Hey,

I bought my house for $130K cash about 10yrs ago; at the time, in this
special community location, you couldn't get a mortage. Anyways....

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

Ivanna Pee wrote:
Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

And you've been living in the house.

"Ivanna Pee" wrote in message
ups.com...

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

They say it's no big deal. Is there any reason not to believe them?

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Ivanna Pee" wrote in message
ups.com...

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

They say it's no big deal. Is there any reason not to believe them?


What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been living
in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

() wrote in
ps.com:

What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been
living in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

It raises the question of just why such a thing as a "Certificate of
Occupancy" exists.

Is lack of the certificate one of those things bureaucrats ignore
mostly, but like to keep in their back pocket to nail troublemakers
when it's convenient?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert Hyman wrote:
() wrote in
ps.com:

What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been
living in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

It raises the question of just why such a thing as a "Certificate of
Occupancy" exists.

Is lack of the certificate one of those things bureaucrats ignore
mostly, but like to keep in their back pocket to nail troublemakers
when it's convenient?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |


CO's exist to insure that houses being sold or rented meet the codes
for habitability and safety, eg smoke detectors, proper railings on
steps, no obvious plumbing leaks, etc.

In article om,
wrote:

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Ivanna Pee" wrote in message
ups.com...

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

They say it's no big deal. Is there any reason not to believe them?


What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been living
in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

1) If there is no certificate of occupancy, the insurance policy
may not be valid. They may have paid all these years, and gotten
nothing if there was a major claim.

2) If there is no certificate of occupancy, then it isn't a legal
residence. If it isn't a legal residence, then they should not
have been charged property taxes for a residence, but rather, only
for raw land.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article om,
wrote:

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Ivanna Pee" wrote in message
ups.com...

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

They say it's no big deal. Is there any reason not to believe them?


What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been living
in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

1) If there is no certificate of occupancy, the insurance policy
may not be valid. They may have paid all these years, and gotten
nothing if there was a major claim.

Interesting specualtion. But I've never had an insurance company ask
to see a CO. Nor do I think they would get away denying a claim
based on the lack of a CO, unless they could show that the claim was
actually caused by some defect that would have been obviously caught by
a CO inspection 30 years ago.




2) If there is no certificate of occupancy, then it isn't a legal
residence. If it isn't a legal residence, then they should not
have been charged property taxes for a residence, but rather, only
for raw land.

Really? Why don't you try taking the smoke detectors out of your
house, then calling the town over to fail a CO inspection. You think
then you don't have to pay anymore real estate tax on the value of the
structure, as long as you leave the smoke detectors out, while your
neighbor, who has an identical house does have to pay? That argument
ain't gonna fly. The real estate taxes and appraisal are made on the
value of the building and the land. The fact that it does or does not
have a CO has no bearing in itself. Now, if it doesn't have a CO
because there was a fire and the house has sustained significant
damage, that would be different. Then the property would be appraised
for less, but because of the damage itself, not that it doesn't have a
CO.






-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

"John A. Weeks III" wrote
2) If there is no certificate of occupancy, then it isn't a legal
residence. If it isn't a legal residence, then they should not
have been charged property taxes for a residence, but rather, only
for raw land.

Around here, you pay will pay property tax on any structure, as long as
it's a permanant structure. That includes outbuildings. The tax is based on
the footer perimeter.

The only break you get is if it's owner occupied, then you get a 2% break.

In article , Bert Hyman says...

() wrote in
ups.com:

What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been
living in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

It raises the question of just why such a thing as a "Certificate of
Occupancy" exists.

Is lack of the certificate one of those things bureaucrats ignore
mostly, but like to keep in their back pocket to nail troublemakers
when it's convenient?


Was it required when the house and any livable additions built? He could just
be grandfathered. I am regarding my house.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article om,
wrote:

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Ivanna Pee" wrote in message
ups.com...

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

They say it's no big deal. Is there any reason not to believe them?


What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been living
in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

1) If there is no certificate of occupancy, the insurance policy
may not be valid. They may have paid all these years, and gotten
nothing if there was a major claim.

2) If there is no certificate of occupancy, then it isn't a legal
residence. If it isn't a legal residence, then they should not
have been charged property taxes for a residence, but rather, only
for raw land.

-john-

This is exactly what I was getting at. When I told my freinds, who work
in construction, they told me to call a lawyer immeadiately, but that
is not my style. I was hoping someone may have heard of a similar
situation, and what became of it, if anything. N.Y. here

wrote:
John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article om,
wrote:

Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Ivanna Pee" wrote in message
ups.com...

