# Buying the neighbor's house - Trying to AVOID the merging of properties



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

So I own a middle townhouse. 1 of 3 I'm in the middle, but that detail is NOT important. Only to the effect that my intention is to buy the other end too when it becomes available.

I'm buying one of the end townhouses as a rental, by the way these are century homes. My lawyer advises me that I'll need to put someone else on title. Since I own the property beside it, and we register you as the owner for the property right next to a property that you own, the property will merge.

In the future, unless you want to sell them together as one property you will need to "sever" the properties at the time of sale in the future. It is expensive and will take at least 6 months and a survey will be required etc.

Complications:
Candidates for putting someone on title.
*My wife* - I'd rather not because it would mean that she will also need to go in the mortgage financing as a co-signer and it will occupy her credit's TDSR when she needs to buy her own property which is in the very near future.
*My daughter( 23years old)* - no issues in terms of buying any property in the near future BUT she will lose out her first time buyer status. Apparently that is a $4000 land transfer tax rebate or something. She wont qualify for this purchase (she needs to live there) And she won't qualify in the future either. I've been told because she now has a property in her name somewhere in the world.
*Any of my numbered corporation or registered business* - my mortgage broker says the mortgage application then becomes a "commercial" with higher rates and harder qualifications. Very risky to even try.

I'm completely torn between wasting my daughter's first time home buyer's status vs facing the uncertainty and cost of "severing" the properties down the road.

I need opinions, suggestions, advice or any valid emotional outburst .
Thanks in advance


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I’ve never heard of this. The existing units should have their own legal description, deed and property identification number. interested to hear if it is in fact correct.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

First time for me too - I don't know how expansive this rule is. Canada-wide?, Ontario-wide. I'd love for experts to chime in. I'd really appreciate if someone can show or advise me the tips and tricks in keeping in solely on my name and also avoid the merger. 

Oh and yes my mortgage specialist is aware of this rule/issue she suggested to ask my lawyer to "slightly" change my name on registration of title. Missing letter, middle name on off etc. My lawyer says that that is "essentially" ineffective becuase it still "who" has legal say so on the property is effectively the same person. Though she also suggested that when I sell the place to use a different lawyer or something that is not very thorough maybe? This lawyer has represented me in the last 5 properties that I have purchased in the last two years including the middle townhouse that is beside the one I'm buying. So maybe she is saying she cannot deny not knowing. I'm completely confused. Somebody talk to me in english about this please.

My realtor is also aware of the rule - this rule is so dumb


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well, not for


Letran said:


> First time for me too - I don't know how expansive this rule is. Canada-wide?, Ontario-wide. I'd love for experts to chime in. I'd really appreciate if someone can show or advise me the tips and tricks in keeping in solely on my name and also avoid the merger.
> 
> Oh and yes my mortgage specialist is aware of this rule/issue she suggested to ask my lawyer to "slightly" change my name on registration of title. Missing letter, middle name on off etc. My lawyer says that that is "essentially" ineffective becuase it still "who" has legal say so on the property is effectively the same person. Though she also suggested that when I sell the place to use a different lawyer or something that is not very thorough maybe? This lawyer has represented me in the last 5 properties that I have purchased in the last two years including the middle townhouse that is beside the one I'm buying. So maybe she is saying she cannot deny not knowing. I'm completely confused. Somebody talk to me in english about this please.
> 
> My realtor is also aware of the rule - this rule is so dumb


Not for me to say that your lawyer is wrong. Ontario is not the place it was when I graduated from law school there and I am happy not to go back. The silly rule you now cite only reinforces me in that view.

So, if your lawyer has it right, then if you buy every house on a city block, all of those titles will somehow miraculously be transmogrified into a single title. And the corollary is that, if you later want to sell any one or more of those houses, you must apply for a subdivision, with all the attendant cost and complexity. A subdivision is the only way I know of to "sever" (I think that was intended over "severe") a portion of a parcel into a separate parcel. 

