developments in real estate | vol 14, i 2 3

REALESTATE

Developments inTM

Volume 14, Issues 2-3 Seth G. Weissman, Editor

ALSO IN THIS ISSUEA Better Loan GuarantyPage 3

An Introduction to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at Condominiums Page 4

Georgia’s Contractor Licensing Law Exposes Qualifying Agents to Greater Personal Liability Page 6

A New Georgia Law Restricts a Condo Developer’s Ability to Limit Association Legal ActionsPage 8

Should I Collect a Retainer Fee? Page 9

Environmental Attorneys Join WNCW 1

Eventually every real estate professional will come across a property that is

involved in a tax sale. This may mean that you are considering purchasing

a property that is advertised for a tax sale. Or perhaps through mistake or

oversight, one of your listings has been or is about to be sold at a tax sale.

Georgia law permits properties to be sold at both judicial and non-judicial

tax sales. It is important to understand the differences between them as both

Continued on page 10

Know Your Tax Sales:

By Allie Jett

One question which is the subject of increasing debate

among REALTORS® is whether buyers should pay the

seller for the right to have a due diligence period? The

GAR Forms presently give the buyer a due diligence

period the length of which is negotiated between the

parties. The consideration for the due diligence period

provided for in the GAR

Contract is $10. The GAR

Contract also states

that the receipt and

sufficiency of

Should Buyers Pay for Their “Free Look?”

Continued on page 2

By Seth G. Weissman

Special DOUBLE Issue!

Recognizing Rights and Opportunities in Judicial and Non-Judicial Tax Sales

2 www.wncwlaw.com

the $10 is acknowledged by the parties. This is done so that neither of the parties can

later complain since the $10 is rarely if ever collected.

As the market continues to favor sellers, some of them are beginning to express concern

that giving a buyer a “free look” goes too far, particularly

since it effectively takes the house off of the market for

the length of the due diligence period. With higher end

homes, some sellers argue that the buyer should pay $500

or $1000 for the right to have a “free look.” Most of these

sellers are willing to credit the money to the buyer if he or

she buys the property. However, if the buyer terminates

the contract, the money paid for the due diligence period

would belong to the seller.

The motivation of sellers to get paid for the “free look”

is three-fold. First, it is hoped that this will avoid buyers

putting multiple properties under contract. Second, as

discussed above, it is also thought that buyers have some

financial skin in the game since the house is effectively

being taken off the market during the due diligence period.

Third, in a multiple offer situation, it is a way for the buyer

to show that he or she is serious about wanting to purchase

the property.

The GAR Forms include a sample special stipulation that can be used when the buyer is

paying more than $10 for the right to have a due diligence period. Does the approach of

paying for a “free look” create new potential issues between the buyer and seller? Of course,

every change that is made to a contract tends to solve one problem but create another.

The most likely dispute will arise when the buyer terminates the contract because of a

problem with the property that the buyer felt the seller should have disclosed. A buyer

who believes that the seller was not forthcoming in disclosing latent defects is not going to

be happy losing his or her “free look” fee and is likely going to demand its return. If the

seller refuses to give it back, the buyer and seller may well be headed to court to decide its

disposition. Unless the “free look” fee is especially large, this type of dispute will hopefully

not arise too often.

The other issue that will likely arise when the buyer is paying for the free look is who will hold

the “free look” fee. Obviously, if a broker holds this money, it will need to be deposited

in the broker’s trust account. This likely means that most contracts will be written where it

is given directly to the seller.

Will a “free look” fee become the norm? It is not likely unless the market changes even

more to favor the seller. With more properties being put on the market in response to rising

prices, the market will likely achieve a greater equilibrium between supply and demand

and the rights of buyers and sellers. As such, neither buyer nor seller will likely be able to

demand greater concessions than are already included in the GAR Contracts.

Should Buyers Pay for Their “Free Look?”Continued from page 1

As the market continues to favor sellers, some of them

are beginning to express concern that giving a

buyer a “free look” goes too far particularly since it effectively takes the house

off the market for the length of the due diligence

period.

DevelopmentsinRealEstate™ 3

One lesson learned in the past recession is that full loan guaranty agreements, where the investors

in a commercial real estate project guarantee full repayment of the loan, don’t work, and inflict

misery on guarantors and lenders alike. It is standard practice for lenders making residential

construction loans, development loans, and small to midsized loans secured by income-producing

real estate to require that the investors in the projects guarantee full repayment of the loans.

