In a condo or other formal subdivision, the property has been legally divided into physical parts that can be owned separately. Any owner of a condo or land owns a specific area of the property, registered on a cartel in public registers, and has a document identifying the territory held by each company. In contrast, ICT owners own percentages in an unshared property and not the whole of a particular unit or dwelling, and their deeds only show their ownership shares. The right of a particular owner of SACO TIC to use a particular dwelling does not derive from a written contract signed by all co-owners (often referred to as an ICT agreement), document, card or other document registered in county records. The difference between the physical distribution of property in county records (in a condo) and an unregregized contract that assigns rights of use (in an ICT) is significant both from a regulatory and practical point of view, as explained below. People opt for ICT conversion over condominium conversion, because under California law, local restrictions on condominium conversions do not apply to ICT conversions. The acceptance of individual offers from the tenant in ordinary shares is virtually impossible without a common ownership agreement. As the property has not been divided, the owner cannot accept offers for certain units or houses. Each sales contract must describe what is purchased as a percentage of the total property.
It is unlikely that a “short and simple” ICT agreement will directly address your specific problem, which effectively makes it useless. In addition, ambiguities or omissions in the “short and simple” ICT agreement can be exploited by an aggressive owner or lawyer to exploit other owners. The practice of selling tenants individually is not only possible, it has become very common in recent years and is used both by sellers interested in selling an entire property as quickly as possible and by sellers who only want to sell shares if tenants evacuate. . . .