Has your lawyer identified the process by which this "merger" takes place? It suggests that the Ontario Land Registry offices (I think Ontario may still be under land registry and not a land titles system) must have someone scrutinizing titles to identify when common ownership occurs. But what if "John Doe" is the owner of whiteacre and a different "John Doe" becomes registered owner of blackacre next door? Does one receive a gift of the other's land by virtue of the common name? 

Here in BC, we have long used descriptors to help to differentiate ownership. A common way of describing a purchaser on the instrument of transfer (hence on the new title that results) is, for eg. "John James Doe, businessman, of 7001 West Point Grey Road, in the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia". There is no real magic to the description of occupation or address. You are free to call yourself anything you like as it will appear on the Certificate of Title. So Mr. Doe could appear on one title as "businessman" and on the next door title as "retired" (often seen). In Ontario, such a side-by-side registration would, I suppose, spark an investigation by the merger police, to see if there is in place a nefarious plan to defeat the merger rule (the purpose of which is very obscure, unless a device to generate future subdivision fees.)

Very weird.

Lastly, I would not consider for a moment using a name with a deliberate mispelling. That could make any future dealings with the property a real headache. Say you have to prove you are the owner entitled to convey or mortgage. You are asked to produce ID. It does not square with what's shown on title. Ugh.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Honestly, it sounds like you should get a second opinion.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

Hi Letran,
I did the same thing that you are contemplating (Ontario).
I was also concerned about the titles merging. I did not get a clear answer from our lawyer about how big a worry that was.
In any case, our solution was to hold one property singly and the other jointly. That way the ownerships remained distinct.
One of our properties was free and clear; mortgage co-signing and TDSR were a non-issue for us.

It sounds like you have a significant and growing pile of assets. If that's the case, the $4,000 "loss" by putting your daughter on title sounds insignificant. What may be significant is that she will be the owner of the property; this can be a recipe for family heartache.

Amusingly, given MP's comment, we acquired the second with a misspelling in my name. (It was not deliberate.) It did create a headache on disposition -- I had to file an affidavit. It cost me a few hundred bucks.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

Thank you fireseeker, so at least now we know this is an Ontario thing.

When I was first advised by my lawyer to put some one else's name to avoid merging I didn't think much of it. I just thought ok just put my wife's name. But delving in to it coupled with my own personal situation it makes the purchase much more cumbersome unnecessarily. As I described in my original post, my 3 options are not ideal to my situation.

It is not so much the money ($4000) although it is still quite a good chunk to lose needlessly. So my deliberation was. Fine I'm going to lose $4000 no matter which way.

1. Rebate loss $4000 - If I include my daughter's name - disqualify for future 1st time home buyer rebate (it is $4000 value NOW, the value of the unresolved rebate might foreseeable higher or the program could be cancelled completely, idk). two while I'm carrying that mortgage her credit TDSR will be lop-sided also disqualifying her for most loans. She is currently not making that much to afford a mortgage of this size and add a car loan perhaps. 

Versus

2. Possible cost of severance - $2000 -$XXXX. - Cost of lawyer, cost of application to the city. cost of required land survey, cost of any future building codes I might need to meet to sever the titles of the properties. Requires at least six months lead time to have property registry separated IF then approved.

That is what I'm currently deliberating. My question is which ones of the lesser evil or is there another way to do this. HELP.

Or of course. not buy the property. 

Mind you I'm already in deep but have not waived the financing condition yet. One I do not want a pissed off neighbor AND more importantly I do want to buy it.

As reference, directly from my lawyer.

