Homeowners
Should We Sell First?
By
Jan 27, 2006, 10:02

Many buyers feel they must sell their present home before they purchase their out-of-state real estate for retirement. Sometimes this is necessary because they need to liquidate their assets in order to allow them to make their new purchase. 

Assume for the moment that it is not financially necessary for you to sell your existing house before purchasing your retirement real estate. Then, in that case, selling may not be the best move. I have observed that the best researched and executed real estate purchase most people make is their present home. If it was a good investment when you purchased it, is it not still a good investment?

Particularly in the mid-90s when mortgage money is so inexpensive, other options should be examined that might be better than actually selling your existing primary residence. You should think about refinancing your primary residence, and then finance as much as possible on your new out-of-state purchase. Why? Simply because now is a good time to borrow and owe money since it is so inexpensive.

Currently, there are few places in the United States where the real estate market is "booming" and where prices are going through exceptional rates of appreciation. In the future you might be very happy that you never sold your house because it may be worth a lot more.

If you sold your house now and fit within the typical retirement profile, you are probably going to leverage your retirement sale by putting down only twenty percent of the purchase price. You will be left with a lot of extra cash from the proceeds of your existing home which you will put into various dubious investments which may or may not fare well for you over the years. Why not just leave that equity in your present home?

You should avoid making financial decisions on an emotional basis. I have talked to many a couple going into retirement who feel they need to cut their ties with their existing home and community by selling their home and having nothing else to do with it. They find it difficult to keep the home and rent it out because they would feel like they had strangers living in their home and this would make them uncomfortable. This doesn't make a lot of sense, of course, because from a financial view's point, go ahead and rent it out. The extra appreciation you realize in your home over the years will more than pay for any abuse that the average tenant will bring to your property.

A significant portion of those who are purchasing out-of-state real estate for retirement do not initially sell their primary residence because they feel they will be spending only part of the year in their retirement location. People will purchase a home, a condominium or a manufactured home in Florida or Arizona. with the expectation of spending time there during the peak season, say winter in Florida, and that they will return to their primary residence for the balance of the year. 

Statistically, and in my experience, after a couple of year, people decide to permanently reside in their new retirement location. To these people I also advise that you make the considerations stated above about selling your primary residence and whether you would be better off holding on to your asset and renting it out. 

Another popular movement I have observed is that many couples who are going into retirement keep their primary residence and lease it out, or sometimes actually sell it, to their children. Selling to your children, if orchestrated properly (consult an attorney and your accountant) can give you an interesting window of opportunity of utilizing your senior citizen tax exemption on realizing profit up to $125,000 without having to pay income tax on it, while at the same time a sale can be arranged to your children that meets their need and gives them a tax write-off on their growing income as your need for tax write-off diminishes since you are going onto a fixed income.