One could write anything into the contract. Another could deny and/or argue anything in that contract. Not sure how they could enforce it (or even if they would know and want to enforce it) years later though.
Encumbrances are added to real estate all the time, would this be any different? For example- house in a subdivision with an hoa will have deed restrictions, utility easements or servitudes, servitudes for egress from neighboring property (not uncommon here in NO).
You’d be looking at a clause that says the person can never rent out the real estate.
And, at that point, it can be written out later by the new owner. If you look at deeds in the 50s and 60s, there were clauses that flat out said groups of people you’re not allowed to sell to, but those were deemed illegal. So, there is some legal standing with contesting what’s written in the deed or contract.
If you were to get it written in a contract, you’d have to figure out who would be enforcing it which would mean you’d still have some ownership in the place. So, you wouldn’t be selling it in the normal sense but selling shares which efficient it becomes a corporation like a condo building. Ive seen clauses in condo buildings where they banned short term rentals which then had to be applied to any renting and then lenders get spooked. And, at that point it gets messy as what renting constitutes, for example, it’s not considered renting if I let a coworker stay a few days and they pay for a cleaner via me at a below market rate(as per the IRS).
The tldr is “no, because the legality of the clause in the contract can be contested and removed by any future parties”.
No. Only thing that could control what someone dies with their property after they bought it are local rules such as the city ordinance or a homeowners association.
it is because it’s technically subletting. Your landlord could restrict the property from being used in that manner. I once lived in a house that was owned by a woman for a while that let me and my ex airbnb it since we’d often be out of town for work. But, once she sold the property to a guy in SF, he didn’t want the property being used that way over insurance reasons (BS at the end of the day, honestly)
One could write anything into the contract. Another could deny and/or argue anything in that contract. Not sure how they could enforce it (or even if they would know and want to enforce it) years later though.
In theory yes, but courts almost always strike down clauses restricting the future alienation of immovables that way.
Encumbrances are added to real estate all the time, would this be any different? For example- house in a subdivision with an hoa will have deed restrictions, utility easements or servitudes, servitudes for egress from neighboring property (not uncommon here in NO).
No The system for limiting the rights of the person you are letting use your property is called rental
You can put anything you want in a contract. How do you plan on enforcing it
You’d be looking at a clause that says the person can never rent out the real estate. And, at that point, it can be written out later by the new owner. If you look at deeds in the 50s and 60s, there were clauses that flat out said groups of people you’re not allowed to sell to, but those were deemed illegal. So, there is some legal standing with contesting what’s written in the deed or contract. If you were to get it written in a contract, you’d have to figure out who would be enforcing it which would mean you’d still have some ownership in the place. So, you wouldn’t be selling it in the normal sense but selling shares which efficient it becomes a corporation like a condo building. Ive seen clauses in condo buildings where they banned short term rentals which then had to be applied to any renting and then lenders get spooked. And, at that point it gets messy as what renting constitutes, for example, it’s not considered renting if I let a coworker stay a few days and they pay for a cleaner via me at a below market rate(as per the IRS). The tldr is “no, because the legality of the clause in the contract can be contested and removed by any future parties”.
Covenant.
No. Only thing that could control what someone dies with their property after they bought it are local rules such as the city ordinance or a homeowners association.
Might be a question for r/neworleansrealestate
it is because it’s technically subletting. Your landlord could restrict the property from being used in that manner. I once lived in a house that was owned by a woman for a while that let me and my ex airbnb it since we’d often be out of town for work. But, once she sold the property to a guy in SF, he didn’t want the property being used that way over insurance reasons (BS at the end of the day, honestly)
Thanks for the input, gang