_"The merging of the properties means that going forward you cannot deal with the properties separately they are considered one large parcel of land. Therefore, if you want to refinance, transfer title or sell one of the properties you must refinance, transfer and sell both parcels together, you cannot deal with one at a time. The only way to deal with the parcels separately after closing is to obtain a severance which would require an application to the City. The severance will certainly cost time and money and you would need to have the lands surveyed as part of the severance application. There is also a chance that the City may deny the severance application. The tax rolls may merge, but unlikely, as you usually have to apply to the tax department to merge two roll numbers. Generally speaking, roll numbers usually do not merge automatically.,"_


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Letran said:


> My daughter( 23years old) - no issues in terms of buying any property in the near future BUT she will lose out her first time buyer status. Apparently that is a $4000 land transfer tax rebate or something. She wont qualify for this purchase (she needs to live there) And she won't qualify in the future either. I've been told because she now has a property in her name somewhere in the world.
> . . .
> two while I'm carrying that mortgage her credit TDSR will be lop-sided also disqualifying her for most loans. She is currently not making that much to afford a mortgage of this size and add a car loan perhaps.



I strongly feel you should leave your daughter out of this, instead of involving her in some complicated gambit.

She's 23, probably too young to understand the various implications of the arrangement. She's an adult, and should have the autonomy to make her own decisions with her money and her own credit.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

I wonder if you could add a partner to your new purchase -- someone who would own only 1% of the property. Your lawyer, your neighbour, your dentist, anyone.
This approach is described in this RFD thread.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is a genuine question for you real estate folks, just because I don't understand real estate, and I don't own any.

Can you explain for me the basic motivations in these kinds of transactions? There are big mortgages involved, apparently the guy has numbered corporations, and clearly requires lawyers to make all this happen. You're looking for bodies to assume titles. There are many people involved, and therefore large expenses, perhaps difficulty financing the gambit, legal complications if the people don't cooperate, etc.

It all sounds very complicated. What's the goal here? Why buy a cluster of properties together? Is the idea to build a "portfolio of properties" using high leverage?

Or is the goal to do some kind of arbitrage on that cluster of houses, taking advantage of a kind of mispricing that can be turned to your advantage by merging the properties?

If the goal is simply to have a portfolio of properties, wouldn't it be more advantageous to buy the properties in different locations, so that they aren't overly concentrated on a single city block?


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

fireseeker said:


> I wonder if you could add a partner to your new purchase -- someone who would own only 1% of the property. Your lawyer, your neighbour, your dentist, anyone.
> This approach is described in this RFD thread.


Yes I've thought of it 

a silent minority partner
that I can trust
that is not a 1st time home buyer
that would qualify on a 2nd mortgage
and could take a hit on the TDSR

Still quite a list of conditions for a willing or even unwilling friend/partner

But hence, it is way too late - I do not have that much time to get another person approved on the mortgage my closing date was supposedly May 6th - I'm moving it till end of the month. Even then this option is a long shot

Although my RE agent did suggest putting my "lawyer in-trust" I'm just not quite sure how that will work.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

james4beach said:


> This is a genuine question for you real estate folks, just because I don't understand real estate, and I don't own any.
> Can you explain for me the basic motivations in these kinds of transactions?


I can't speak for the OP, and I'm certainly not a real estate guy. But I suspect "these kinds of transactions" are rare and occur only in unusual circumstances.

In my case, it seemed like there was an opportunity to assemble a parcel of land that could then be used for denser development.
Turns out I was wrong. 
The endeavour ended fine because the properties appreciated and I sold them individually. I was lucky.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I strongly feel you should leave your daughter out of this, instead of involving her in some complicated gambit.
> 
> She's 23, probably too young to understand the various implications of the arrangement. She's an adult, and should have the autonomy to make her own decisions with her money and her own credit.


Thank you james4beach, for your concern. 

As her parent and guardian I do lookout for her best interest. 
I'm also in finance so I'm aware of what and how it could affect her.

Sadly, she is still my dependent financially so she and I both know the likelihood of her buying her own in place in Toronto. 

As my child,and being around my business she is and I have fully explained if not for the purpose of educating her also of the pros and consequences of this "gambit" if you want to call it that. 