In this writer’s experience, full recovery doesn’t happen often. I’ve prepared perhaps two thousand

loan guaranties and fully collected cash to repay loans on two. Not a misprint - two. Except

on rare occasions, full recovery on an unlimited loan guaranty is an unrealistic dream. Lenders

who have learned this lesson underwrite loans differently than those who have not.

The lender’s first formal step after a loan default is to send the borrower and guarantors a

demand for payment of the entire loan amount plus “reasonable attorneys’ fees” which under

Georgia law adds an additional fifteen percent to the loan balance.

Faced with liability impossible to pay, the guarantor usually begins hiding cash, transferring his

home out of his name, liquidating retirement accounts, and positioning for a long legal battle.

After considerable anxiety, the legal contest usually results in either a settlement for pennies on

the dollar, or, more likely, bankruptcy by the guarantor. The lender gets little more than the

loan collateral, although it may get an uncollectable judgment.

While full guaranties have been the norm, less common are guaranty agreements requiring the

guarantor to pay a limited amount of the loan. Those may be secured or unsecured.

A loan guaranty secured by a deposit of cash, securities, or a security interest in real estate,

with the guarantor’s liability under the guaranty limited to foreclosure by the lender against the

security for the guaranty, accomplishes three goals:

1. It limits the guarantor’s liability to loss of the collateral securing payment of the guaranty;

2. It guarantees the lender certainty of some recovery on the guaranty, to be added to the

lender’s recovery of the asset securing payment of the loan; and,

3. Since a lender typically recovers little on the loan guaranty anyway, it forces a realistic

evaluation of loan collateral when making the loan, knowing that the collateral and the

property securing payment of the guaranty are all that a lender will recover upon default.

Where the lender insists on an unlimited guaranty of the loan, or the guarantor has no property

to collateralize the limited guaranty, a guarantor should consider requesting an amendment to

the lender’s form whereby the guarantor’s principal residence and assets held in IRA or 401k

retirement plans are exempt from recovery by the lender upon default by the guarantor, and

attorneys’ fees are limited in amount to actual fees paid by the lender rather than fifteen percent

of the loan amount. The lender’s unlimited guaranty thereby becomes limited to some extent.

The reality is that collecting something on a guarantee is far better than collecting nothing.

Those lenders who realize this will do far better than those who do not.

A Better Loan GuarantyBy George M. Bobo


4 www.wncwlaw.com

Q Are associations required to provide electric vehicle charging stations?No. There is no law in Georgia which requires condominium associations

to provide public electric vehicle charging stations. However, associations

may wish to provide common charging stations as an amenity.

Q Must associations allow owners to install electric vehicle charging stations?No. Georgia law does not currently require condominium associations

to permit the installation of private electric vehicle charging stations.

However, the law may soon change. With the increase in electric vehicle

ownership, the law is evolving as states address the new technology. For

example, California recently enacted a law which makes any language in

governing documents that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or

use of electric vehicle charging stations void and unenforceable. However,

California associations can still impose reasonable restrictions that do not

significantly increase the cost or performance of the charging stations.

Q Are owners required to obtain approval from the association to install private electric vehicle charging stations?Yes. The installation of a private electric vehicle charging station in a limited

common element or assigned common element parking space is considered

an exterior modification to the condominium and must be approved by the

association in accordance with its architectural review process.

Q Who is responsible for equipment and installation costs?It depends. If the charging station is being provided as a common amenity,

the association will be responsible for the equipment and installation costs.

However, third-party vendors (commonly known as electric vehicle service

providers) may fund the out-of-pocket costs as an incentive. If the vendor

is providing and installing the equipment, the association should have a

formal written service agreement drafted or reviewed by its legal counsel.

If the charging station is being installed on a limited common element or

assigned common element parking space for private use, the costs should

be borne solely by the benefited owner.

Q Who pays for the electricity?Electricity will typically be paid for by the user. The practicality will depend

on whether electric usage is measured by a master meter or separate

meter for each unit. If there are separate meters, the charging station can

be added to the owner’s existing electricity service meter. However, if the

charging station is connected to the condominium’s common meter, the

association should select a system to account for payment and usage.