This week, I went to the Town Building Dept to get a permit to finish
my basement. They pulled my file and told me that the original building
permit for the HOUSE, issued in 1973, has no Cert of Occupancy. They
say its no big deal and I'll get two COs, eventually.

Thoughts? They''ve been taxing me, I have been paying insurance all
this time...

They say it's no big deal. Is there any reason not to believe them?


What does your paying insurance and taxes on a house you've been living
in for 30 years have to do with a CO, or lack thereof?

1) If there is no certificate of occupancy, the insurance policy
may not be valid. They may have paid all these years, and gotten
nothing if there was a major claim.

Interesting specualtion. But I've never had an insurance company ask
to see a CO. Nor do I think they would get away denying a claim

HA! Insurance companies deny any claim they can for any reason
possible, however small!

based on the lack of a CO, unless they could show that the claim was
actually caused by some defect that would have been obviously caught by
a CO inspection 30 years ago.




2) If there is no certificate of occupancy, then it isn't a legal
residence. If it isn't a legal residence, then they should not
have been charged property taxes for a residence, but rather, only
for raw land.

Really? Why don't you try taking the smoke detectors out of your
house, then calling the town over to fail a CO inspection. You think
then you don't have to pay anymore real estate tax on the value of the
structure, as long as you leave the smoke detectors out, while your

This is silly, without the CO you cannot legally reside in the home,
right? Nor would you likely be able to sell it to someone who couldn't
live it it.

neighbor, who has an identical house does have to pay? That argument
ain't gonna fly. The real estate taxes and appraisal are made on the
value of the building and the land. The fact that it does or does not
have a CO has no bearing in itself. Now, if it doesn't have a CO
because there was a fire and the house has sustained significant
damage, that would be different. Then the property would be appraised
for less, but because of the damage itself, not that it doesn't have a
CO.






-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:12:49 -0500, someone wrote:


2) If there is no certificate of occupancy, then it isn't a legal
residence. If it isn't a legal residence, then they should not
have been charged property taxes for a residence, but rather, only
for raw land.

-john-

Idiot.

Where did you dream that one up?


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On 14 Aug 2006 08:13:32 -0700, someone wrote:

This is silly, without the CO you cannot legally reside in the home,

UNTIL YOU GET THE CO.

(Actually, in many areas, an Owner can indeed reside in it, but a
landlord can't legally rent it out.)

So the reduction in value would be the cost to get the CO.

So ya really want to argue how your house isn't actually liveable, and
have them condemn it until you fix any defects? Or are there actually
not significant defects? Sorry, can't have it both ways.

If the house was in such poor condition that it indeed needs major
repairs in order to be liveable, then that should already be reflected
in the assessment.

Do you really think you could have a new house built in perfect
condition, but not have to pay taxes on it so long as you don't get
around to obtaining a CO?

More like you pay the taxes, but they won't let you use the property
until you get the CO - and they fine you daily if you use it illegally
until you do get it!


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

v wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 08:13:32 -0700, someone wrote:

This is silly, without the CO you cannot legally reside in the home,

UNTIL YOU GET THE CO.

(Actually, in many areas, an Owner can indeed reside in it, but a
landlord can't legally rent it out.)

So the reduction in value would be the cost to get the CO.

So ya really want to argue how your house isn't actually liveable, and

I never said that I wanted to do anything. I'm just looking for info.

have them condemn it until you fix any defects? Or are there actually
not significant defects? Sorry, can't have it both ways.

If the house was in such poor condition that it indeed needs major
repairs in order to be liveable, then that should already be reflected
in the assessment.

Do you really think you could have a new house built in perfect
condition, but not have to pay taxes on it so long as you don't get
around to obtaining a CO?

Never said I thought that either. What are you smoking?


More like you pay the taxes, but they won't let you use the property
until you get the CO - and they fine you daily if you use it illegally
until you do get it!

Do you really think I am going to pay a fine for using it illegally for
10 years?



Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

In article , (v)
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2006 08:13:32 -0700, someone wrote:

This is silly, without the CO you cannot legally reside in the home,

UNTIL YOU GET THE CO.

What if you never get a certificate of occupancy? My uncle
built a 2-car garage without getting a permit, and the city
made him tear it down. He was given no options to get a
permit afterwards, even though it was a very well built
structure that met all codes.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================