But granted I do look ahead and I also plan for the unexpected. In the event that either unforeseen situation or that she is ready to buy her own place sooner than expected. I'll be very happy to execute ant of the below exit plans.

One, I'll give her the $4000 rebate that she would have qualified for. (I'm probably going to give her more than that no matter which way anyway )
Two, I could then do one of four things

Payoff mortgage outright, releasing her. Keep the property
Refinance the property under my corporation, releasing her. Keep the property
Find an investor/partner. Refinance the property, Keep the property
Sell the property, give her a slice. Payoff mortgage outright, releasing her. (this is an investment property so that option is always mostly available)
Either which way the only effect of the "gambit" is a positive one. Her credit standing will be stronger for it. 

But thank you


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

james4beach said:


> This is a genuine question for you real estate folks, just because I don't understand real estate, and I don't own any.
> 
> Can you explain for me the basic motivations in these kinds of transactions? There are big mortgages involved, apparently the guy has numbered corporations, and clearly requires lawyers to make all this happen. You're looking for bodies to assume titles. There are many people involved, and therefore large expenses, perhaps difficulty financing the gambit, legal complications if the people don't cooperate, etc.
> 
> ...


The *motivation* is really not that complicated. For a time there I actually didn't even think that *buying* adjacent or adjoining properties is that complicated either.

I buy and finance my properties *solely all the time. Always, really*. Never added or needed or wanted a co-signer or anybody else on title for that matter. This also pertains to my principal homes. This is just me, this is how I organize my finances. My mortgage broker knows that, my realtor knows that, my lawyer knows that.
The financing is *already approved solely* on my name - I would have loved to have closed and go on my merry way. As a matter a fact adding anyone complicates the mortgage side of things.
The only delay is I cannot decide how I want to lose that $4000!!! (damn it, still not happy about this)

Motivation is largely:
*Convenience *- managing properties that are near to each other is time, labor and financially efficient.
*Control *- Maintenance of roofs that are attached, driveway, fencing front yard, parking, pest control. landscaping again is time, labor and financially efficient. Imagine talking to your neighbor about repairing a shared driveway that you hardly use or a fence. Or your neighbor's garbage disposal habits invites pests etc.
*Construction *- This is a block of 3 century old town homes. With a large unused lot behind it and at a great location it leaves open to possibilities once you have gained control of all 3 houses in that parcel of land.

_"Or is the goal to do some kind of arbitrage on that cluster of houses, taking advantage of a kind of mispricing that can be turned to your advantage by merging the properties?"_
I just want to clarify. As my post title suggests I'm trying to AVOID for it to merge

Cheers,


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve never heard of this from any of m lawyers. As for financing with a corporation you’re also getting bad advice, I’ve got a holdco for most of my properties and I get residential financing for my properties. You only get into corporate loans when you get too many properties.its the number of properties, not the name on the title that matters there. I think you need to seek better advisors


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve never heard of this from any of my lawyers. As for financing with a corporation you’re also getting bad advice, I’ve got a holdco for most of my properties and I get residential financing for my properties. You only get into corporate loans when you get too many properties.its the number of properties, not the name on the title that matters there. I think you need to seek better advisors.

one of my relatives in Ontario owned an entire block on both sides of the street, nothing was merged and he had all of them in his own name.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

fireseeker said:


> I wonder if you could add a partner to your new purchase -- someone who would own only 1% of the property. Your lawyer, your neighbour, your dentist, anyone.
> This approach is described in this RFD thread.


Thanks for the RFD link, fireseeker

That is exactly the advise that I received from everyone. hence my wife, daughter or my corps.

Wait, it just dawned on me. Can I add my mom or my dad? Hmm, we just paid off their mortgage and they are not really planning to borrow for anything anymore. Brilliant. Let me email broker and lawyer. 