For example, the association can use smart technology to assess users for

actual usage or assess users a flat monthly fee for estimated usage. If

a flat monthly fee is assessed, the association should reserve the right to

adjust the fee to cover increased costs of power as well as maintenance,

repair and replacement costs. However, the association cannot sell the

electricity for profit since it is not a utility. In some cases, a third-party

vendor may reimburse the association for electricity consumption and bills

the user directly for a charging session.

Q How do associations manage common charging stations?If the charging station is a common amenity, the association can adopt

reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the station, including

duration and frequency limits. For example, if there is high demand for the

station, the association can limit use to one charging session per day for a

maximum of two hours. The rules and regulations should be included in

written terms of use signed by the owner. The rules and regulations can be

enforced by the association in accordance with the enforcement powers in its

governing documents, such as the imposition of fines, suspension of privileges

and the towing of vehicles after satisfying certain due process requirements.

An Introduction to

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at CondominiumsBy Bill H. Gourley III


The association’s legal counsel should assist the board of directors with

drafting the terms of use and to confirm the sanctions for use violations.

Q How can associations protect against liability?With respect to private charging stations, associations should require

users to sign a written agreement indemnifying and holding harmless the

association and its members, directors, officers and agents from liability

from claims related to the installation, operation and use of the charging

stations. With respect to common charging stations, associations should

require users to sign a written agreement holding harmless the association

and its members, directors, officers and agents from liability. The

association’s legal counsel should draft the appropriate indemnification

and/or hold harmless agreement. Associations should also discuss the

installation of charging stations with their insurance carriers to confirm that

the appropriate insurance coverage is in place, and whether it is necessary

for the owner to maintain an umbrella liability insurance policy.

Q Who is responsible for maintaining the charging station?If the charging station is a common amenity, then the association will

generally be responsible for its maintenance, repair and replacement.

However, if the charging station is installed by a third party vendor, the

service agreement between the association and the vendor should clearly

set forth the maintenance, repair and replacement responsibilities. The

service agreement should also state which party is responsible for the

damage or destruction of the charging station, and give the association a

right to require the removal of the equipment under certain circumstances.

If the charging station is for private use, the association should adopt a

policy clearly outlining the owner’s responsibility to maintain, repair and

replace the equipment. The policy should also require periodic inspection

of the charging station by experienced professionals, including qualified

electricians.

6 www.wncwlaw.com

Each business entity receiving a license under Georgia’s contractor licensing

law (“Licensing Law”) must have at least one “qualifying agent” (QA). Do

QAs have greater potential personal liability to buyers and owners than

traditional agents of contractor entities? The answer to that question is

likely yes.

Before discussing the reasons for my conclusion, let’s look briefly at existing

grounds for personal liability of contractor entity agents, such as a presidents,

limited liability company managers, and on-site supervisors. They have long

had personal liability to buyers or owners for their own fraud or negligence

even though they were acting for an entity. Fraud and negligence claims

do not require a contractual relationship between an agent and a buyer

or owner. The agent’s own negligence, direct or perhaps supervisory, has

been the basis for the agent’s negligence liability. The agent’s knowledge

of a latent defect and the agent’s misrepresentation about or nondisclosure

of that defect has been the foundation for a fraud claim.

A Licensing Law provision was intended to establish that a QA will not

have greater potential civil liability as a QA than he or she would have

had as a traditional agent. I will refer to that provision as the “Status Quo

Provision.” It states:

Further, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as a basis for imposition of civil liability against an individual

qualifying agent by any owner or other third party claimant beyond the liability that would otherwise exist

legally or contractually apart from and independent of the individual’s status as a qualifying agent.

Despite the Status Quo Provision, I suspect that buyers and owners will be more likely to sue QAs than traditional

agents and that they will more likely win those claims.

I draw those conclusions because

of other provisions in the Licensing

Law. One defines a QA as one who

“has the responsibility to supervise,

direct, manage, and control all of the

contracting activities” of a contractor

business entity, and “who has the

responsibility to supervise, direct,

manage, and control construction

activities on a job for which he

or she has obtained the building

permit;. . .”.

Georgia’s Contractor Licensing Law Exposes Qualifying Agents to Greater Personal LiabilityBy Frank O. Brown, Esq.


