the operating agreement, the provisions regarding annual mandated distributions, the required distributions of capital asset disposition proceeds (including in liquidation, etc.) were significant limitations on the General Manager's authority, couple with general fiduciary duties.