Although, no matter which way as james4beach says. I'd really hate to involve *anyone*. This stupid ridiculous rule is forcing me. It should be changed.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well, given the existence of this lunatic rule, ask your solicitor if the device of a bare trust will work to avoid it. Your daughter could be trustee. It should not cost her her first buyer status to which you refer. She would not the buyer and she would hold no beneficial interest.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Letran said:


> Thanks for the RFD link, fireseeker
> 
> That is exactly the advise that I received from everyone. hence my wife, daughter or my corps.
> 
> ...


Probably you could add mom or dad. The title could be held in your name as to an undivided 99/100ths interest and mom as to an undivided 1/100 interest, as tenants in common. But then, if mom passes while you still own the property, it will become entwined in estate probate/administration issues, and who knows what other Ontario legal craziness. If the property is at some point sold for a capital gain, mom will have to report her share on her tax return or explain why she should not. Just another layer of complication. Although it seems that Ontario law on point entails complication no matter what. It's a matter of trying to reduce the pain. The idea of relative holding as bare trustee might involve the least pain. I really do not know. Ontario has decidedly gone to the dogs. That is all I can be sure of. I think I would refrain from owning real estate there.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> Well, given the existence of this lunatic rule, ask your solicitor if the device of a bare trust will work to avoid it. Your daughter could be trustee. It should not cost her her first buyer status to which you refer. She would not the buyer and she would hold no beneficial interest.


Thank you, Looks like Money or should I say Money Hungry?  
I have emailed my lawyer. I like that idea. hopefully that sticks.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

Just a Guy said:


> I’ve never heard of this from any of m lawyers. As for financing with a corporation you’re also getting bad advice, I’ve got a holdco for most of my properties and I get residential financing for my properties. You only get into corporate loans when you get too many properties.its the number of properties, not the name on the title that matters there. I think you need to seek better advisors


Hi thanks JaG, I know that you have a ton of knowledge about this so I appreciate you chiming in.

I'm not really questioning the existence or misrepresentation of the "merge" law. I'm confident that that is the case for the properties that I'm buying. fireseeker had the same experience, the RFD link also verifies that that law also applied to them. My RE agent and mortgage broker was also familiar with the rule. Although on the RFD link it also explained that it doesn't apply to all parcels. subdivisions or condos does not get affected. or maybe newer registered or recently land divided have circumvented that issue but may since this is an older part of town. I really do not understand it fully. it is lunatic as MP says. Old town city hall, maybe that is why can't tell you but I'm certain that that is indeed the situation. I do trust my lawyer. 

NOW my mortgage broker on the other hand, about the holding company. It is possible that she is either hesitant or she is lazy to try to put my corp name or any numbered company. Nonetheless, time is not on my side. My revocable date is close approaching (past actually) I need to decide quickly. This post is more of a desperate cry to sway my decision one way or the other or a miraculous brilliant way to side step the issue. I would like to pick your brain on that notion when I have more time to execute a long term solution.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Letran said:


> The financing is *already approved solely* on my name - I would have loved to have closed and go on my merry way. As a matter a fact adding anyone complicates the mortgage side of things.
> . . .
> Motivation is largely:
> *Convenience *- managing properties that are near to each other is time, labor and financially efficient.
> ...


I see, that makes a lot of sense. I especially see the benefits of controlling attached physical resources (roof, fence) and how convenient it would be to manage those in one location.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Some info here...about 1/3 way down....search for “section 50 of the planning act”.









Real Estate Dispute Resolutions







realestatearbitrator.ca





I’m super curious to understand this better.....seems highly unusual.

from another sight....”As set out in the Planning Act, when two adjoining lots are in the same ownership, they automatically merge in title, unless the lots are within a Plan of Subdivision. Once merged, it requires a planning application to separate them”


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Do you have a middle name? Could you register one property with a middle name and the other without?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Letran said:


