About Emmet County, MI

In Emmet County, 436 residential sales were reported in 2007, down from 496 sales in 2006, a decline of more than 12%. The average sales price declined from $344,021 in 2006 to $320,377 in 2007. The median sales price actually increased, however, from $189,079 in 2006 to $190,000 in 2007.

Note: Market information courtesy of Emmet Ass'n of Realtors. Emmet County real estate sales include single family homes, farms and condominiums.

In the Alanson/Littlefield School District, 39 residential sales were reported in 2007, down from 44 sales in 2006, a decline of more than 11%. The average sale price declined from $138,659 in 2006 to $134,812 in 2007. The median sales price also declined, from $106,250 in 2006 to $100,000 in 2007.

Note: Market information courtesy of Emmet Ass'n of Realtors. Alanson real estate sales include single family homes, farms and condominiums.

The Petoskey City Council, by a vote of 4-1, recently granted an extension of the deadline for "substantial completion" of the Petoskey Pointe Project from early November of 2008 to December 31, 2009. The deadline is contained in an agreement between the City and Lake Street Petoskey Associates, the Farmington Hills developer of the Project. The Petoskey News Review reported that work on the hotel/retail/condominium project stalled last year after National City Bank withdrew its financing. The Developer requested an extension of the substantial completion deadline in December of 2007, indicating that new financing arrangements involving overseas funds were close to being finalized. To provide protection for the City, the resolution approved by the City Council calls for financing to be demonstrated and construction on the project to resume by March 15th.

Northern Michigan Real Estate Blog

The case of a California couple who are suing their real estate agent because they feel they overpaid for their home in 2004 has ignited a firestorm within the real estate community. The N.Y. Times featured the case in a recent article, and the Today Show will also apparently be running a story on the suit. Amazingly, according to NAR, this is the first known case where a buyer's agent has been sued by a buyer over valuation issues.

According to the article in the Times, Marty and Vernon Ummel purchased a home in 2005 using the services of Mike Little, a veteran agent with Re/Max Associates. The Ummels claim that Mr. Ummel, who was also working as a mortgage broker, encouraged them to obtain their loan through him. The suit charges that the Ummels requested a copy of the appraisal ordered by Mr. Little prior to the closing, but that it was not provided to them until after they moved into the home.

The Ummels apparently realized something was amiss when they got a flier from another real estate agent in August of 2005, a few days after they moved into their home, which showed that a house up the street had just sold for $105,000 less than theirs, even though it was the same size. When they finally got their appraisal, they learned that the house up the street was not only cheaper, but that it also had a pool. In early October of that same year, they learned from a separate flier that yet another similar sized home on the same street closed the same day as theirs but sold for $175,000 less.

The Ummels accuse Mr. Little not only of withholding information, but of exaggerating the value of the house to push them into a deal. In her deposition, Mrs. Ummel testified that Mr. Little had told them "many times that it was a very good buy."

In an interview with the Times, Mr. Little called the case "ridiculous,", adding: "The lady's a nut job. I didn't do anything wrong." He blamed the suit on a declining market. "When people see their home values and assets declining, they always feel there's someone to blame," he said. "This is a dangerous time for all of us in the industry," Mr. Little remarked.

The mortgage broker and the appraiser, who was accused of skewing his report to make the Ummel's house seem worth the purchase price, have both settled out of court. The case against Mr. Little and Re/Max Associates is scheduled to go to trial on Monday, January 28th in San Diego County.

If Mr Little did indeed fail to disclose the appraisal/prior sale information to his clients in order to save the deal, and his reported $30,000 commission, he has almost certainly breached his fiduciary duties to his clients as their buyer's agent (if he was in fact acting in that capacity, as there was no signed buyer agency agreement). The duty of an agent to disclose material information to their client is well-recognized. It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where a recent comparable sale just up the street of which an agent has actual knowledge would not be considered to be material. If an agent has knowledge of any information which may influence their client's decision whether or not to purchase, that information is material and must be disclosed.

The fact that Mr. Little was also acting as the Ummels' loan originator is also of concern. Buyer agents must be cognizant of any relationship which could potentially pose a conflict of interest between the agent's duty of loyalty to their client and their own financial interests. A number of agents commenting on this case have repeated the old adage that "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered." Greed, and the viewing of a client as a profit center, rather than as a principal, can easily lead to legal liability for breach of one's fiduciary duties.

Undoubtedly, there have been a number of instances in recent years where buyer agents have not fulfilled their fiduciary obligations to their clients. Up until now, soaring property values have masked many of these shortcomings. With property values now in freefall, one can expect that buyer agents who have failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties to their clients will be called to task.

Northern Michigan Real Estate Blog

Petoskey, Michigan is being featured along with seven other towns in the January/February 2008 issue of Where to Retire magazine, in an article entitled "8 Terrific Low-Tax Towns."

The article notes that ". . . in Petoskey, the skiing, sailing and scenery attract many retirees who also enjoy upscale dining options, a charming downtown with boutique shopping and a reasonable cost of living." The article explains that the yearly local tax burden on a hypothetical retired couple with an annual income of $60,000 and a home value of $225,000 would be $4,084.00 This amount would be even lower for a home located outside the city limits. Resort and Bear Creek Townships, for instance, both have lower property tax rates than those in the city proper.

Other terrific low-tax towns featured include Easton, Maryland, Oxford, Mississippi, Gainesville, Georgia, Fairhope, Alabama, Staunton, Virginia, Ashland, Oregon and Kalispell, Montana. Once again Petoskey finds itself in great company! If you are considering places to retire, make sure you come see why everyone is raving about Petoskey. The natural beauty of the area is unsurpassed, we have abundant recreational and cultural opportunities, we are a very safe community with an excellent quality of life, we have a first class regional medical center, and it is an affordable place to live. What more could you ask for?