Stucco inspection found problems... (Philadelphia, Newtown: for sale, HOA, houses) - Pennsylvania (PA) - City-Data Forum

blue.amber · 05-10-2018, 10:54 AM

Our offer was accepted to buy a stucco house in north suburb of Philadelphia. It's an ideal gated neighborhood. The stucco inspection found very high readings on two walls of the house, while the other two walls have elevated readings. The seller did a stucco inspection and repairs 2 years ago, which made me even more concerned about the condition of the house. It is hardcoat stucco though, but without any caulk sealing around all windows. Houses in this whole subdivision are stucco. The house is 4132 SQ FT 2-story. Waiting for the final report and then contractor quotes. I'm not a big fan of asking seller to do the remediation, as 1) I read somewhere else that if the seller couldn't do it right the first time, how come they could do it right the second time, especially when it is done for the buyers. 2) Asking sellers to do remediation is like to ask them be the general contractor for the buyers. Again in this context, there is a high chance they're not going to do a good job. What shall we do given those concerns, walk away or what? Thanks for any suggestions!

Updates with details:
Let me specify the high readings mentioned above: The device the inspector used to test the moisture behind the stucco has the ranges as follows: <14 Normal; 15-18 Elevated; >19 Severe. The readings on the two walls I mentioned above are mostly around 18-19 with some >=21 readings. Inspector said it is likely the two walls need to be tore down and redo the stucco although he insists contractors will give advice on it.

I'm wondering if we should walk away now or try to negotiate... We have our regular house inspection (not-stucco) scheduled this weekend, which is another $800. Should we postpone the inspection and negotiate the stucco first? Yet, since it is a house >20 years old, I'm sure there would be other issues coming out from the inspection, such as roof (original roof over 20 years old), basement and etc, that require negotiation on repairs or changes.

Any suggestion is appreciated!

Flyers Girl · 05-10-2018, 11:01 AM

High readings of what? Moisture behind the stucco? If that's the case, I'd suggest walking away. My house is stucco, built in 1928, and it's fine. Apparently, though, the stucco that was used in the late 80s into the 90s was a bad batch, for lack of a better term, and the stucco on those houses is now failing. My boss and his wife walked away from a potential house for this very reason. The quote to fix it was over $100K; the seller was offering them $30,000.

NewtownBucks · 05-10-2018, 11:37 AM

We had stucco on the front of the house we live in now that we wanted removed (built 1990). We wrote conditions into the contract that

(1) The sellers had to have the stucco removed at their cost.
(2) They had to replace it with siding to match (as close as possible) to the siding on the sides and back of the house.
(3) Our stucco inspector and home inspector had to OK the work after it was done.

They agreed to all of the conditions and had the work done satisfactorily, and we haven't had any problems at all. The key is that you have to have the right to inspect the work after it's done and walk away if it's not satisfactory. If you can't trust that, then you need to reduce the price by an allowance for you to find someone to do the job yourself.

blue.amber · 05-10-2018, 11:42 AM

Thanks Flyers Girl! That's what I'm thinking. It's hard as we've been searching in that neighborhood for almost a year now, which is a highly desirable country club and has very limited number of houses for sale each year...

blue.amber · 05-10-2018, 11:46 AM

Thanks NewtownBucks! I thought about replacing the stucco of the whole house (yes, the whole house is stucco). Yet, it is unlikely for the HOA to agree as the whole subdivision is stucco. The house is in a subdivision of a large country club property.

I'm curious if you had to pay a higher closing costs due to the replacing work and thereby prolonged closing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewtownBucks

We had stucco on the front of the house we live in now that we wanted removed (built 1990). We wrote conditions into the contract that

(1) The sellers had to have the stucco removed at their cost.
(2) They had to replace it with siding to match (as close as possible) to the siding on the sides and back of the house.
(3) Our stucco inspector and home inspector had to OK the work after it was done.

They agreed to all of the conditions and had the work done satisfactorily, and we haven't had any problems at all. The key is that you have to have the right to inspect the work after it's done and walk away if it's not satisfactory. If you can't trust that, then you need to reduce the price by an allowance for you to find someone to do the job yourself.

NewtownBucks · 05-10-2018, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue.amber

Thanks NewtownBucks! I thought about replacing the stucco of the whole house (yes, the whole house is stucco). Yet, it is unlikely for the HOA to agree as the whole subdivision is stucco. The house is in a subdivision of a large country club property.

I'm curious if you had to pay a higher closing costs due to the replacing work and thereby prolonged closing?

No, at least I don't remember doing so. It was only the front, so it only took a couple weeks. I'm also in an HOA that is very particular about outward appearances and I'm sure the sellers had to get every minute detail about the siding approved by the HOA, but the whole subdivision is not stucco, it's a mixture of stucco and siding and sometimes a combination, so replacing the stucco with siding did not make the house look out of place.