> Hi thanks JaG, I know that you have a ton of knowledge about this so I appreciate you chiming in.
> 
> I'm not really questioning the existence or misrepresentation of the "merge" law. I'm confident that that is the case for the properties that I'm buying. fireseeker had the same experience, the RFD link also verifies that that law also applied to them. My RE agent and mortgage broker was also familiar with the rule. Although on the RFD link it also explained that it doesn't apply to all parcels. subdivisions or condos does not get affected. or maybe newer registered or recently land divided have circumvented that issue but may since this is an older part of town. I really do not understand it fully. it is lunatic as MP says. Old town city hall, maybe that is why can't tell you but I'm certain that that is indeed the situation. I do trust my lawyer.
> 
> NOW my mortgage broker on the other hand, about the holding company. It is possible that she is either hesitant or she is lazy to try to put my corp name or any numbered company. Nonetheless, time is not on my side. My revocable date is close approaching (past actually) I need to decide quickly. This post is more of a desperate cry to sway my decision one way or the other or a miraculous brilliant way to side step the issue. I would like to pick your brain on that notion when I have more time to execute a long term solution.


Well, I obviously don’t know as much as you think...I do know there’s a lot of brain dead laws in Ontario when it comes to tenants, but this merging law takes the cake. guess this is one more reason why I don’t buy in Ontario very often.

I wouldn’t worry too much about deadlines, the market is so dead people are thrilled to have anyone buy these days. 

As for financing, I can see an issue if properties were merged, but the last time I financed a property it was from my holdings corporation and I got 2.05% for 4 years fixed, but the property also wasn’t in Ontario so I could be wrong about that too.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I suspect that what is missing from this discussion is the specifics of the property/ies in question. I suspect it is not a 'universal law' that applies to all adjacent properties in Ontario or even all adjacent 'townhouses' in Ontario. I suspect it is located in a municipality where they AUTOMATICALLY merge adjacent properties if there is one owner of both.

I get this impression from the MPAC website where they state, "_Title to separately owned properties may in law “merge in title” and become one property for property assessment purposes when two or more abutting properties come under a single ownership. This may occur even if there is no Application to Consolidate Parcels registered at the land registry office. "_

It sounds to me like this is for the convenience of the Municipality in assessing and collecting taxes. 





Property Severances and Mergers of Title: Assessment Roll Adjustments | MPAC


Background MPAC assesses land at its current value, based on a legislated valuation date established by the Ontario Assessment Act. “Current value” means that MPAC assesses the value of a property based on the amount of money the land would sell for, if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller...




www.mpac.ca


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

Well I got the reply from my lawyer. 

“With respect to placing the property ‘in trust’, unfortunately, that is no longer a possibility in the Land Titles System (ie. electronic system). It used to be common to put properties ‘in trust’ in the passed in the old Registry System (ie. paper system) however, the new system does not allow for deeds to be registered ‘in trust’. Furthermore, holding title in trust for another does not avoid the merger. Many lawyers are divided on this aspect of holding properties in trust however, the courts have since determined that it does not avoid the merging of parcels.”

Time to talk to Mom and Dad


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I'd just fire the lawyer for this particular transaction. Get a new lawyer, don't tell them you own the place next door, and buy as per normal.

Leave it to the registry or city to figure out you own both, and then take it upon themselves to apply some crazy merger to their records (what would they even do? re-address and change the legal description of the property??)

Seems highly unlikely it would ever be detected, and even if it was, worse case scenario is you have to spend a few thousand on the severance process a decade from now. Instead of a few thousand on some crazy ownership scheme at the present that probably isn't even necessary...

Either that - Or buy some different unit that's a 30 second walk down the street.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I agree, a good lawyer should know how to get around this issue rather easily. A bad lawyer leaves you alone in a legal nightmare to try and figure it out for yourself. This has to be a fairly common situation with a workaround already figured out because most normal people would never want it done.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

From the MPAC webpage (Ontario property assessment provider):
*Mergers of Title*
Title to separately owned properties may in law “merge in title” and become one property for property assessment purposes when two or more abutting properties come under a single ownership. This may occur even if there is no Application to Consolidate Parcels registered at the land registry office.