Because the very definition of a QA is someone with these

responsibilities, I believe it will be a greater practical challenge

for QAs to convince a judge, jury or arbitrator that they are not

responsible for negligent construction or that they do not have

knowledge of latent defects that might be the basis for a fraud

claim. Even if a judge, jury or arbitrator is informed of the Status

Quo Provision, it seems more likely than in the past that they

will view the QA as personally connected to, knowledgeable

about, responsible for, and therefore personally liable for alleged

construction defects.

In drawing my conclusions, I also rely on the following provision

of the Licensing Law:

The application for a license by a qualifying agent must include an affidavit … that the

individual applicant has final approval authority for all construction work performed by the

business organization or entity and that the individual applicant has final approval authority

on all business matters, including contracts and contract performance and financial affairs of

the business organization or entity.

I suspect these affidavits will be frequently used as evidence in claims against QAs to establish their

authority, and therefore arguably their connection, knowledge, responsibility, and liability for allegedly

negligent construction and latent defects.

Yet another provision of the Licensing Law supports my prediction:

All qualifying agents for a business organization are jointly and equally responsible for supervision

of all operations of the business organization, for all field work at all sites, and for financial

matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job for which his or her

license was used to obtain the building permit.

Again, I believe that, as a practical matter, buyers and owner’s counsel will use this provision to

establish the responsibility, and therefore arguable liability, of QAs.

The Status Quo Provision is an important protection to QAs. However, other provisions of the

Licensing Law suggest that it will probably prove inadequate on a practical level to prevent more

claims against them.

Contractor entity agents, such as a presidents, limited liability company managers, and on-site supervisors have long had personal liability to buyers or owners for their own fraud or negligence even though they were acting for an entity. Fraud and negligence claims do not require a contractual relationship between an agent and a buyer or owner.


8 www.wncwlaw.com

The Georgia Legislature just enacted an amendment to the Georgia

Condominium Act that will significantly impact condo developers. To

understand the amendment, we need briefly to look back to 1990. Then,

the Georgia Legislature revised the Georgia Condominium Act to state

that a condominium association has the right to bring lawsuits and other

legal actions in its own name relating to any parts of the condominium for

which the association has the

responsibility to administer,

repair, or maintain.

Despite that law, Georgia

courts have continued to

enforce condo declarations

that forbid associations

from pursuing construction

defect claims. They have also

enforced condo declarations

that require associations to

pursue claims in arbitration rather than litigation, and those others that

condition a condo association’s right to pursue various legal actions

on pre-action steps, such as approval by a specified percentage of unit

owners, a notice of claim, a settlement meeting, or mediation.

This year, the Georgia Legislature sought to bar some of these provisions

in condo declarations and other contracts drafted for developers. It did

so by amending the 1990 law to state that the association’s right to bring

a legal action cannot be “waived, abridged, modified, or removed” in

a declaration or other contract drafted on behalf of a condominium

developer.

Which developer declaration and contract provisions does this new

amendment prohibit? It plainly bars those that purport to entirely waive

or remove a condo association’s right to pursue a legal action relating to

any part of the condo project that the association is required to administer,

repair, or maintain. That prohibition applies to construction defect actions.

A New Georgia Law Restricts a Condo Developer’s

Ability to Limit Association Legal Actions

By Frank O. Brown

Except as required by the Right to Repair Act, which is an express exception

under the amendment, the amendment also rather clearly forbids

developer declaration provisions that condition a condo association’s right

to pursue legal actions on unit owner approval by a percent or number.

Does the amendment prohibit declaration provisions that require

condo as soc ia t ions to

arbitrate claims against

developers? This does not

appear to have been the

intent of the Legislature.

Even if it intended to bar

such arbitration provisions,

the new amendment would

not prohibit them because

the Federal Arbitration Act

established a federal public

policy in favor of arbitration,

and federal law preempts Georgia law.

Although not as clear, Georgia courts will likely continue to uphold condo

declaration provisions that require pre-action mediation. That is because

courts highly favor mediation and they will be very hesitant to interpret

the new amendment as prohibiting it.

Neither the amendment nor the original 1990 law prohibits conditions

to claims by individual condo unit owners or non-condo associations,

such as traditional neighborhood associations. It seems unlikely that the

amended law will apply retroactively to existing condo declarations and

contracts, but some arguments to the contrary exist.

Seth Weissman, Darryl Moss, Jane Kotake and I welcome the

opportunity to discuss the amendment with you, including its potential

impact on other conditions, such as pre-action notice and meeting

requirements.

