The old square footage con game again. (Austin: for sale, renter)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

This is troubling to me. The owner and agents certainly should be liable, (in my opinion), regarding the home they are selling. This loop hole whereby they are not accountable for "accurate" information regarding such a large purchase is absurd. Why should the purchasing public just think that it's the norm for the square footage to be incorrect "somewhere". How hard is it to use a tape measure?

My father would have called people that misrepresented shysters.

I agree with you completely here. Especially in this case where the difference from 3700 SF and 3100 SF is huge.

I can understand the Real Estate agent not being liable for an error when they relied on information provided by the surveyor or appraiser who measured the house. But someone should be liable for their mistake.

I'm curious what the case law actually says about this kind of problem.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

This is troubling to me. The owner and agents certainly should be liable, (in my opinion), regarding the home they are selling. This loop hole whereby they are not accountable for "accurate" information regarding such a large purchase is absurd. Why should the purchasing public just think that it's the norm for the square footage to be incorrect "somewhere". How hard is it to use a tape measure?

My father would have called people that misrepresented shysters.

Do me a favor, measure your own home and come back and tell us what you came up with and how it compares to the tax record size. Then check your appraisal and tell us what it says there. Then have your husband measure and see what he comes up with. You'll have 4 different numbers and if you measure 4 more times you'll have 8 different numbers.

Which number do you want the Realtor to be sued for for not reporting?

If exact, precise square footage is important to a buyer or renter, they need to bring their own tape measure when looking at the house and come up with their own number. It's absurd to think I should be required to precisely report something that is inherently imprecise.

Steve

[austin-steve]

I'm curious what the case law actually says about this kind of problem.

It says, in short, that the purchase contract made no mention of square footage, the buyer walked through the house, had ample inspection time, opportunity to make any and all determination deemed important, and that the buyer's failure to verify or check out the square footage is not the problem of the seller or the agents. The exception would be dishonesty that can be proven.

Think about it as a seller. You know what your tax records say. You know what you're appraiser said. You know what the builder's original floor plan said. All three numbers are different. You go with the smaller number to be safe, and you list the source of your information. Do you personally now want to be responsible for inaccuracies that most surely exist in the stated measurement? Do you want some crybaby buyer calling you a year after closing saying they just measured the house and you own them $16,300 (at $1.00 per sqft foot) because the house is 163 sqft smaller, by their measurement, than what you disclosed?

No, you'll want to tell them to get lost, take a hike, go get a life. The current court rulings on this are the only sensible way to handle it. Buyer/renter is responsible for verifying things that are of material concern to them. Sellers and agents can only report existing, known square foot size and source.

FYI - we measure exterior size. So a 40ftx80ft home, as measured corner to corner on the exterior, (excluding garage), would be a 3200 sqft home. If you measure the interior space, wall to wall, you'll get a much smaller number. Two story homes are even trickier.

Most houses are not perfect squares or rectangles. the nooks and crannies have to be factored in and out, as well as garage space and sometimes you really do just have to guess where the garage or attic wall ends on the other side. It's very inexact. Therefore it's ridiculous to think someone should be held accountable for not reporting a perfect size.

Steve

[CarnivalGal]

While I agree that there will always be some discrepancy in square footage, a difference of 600 square feet on a house of that size seems pretty excessive to me.

[atxcio]

BTW, I wasn't implying that the real estate agent be "liable" for the square footage discrepancy -- just that he/she could (or should) be subject to potential action by the board of realtors if:

* The property was listed as 600 sq ft larger than tax appraisal, and
* The agent did not have some decent evidence (a homeowner appraisal, builder's plans, etc) to use the higher number.

I agree that real estate agents need protection from liability in general; it's just a part of their jobs that they would deal with millions of dollars of transactions, even if they are on the low end... i.e, any real liability on these transactions could completely wipe out a real estate agent and all their net worth. So it's not realistic to make them responsible for the kinds of monetary losses that could potentially happen.

Alternately, there is (I would hope so, anyway) some disciplinary action that can be taken against the agent for negligence. I'm just recommending the OP, if their case is indeed as they portray, threaten to report the real estate agent. I am neither a real estate agent nor a lawyer, however, so this is all speculation on my part.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by mm57553

While I agree that there will always be some discrepancy in square footage, a difference of 600 square feet on a house of that size seems pretty excessive to me.

I agree. That's a big difference, and I've seen bigger.