Interesting PDF discussing the legal issues around this:


https://www.torkinmanes.com/docs/default-source/publications/newsletters/may-2016---section-50-of-the-planning-act-keeps-causing-real-estate-title-problemsf5bb54e1a2d5.pdf?sfvrsn=9d436b10_0



And another webpage along the same lines:








Follow up from Jan 22 webinar for the Law Society of Ontario on the basics of Section 50 of the Planning Act.


On January 22, I conducted a webinar for the Law Society of Ontario seen by over 800 registered lawyers in Ontario on the basics of Section 50 of the Planning Act. Section 50 affects virtually all…




realestatearbitrator.ca





Bizarre and interesting stuff.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

Thanks Spudd, I read both links. Unfortunately no magic bullet to AVOID the stupid merger. I'm currently in negotiation with a property with the same disposition. My appetite for these types of transactions is starting to sour.


----------



## jennbee (Oct 27, 2020)

Hi there, wondering how you ended up avoiding merging properties? We are in the same situation and would appreciate knowing your solution.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jennbee said:


> Hi there, wondering how you ended up avoiding merging properties? We are in the same situation and would appreciate knowing your solution.


This really needs real estate lawyer expertise, and make sure they have insurance


----------



## Rogalikus (Jan 31, 2021)

As far as I know, they must provide all the necessary documents. Because you are not buying bread, but a whole property. For example, when I wanted to buy a house and not for sale in the Philippines , I was consulted for about a month, talking about all the cons and pros of a particular property. And when I still decided on the property, I was presented with the entire package of documents that need to be collected and the documents for the property itself.


----------



## Angry Dwarf (Jun 11, 2021)

I had this situation when I bought my neighbors house and moved into it. I asked my real estate agent and family friend to put his name on it along with mine for 1 percent of profits if its sold. It stopped it from merger.a knowledgeable lawyer probably helped alot as we didnt even know this was a thing and have bought and sold over 80 properties in Ontario but never neighboring ones before


----------



## grenada (Oct 27, 2021)

Hey all, just wanted to jump in on this and let you know literally the easiest way around merger is to put the properties in different names. They'll only merge if they're in the same name. Put one under your spouse's name, or like Angry Dwarf said have a family friend or your real estate agent or your lawyer put it in their name. It's a dumb rule but it is what it is

Edit: Also should mention, adjoining whole lots on registered plans of subdivision won't merge, even if they're held in the same name. Any other adjoining parcels of land will.


----------



## Letran (Apr 7, 2014)

jennbee said:


> Hi there, wondering how you ended up avoiding merging properties? We are in the same situation and would appreciate knowing your solution.


There was no easy solution in my situation. I ended putting my daughter's name as 1% owner of the property. I opted to this "properly" to avoid any headaches down the road. As was discussed in the thread some lawyers might be okay to try to trick the system with inserting or switching the middle name but my lawyer decided against that and I heeded her advice.

How did yours end up?


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

peterk said:


> I'd just fire the lawyer for this particular transaction. Get a new lawyer, don't tell them you own the place next door, and buy as per normal.
> 
> Leave it to the registry or city to figure out you own both, and then take it upon themselves to apply some crazy merger to their records ...
> 
> Seems highly unlikely it would ever be detected ...


Supposedly it is an automatic feature of the Land Registry system that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is concerned about, recommending be discontinued and asking farmers to write in to complain about.









Information on merged property titles


Ontario has two property registration systems, Land Titles and Land Registry. Parts of the province, particularly the north, have always been under the Land Titles system, while much of the province was under the older Land Registry system.




ofa.on.ca






Cheers


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

We owned a semi in Brampton in 1992 and the attached property came up for sale ,we wanted to buy it but we were told we were creating a legal duplex unless we added another party on title .I assume because they are physically attached the townhouse could have the same implication.


----------