8 www.wncwlaw.com


Should I Collect a Retainer Fee?More REALTORS® are considering whether to collect a

retainer fee from their buyer clients. There are at least

three upsides to this approach. First, a buyer who has

paid, for example, $500 to his buyer agent as a

retainer fee is less likely to fire his agent and hire

a new one. Second, if the buyer ends up not

buying a property, the buyer agent ends up with

some money to offset costs. Third, some agents

report that when buyers pay the agent a retainer

fee up front, the buyer values the services provided by

the agent.

There are also some downsides to collecting a retainer fee. Most

importantly, it may scare away potential clients. There are also questions

of when is the fee earned and who holds the fee prior to it being earned.

Finally, there is the question of whether the fee belongs to the agent or

the agent’s broker. The last question is the easiest to answer in that

under the GAR Independent Contractor Agreement, all fees earned by

the agent in performing brokerage services, including the retainer fees,

belong to the broker. Therefore, the retainer fee would need to be paid

to the broker who would then, presumably, share it with the agent based

on the agent’s commission split.

Most REALTORS® who collect retainer fees have them paid up front

and do not deposit them into the broker’s escrow account. After,

the agreement regarding the payment of the retainer fee states that if

the buyer purchases a property, the selling broker will reimburse the

buyer an amount equal

to the retainer

By Seth G. Weissman

fee at closing. In other

cases, it is simply an extra

commission paid to the broker.

The reason that most brokers do not deposit a retainer fee in their

escrow account is that once it is so deposited, a broker is not entitled to

the same “until the transaction has been consummated or terminated.”

O.C.G.A. § 43-40-20(2). While it is unclear which “transaction” the

rule is referring to, an agreement can be made that it is referring to the

real estate transaction itself. Therefore, the safe approach is that if the

fee is deposited into the broker’s escrow account, it should not be paid

out to an agent until the real estate transaction is completed.

Are retainer fees likely to catch on? My hunch is that in most parts of

Georgia, the answer will be no. Many REALTORS® report that a number

of buyers have a difficult time coming up with earnest money, let alone

a retainer fee. The fear of losing business to REALTORS® who do not

charge a retainer fee is also a big incentive not to charge them. While

collecting a retainer fee may not be a big deal in the more affluent parts

of Georgia, the REALTORS® who do not collect them will likely also use

this fact to differentiate their services from the REALTORS® who attempt

to collect them. This alone will reduce the likelihood of retainer fees

becoming a widespread phenomena. For most REALTORS®, the prize

is being able to earn a commission upon the sale of real property.

Part of being a commissioned salesperson is accepting the risk that in

certain transactions, no commission will be earned. If the REALTORS®

can protect themselves against this downside risk, it may make it harder

for REALTORS® to justify the commission amounts they receive. Most

REALTORS® will not risk their present commission structure for a relatively

small upside that the retainer fee represents.

10 www.wncwlaw.com

the title conveyed by the sale and the rights of the owner to get the property back vary

greatly with each sale. This article will attempt to highlight the main differences between

the judicial and non-judicial tax sales from an investor’s perspective.

The Judicial Tax Sale (Tax Foreclosure)Judicial tax sales allow counties and municipalities to foreclose taxes in a manner which is quicker

and results in greater certainty of title than a non-judicial tax sale. This process is initiated when the

tax collector files a petition for a tax foreclosure in superior court identifying the owner, property,

and taxes which are the subject of the action, a listing of the interested parties, and that the relief

requested is that the property be sold at public outcry. If the court finds that the allegations of the

petition are correct, it will render a decree affirming that the taxes are delinquent and order the

property to be sold at public sale.

Any interested party may redeem the property prior to the sale by payment of the taxes,

interest, penalties, and collection costs. If the property owner redeems the property prior

to the sale, the foreclosure action is dismissed and it is as if no action had been taken.

However, if a lien holder redeems the property the action

is still dismissed, but the lien holder is given a lien against

the property for the redemption amount on equal priority

as property taxes.

