Fee simple and Owner occupied
Can someone please explain the concepts of Fee simple and Owner Occupied? 

As I understand it, fee simple is when the person who owns a property has all the rights to the property (they haven't given anyone else the right to live in or occupy the space, for example). 

Owner occupied is when the entity that owns a building also occupies the property.

Aren't they essentially the same thing? Kinda? Or am I way off?
[{"id": "crujmf6", "text": "You're close...\n\nFee simple (fee simple absolute) is characterized as an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership and the way that real estate is owned in any common law countries. Fee Simple represents the OWNERSHIP interest in the property though this can be limited by the powers of the government entity that presides over the land. Taxation, police powers, compulsory purchase, eminent domain etc. A fee simple ownership interest can also be limited by conditions of a deed (such as an easement) that, for example, requires the land to be used for a specific purpose. If there is a \"reversion interest\" (a section of the deed that immediately transfers ownership if triggered by an event or the condition fails then this would be considered Fee Simple Conditional. \n\nYou basically have the concept of owner occupied real estate down. From the perspective of a lender, the description \"owner occupied\" is used to describe the use or utility the owner will have in the property. This means that the borrowing entity will also be the tenant in the building.\n\nFee Simple is an interest in Real Estate ownership.\n\nOwner Occupied is a description of use.\n\nLet me know if you have other questions. ", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "crutgf5", "text": "They are two different concepts.\n\nAn owner who has all the rights to a property can convey a \"fee simple\" interest in the property to a buyer. However, the owner could be a landlord, or the building could be vacant and therefore the building would not be \"owner occupied\". Owner occupied describes who is physically occupying a building, a small company that owns the building they manufacture their products in, for example.\n\nBut even if an owner doesn't physically occupy the building, that doesn't mean they cannot transfer their rights in the property to a buyer. For example, if I owned a 15 unit apartment building, i could sell you the fee simple interest in that building, even though I live across town and am not occupying any of the units.\n\nHope that helps!", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]