You may be 100% correct, but, unfortunately, if the law passes and it comes down to you and a judge, it will be his/her interpretation of what “includes” means. I sent an email to my representatives, but it isn’t looking good right now, though, there is still hope.
Our only hope if it passes is that it is repealed due to constitutional issues. As others have said, it paints too broad a stroke on the whole industry and others, besides RE investors, could be snared.
I agree totally, but the question is: Who is going to fight it in court? The average investor does not have enough money to fight it.
Who is pushing this anyway? What is their stated reason for wanting this? If it is to protect consumers, that is exactly who it will hurt.
For example, if someone has not sold their house they might not qualify to get a new mortgage. It is common for them to lease-option their next home until their previous one sells. Under this law, they would not be able to do that.
Can someone comment on how to execute a lease with some rental credit toward a potential purchase at a future date?
This is immediately holding up the sale of my own property. As I read the legislation, I cannot engage in a lease with an option to purchase (even though those are seperate contracts) unless I own the home free and clear. Doing so anyway results in an illegal contract and subjects the seller to substantial penalties…