The sale is “cried out” with a minimum bid comprised of

the taxes, interest, penalties, and collection costs and sold

to the highest bidder. The sale is final, subject only to the

right of the owner to redeem the property by paying the

minimum bid into the registry of the court within 60 days

from the date of the sale. If the owner redeems the property

within that period, the foreclosure action is dismissed and

the purchase price refunded to the successful bidder. If

the property is not redeemed by the owner, within 90

days of the sale the tax commissioner delivers a deed to

the purchaser and files a report with the court identifying

whether a sale took place, the sale price, and the identity

of the purchaser. If the sale price exceeds the minimum

bid, the petitioner deposits the surplus into the court’s

registry to be distributed to interested parties in order of

priority of their interests.

Upon issuance of the foreclosure deed, title vests absolutely in the purchaser with no open rights of redemption

or title marketability issues. Accordingly, many bidders will bid a higher amount than they would at a non-judicial

tax sale. However, because tax foreclosures require more front-end involvement from the tax commissioner, many

Know Your Tax Sales: Recognizing Rights and Opportunities in Judicial and Non-Judicial Tax SalesContinued from page 1

Georgia law permits properties to be sold at both judicial and non-judicial

tax sales. It is important to understand the differences between them as both the title conveyed by the sale and the

rights of the owner to get the property back vary greatly with each sale.


counties elect to sell property at non-judicial

tax sales, shifting the burden of clearing title

to the purchaser.

Non-Judicial Tax SalesThe conduct of a non-judicial tax sale is

done by a levy on the tax lien and the sale of

the property. Once the levying officer receives

the liens, he or she sends a variety of notices

to the owner of the property and the security

deed holder advising of the pending sale of

the property, posts a notice on the property,

and advertises in the county legal organ. The

tax sale is conducted on the first Tuesday of

the month on the courthouse steps, between

10:00a.m. to 4:00p.m. The levying officer

cries out the sale and solicits bids auction-

style.

Once a successful bidder is established,

the levying officer issues a tax sale deed to

the bidder within a reasonable time. The

title conveyed by that deed is subject to any

interested party’s right to redeem. Those rights

cannot be terminated by the tax sale purchaser

for at least a year after the sale and requires

significant back-end work by the purchaser

to convert his/her tax deed interest into fee

simple title. This back-end work includes the

performance of the administrative procedure

to foreclose the right of redemption and the

filing of a subsequent suit to quiet title.

If you have any questions about your rights

with respect to a property that was sold at a

tax sale or want to discuss investing in tax sale

properties, contact Allie Jett.

Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco welcomes environmental attorneys Martin Shelton

and Ashley VanderLande. Our environment team provides environmental legal services

to help clients navigate through complex regulatory frameworks, environmental issues

arising in real estate transactions, ownership, and development, and compliance and

permitting under environmental laws and regulations. Our team’s specialties include:

• Working with developers before, during, and after construction of a project to

ensure ongoing compliance with erosion and sedimentation laws and regulations

and increased storm water issues with an eye towards avoiding litigation;

• Facilitating the purchase, sale, or lease of contaminated property (for ex., dry

cleaners, auto repair shops, etc.) to minimize liability for the contamination and

any necessary clean-up;

• Handling environmental permitting and compliance needed for property

management, construction, and development, including NPDES permits, erosion

and sedimentation, air regulations, hazardous waste, and solid waste permits or

abandoned waste;

• Preparing environmental covenants, easements and provisions to address, for

example, greenways, common property, and natural resources;

• Assisting property owners with management and remediation of property

contaminated due to past or present uses on that or neighboring properties; and

• Assisting property owners with compliance and regulatory issues arising from dams,

wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds and buffers.

11

Environmental Attorneys

Join WNCW

For more information, contact:

Martin Shelton at 404-926-4564

or [email protected] or

Ashley VanderLande at 404-926-4581

or [email protected].

About the EditorSETH G. WEISSMANSeth Weissman represents developers, builders, investors and real estate brokers. He is co-author of The Red Book on Real Estate Contracts in Georgia, Secrets of Winning the Real Estate Negotiation Game and Zoning and Land Use Law in Georgia. The Red Book is a highly regarded legal reference used by real estate brokers and

agents. As general counsel to Georgia REALTORS®, Seth drafts the standard real estate forms used by REALTORS® throughout Georgia.

In addition to a law degree, Seth has a master’s degree in city and regional planning and is a Professor of City Planning in the College of Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Seth has used this additional knowledge to draft the legal documents for complex real estate developments, including vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments, residential condominiums, office condominiums and master planned communities, senior communities and themed developments. As a result, he is considered a leading authority on new urbanism. You may reach Seth at [email protected] or at 404-926-4505.