But it doesn't change the liability question. OP could have flown to Austin and walked the house before leasing it. He chose not to, assuming a risk. He doesn't get to shift the consequences of his imprudence to the owner and/or agent unless they knowingly and intentionally used a blatant misrepresentation of size to actually induce his decision to rent the home.

Steve

[centralaustinite]

Steve is absolute right here. There is no single legal standard for determining the sq footage of the house!

Do you measure the external dimensions (outside the walls) or the inside dimensions?

Do you count unconditioned space?

Do you count closets?

How do you account for stairs (there are at least two ways to do it). What about the space under the stairs?

What about conditioned (drywalled, insulated, ducted space) that holds water heaters, AC etc? This is a green trend, units work more efficiently if they are kept in conditioned space.

I built my house, the architect's plan lists one number, the tax appraisal another, the bank appraisal yet a third number. There is no fraud, just different methods to get to a number. "Sq footage" can mean the internal space between the walls and the roof, it can mean conditioned living space, with or without closets. Banks do it one way, tax office does it another.

600 sq feet is a large number but in a large house, perhaps one with later additions or modifications, it can happen.

Houses are sold and leased as a single unit not by the sq foot!

The case law and precedent are very clear on this point. As long as the source of the number is given and the buyer has ample opportunity to examine and inspect the house, the seller and any agents are in the clear.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by austinhome

Can someone tell me what you would have done in this situation.

You are from out of town, you see a house on the internet you like, you call the listing real estate agent, he has the house listed as a 3700 square foot house.

What would you do if you moved your whole family here and when you got to the house you noticed the house was small and you notice some other things were not right like sewage smell etc. Your in the house for a week and you know now for sure because you have measured the house and been able to check tax records that it is 3100 square feet and the sewage smell has still not gone away.

I sent in writting all of my issues to the owner and real estate agent of the house. I agreed to lease the house for 2300 a month and I have paid 5100.00 prior to seeing or moving into the house.

Now the owner and real estate agent have both said a week and half into the deal and after they have read the review of the condition of the home. They tell me they don't want to get in any type of lawsuit and that we can just move out. They were not willing to return any deposit or first mouths rent.

What do you do? or what would you have done? Keep in mind that money is tight because you already gave them 5100 hundred dollars plus all utilities turned on.

you are renting a house that is smaller than they said it was.
so what?
is it big enough?

you gave them $5,100 before you even saw the place?
unbelievable.
no offense, but that was a really dumb thing to do.
i hope you learned your lesson.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Telling someone they are "dumb" because they followed through with a deal with people that were suppose to be professional is the pot calling the kettle black.

Seems like this board really gets into blaming the victim.

There could be a hundred and one reasons why someone might not be able to do a walk though. That is why they use real-estate agents, (professionals). But hey, I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong.

So, we're just suppose to assume that whatever it is someone tells us is a lie until we see for ourselves? I could understand this type of thinking with strangers but when you hire someone that's a different story.

Please, let me clarify. There should be some sort of check in procedure to insure the information being put out there is credible. When we were purchasing this house the information on the internet "sheet" concerning the house was a joke. Some of it was an outright lie. I don't know what part of the process needs to be accurate but one would think the whole process would be. I realize numbers are going to be off a bit but huge differences are something else.

Before everyone runs away saying they don't want to be accountable someone needs to be held up to a standard of truth. Who that is I don't know. The people you hire to do the inspection? The people you hire to purchase the house? The people that do the inspection after the inspection? The paperwork on file at the courthouse?

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Telling someone they are "dumb" because they followed through with a deal with people that were suppose to be professional is the pot calling the kettle black.

Seems like this board really gets into blaming the victim.

There could be a hundred and one reasons why someone might not be able to do a walk though. That is why they use real-estate agents, (professionals). But hey, I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong.

So, we're just suppose to assume that whatever it is someone tells us is a lie until we see for ourselves? I could understand this type of thinking with strangers but when you hire someone that's a different story.

Please, let me clarify. There should be some sort of check in procedure to insure the information being put out there is credible. When we were purchasing this house the information on the internet "sheet" concerning the house was a joke. Some of it was an outright lie. I don't know what part of the process needs to be accurate but one would think the whole process would be. I realize numbers are going to be off a bit but huge differences are something else.

Before everyone runs away saying they don't want to be accountable someone needs to be held up to a standard of truth. Who that is I don't know. The people you hire to do the inspection? The people you hire to purchase the house? The people that do the inspection after the inspection? The paperwork on file at the courthouse?

I did not tell anyone they were dumb.

"unbelievable. no offense, but that was a really dumb thing to do."

And I sincerely hoped they learned their lesson.