Pit bull ruling and real estate. Any connection?

    As most of the country has heard, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals has made a Pit bull ruling. They have ruled that Pit bulls and Pit bull-mixes are inherently dangerous dogs. Not only has this ruling upset Pit bull owners, but the court also decided that liability is automatically heaped upon the landlord of a property that has rented to a owner of a Pit bull/Pit bull-mix, if the landlord knew the dog was of such a breed/mix before hand.





   So how does this relate to property owners and real estate? You tell me. What can you see happening on the heels of this ruling, if it sticks?



  I can see clear and dangerous consequences coming from this ruling that could possibly effect buyers, sellers and real estate agents. Will the courts rule that a home owner has to disclose that there are Pit bulls in their neighborhood? Should a real estate agent know this information? How about Landlord renting to gun owners? Is the landlord responsible if a tenant owns a gun and shoots someone?



   I don't like this ruling and hope that it gets overturned. I think it is very narrow minded and has the potential to other broad sweeping rulings to further hamper our freedoms in this country. Just because you don't own a Pit bull/Pit bull mix, doesn't mean this won't have an impact on your life

Visit my website for more real estate news or information on buying or selling homes.

I've been saying this all along!

   Looks like there are some stats to back what I had discussed with many people over the years. Trying to avoid the inevitable does nothing buy delay it. This article outlines the delay in foreclosures in the Maryland real estate market. Home owners who fall behind on their mortgage were give the opportunity to try and save their home one last time, but in turn the state of Maryland charged banks $300 to file a foreclosure notice.  What? Why is the state benefiting from the misfortune of others? Penalizing the banks and profiting from someones struggles doesn't seem to me to be a good way to help out the struggling in a time of need. All this did was buy some home owners a little extra time, which they probably had anyway because of the drawn out foreclosure process, and gave them a false sense of hope. Here's a quote from the article: "In nine and a half out of 10 cases, modifications don't work and the homes are eventually foreclosed on," said Vince Caropreso, a Maryland real estate agent and certified distressed property expert. "Some consumers just use it as a way to stay a little bit longer [in their homes]."

   What do you think about this? Looks like the state had this policy backfire on them. I beleive the real alternative to foreclosure is a short sale. Banks are more than happy to assist you in selling your home before they have to repossess it. They don't want your home. They would rather forgive a portion of the mortgage debt than to be left holding the whole bag. There are exceptions to this rule and government backed loans or Private Mortgage Insurance can throw this off a bit, but in genreal the banks do not want your home.

   The bottom line is, whether in nature of the business world, don't mess with the natural process of things. It is unfortunate to see people struggle, but it is all part of the natural business cycle and there is something we can learn from others experiences.

For more information on short sales, avoiding foreclosure or available homes, visit my website at www.allhomes4me.com or like my facebook page.