This Issue’s ContributorsFRANK O. BROWNFrank Brown is general counsel to the Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association. He represents builders and developers in real estate development and construction disputes, including those pertaining to permitting and governmental regulations, environmental law

compliance, contracts and warranties, construction defects, design defects, liens, condemnation, zoning, title issues, title insurance, easements, covenants encroachments and ad valorem taxation. Contact him at [email protected] or at 404-926-4504.

GEORGE M. BOBOGeorge Bobo works with lenders, developers and owners in sophisticated commercial transactions. He also handles general commercial real estate lending including representation of SBA lenders and institutional lenders in land acquisition, land development,

commercial and residential construction, commercial permanent financing and asset based lending for trade lines of credit. Contact him at [email protected] or at 404-926-4587.

ALLIE JETTAllie Jett represents clients in a wide range of real estate related disputes. She has extensive experience in litigating contract, title to real property, ad valorem property tax, probate estate and boundary disputes on both the trial and appellate levels. Allie frequently

represents real estate investors and property owners in all manner of property tax disputes as well as provides title insurance claims and coverage counseling and represents title insurance companies and their insured. Contact her at [email protected] or at 404-926-4626.

BILL H. GOURLEY IIIBill Gourley works with condominium associations, homeowner associations and property managers on both general counsel and litigation matters. He has extensive experience assisting community associations in covenant enforcement actions and delinquent assessment collection lawsuits. Contact him at

[email protected] or at 404-926-4503.

♦ Buckhead One Alliance Center, 4th Floor

3500 Lenox Road

Atlanta, Georgia 30326

404-926-4500 Fax: 404-926-4730

email: [email protected]

♦ Cumming 380 Dahlonega Street

Suite 100

Cumming, Georgia 30040

404-279-4080 Fax: 404-279-4180


♦ East Cobb 1225 Johnson Ferry Road

Suite 100

Marietta, Georgia 30068

404-279-4020 Fax: 404-279-4120


♦ Midtown 999 Peachtree Street, NE

Suite 855


404-279-4075 Fax: 404-279-4175


♦ North Fulton 200 North Point Center East

Suite 100

Alpharetta, Georgia 30022

404-279-4040 Fax: 404-279-4140


WNCW Offices

♦ Peachtree City 500 Westpark Drive

Suite 150

Peachtree City, Georgia 30269

770-632-2715 Fax: 770-632-2716


♦ Perimeter 5909 Peachtree Dunwoody Road

Suite 820


404-926-4990 Fax: 404-926-4871


♦ Sugarloaf 1745 North Brown Road

Suite 100

Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043

404-279-4050 Fax: 404-279-4150


♦ West Cobb 3475 Dallas Highway

Suite 510

Marietta, Georgia 30064

404-279-4015 Fax: 404-279-4115


WEISSMAN, NOWACK, CURRY & WILCO is a full-service real estate, business and litigation law firm. Our areas of specialty include residential

and commercial real estate closings, developer and builder representation, title services, condominium and homeowner

association law, real estate brokerage, zoning and land use, real estate litigation, insurance defense and insurance coverage.

WNCW has offices throughout metro Atlanta and in Miami, Florida. Please visit us at www.wncwlaw.com.

WEISSMAN, NOWACK, CURRY & WILCO is a full-service real estate, business and litigation law firm. Our areas of specialty include residential and commercial real estate closings, developer and builder

representation, title services, condominium and homeowner association law, real estate brokerage, zoning and land use, real

estate litigation, default and financial services litigation, insurance defense and insurance coverage. WNCW

has offices throughout metro Atlanta. Please visit us at www.wncwlaw.com.

SubscriptionInformation

We hope Developments in Real Estate is valuable to you. Our goal is for every person who reads the newsletter to come away with great tips that protect you and your clients from potential legal liability.

Subscribe Today# of copies: Cost per sub.- 6 issues: 1 $39 2-5 $34 5-20 $29 Over 20 $24

Call or email today to subscribe!

Dori DeRossettWeissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco

Telephone : 404-926-4598Email: [email protected]

developments in real estate | vol 14, i 2 3

Documents

diligence period

free look

gar contract

condominiums page

wncw page

nonjudicial tax sales2

gar forms

motivation of sellers