Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens if you get a pre-inspection and don't agree with something on it? If you live in a state where you have to disclose known issues would you have to disclose that?
I had that happen. The inspector made a mistake. I had him come out verify that he made a mistake and he correct the inspection report for my clients.
What kind of situation are you thinking of where you might not agree with something on the report?
See this is a perfect example of why a presale inspection should occur. You obviously walked away from this house. So imagine a seller having done a presale, already had the termites treated, called the roofing contractor that messed up and didn't do their job to come out and correct those items and replaced the boots around the vents like they should have when they redid the roof. The seller has the bathroom fan vented properly to the roof (which was likely the source of the moist air causing the mold and fungus) so they correct the problem and treat it. They would have a chance to correct the venting on the wood stove and fix the leak.
So, the question is...if you had received a presale report, along with a reinspect report, showing the defects and the repairs, would you have walked away from the house?
I will add some info,the owner a lady 92 now in rest home has son from out of state handling sale.The house,1947,for some reason had a root cellar in basement with concrete walls and door entrance and dirt floor(4 by 15).The door remained closed for many years hence mold and fungus,remidied by state law but not disclosed.On this report it was disclosed there was water leakage in corner of basement and a closet was also treated for mold,not disclosed.Disclosure statement checked off that no water intrusion of any kind.My concern was water intrusion because basement was needed,
The prelisting inspection often serves to mitigate seller's amnesia.
Is that why you pay for it? Gotta assume that this is a good ROI for you. Either fix it or disclose it. Certainly smooths over the post sale inspection and helps close the deal (commission). But it can come at a heavy cost to your seller.
To quote your words, I think having your sellers get a pre-approval inspection is "putting a gun to their head".
Disclosure laws vary state to state and sometimes within state.
Not all states require sellers to disclose.
I had to go to an arbitration (which we won), based on a unethical sellers and home inspection report. Our lawyer/ mediator explained to us why the sellers disclosure is really to protect realtors and NOT a legally binding document and has really no effect on any future legal process's. After selling more than a few houses in 4 states, I've dealt with about 10 home inspection process's. Only two of them I would say were worth the cost and effort. Its an industry where anyone can get a license and create havoc. To have a 24 year old kid come into an older property and tell the potential buyer that simple spalling is "structural damage" is beyond frustrating. Our last sham of a home inspection was because the house was an FHA loan, not by choice. If I am ever in doubt of something I will pay a professional of that discipline to come and examine it, instead.
I don't guess you liked my suggesstion of you doing the Pre-Listing Inspection and then collecting your money at closing.
If OP is looking to build or generate his business this would be a good method.
Absolutely...My point being in these competitive times, The listing agent should be doing all they can to insure the best possible service. Hoping the buyer won't discover or pretending that the seller didn't know about a defect just makes it more difficult to get the sale to closing.
Maybe home inspectors should lobby their legislature to include a home inspection report as part of the sellers disclosure...
Or not.
If you want to "help" your business, then you just go ahead and be the most competent home inspector you can be. It's not my responsibility as a home seller to make sure you have work.
Forcing someone to use a service rarely results in that service being of the highest quality.
I had to go to an arbitration (which we won), based on a unethical sellers and home inspection report. Our lawyer/ mediator explained to us why the sellers disclosure is really to protect realtors and NOT a legally binding document and has really no effect on any future legal process's.. .
Are you saying that your own lawyer was the mediator? How can one's own attorney be an unbiased mediator?
In Arizona the agent does not fill out the sellers disclosure. That must be done entirely by the seller.
The AZ sellers disclosure is to protect the seller and buyer. As long as defects that are known, or should be known by the seller are disclosed, then the seller has protection.
If the seller does not disclose something that he knows or should have known, then it protects the buyer.
In AZ, an agent is not required to inspect because they are not licensed inspectors. However, they are required to disclose any material defect that they observe. They must inform the seller of it, and must disclose it to the buyer; preferably by having the seller update the sellers disclosure.
The sellers disclosure will have an effect on any legal action that is brought about regarding non-disclosure. That document, signed and dated by the seller will show whether the seller did or did not disclose some disputed issue. A judge would determine if the seller should have known about the issue.
Absolutely...My point being in these competitive times, The listing agent should be doing all they can to insure the best possible service. Hoping the buyer won't discover or pretending that the seller didn't know about a defect just makes it more difficult to get the sale to closing.
There is value to a pre-listing inspection but only if it is a thorough inspection and the seller is willing to deal with the any results that come up. By "deal with" I mean that they are willing to accept the results, correct major deficiencies if they can afford to do so, and be prepared to handle the buyer's questions and concerns on any remaining items. Unfortunately many pre-listing inspections are performed by less than thorough Inspectors (??) and become nothing more than window dressing for the sale. If an Inspector chooses to act in that manner ("Window Dresser") then quite frankly they should not be in the business of inspecting homes!
As for RE Agents paying for the pre-listing inspection that is one of choice as it should be.
As for having a requirement that every home be pre-inspected as a law/rule/requirement is not necessarily the best of ideas. A home's condition can change and then what should be mandated as a proper interval for re-inspecting the home if it sits on the market for any length of time? What good is forcing a pre-listing inspection if the homeowner does not have the financial ability, or plans, to correct anything found? However on the requirement of having homes inspected by the seller I do believe that ALL flip homes should have requirements to be inspected before selling them! There are very good Investors out there who have called me to inspect their homes before a sale to make sure they have not missed anything. For those good Investors they do a fantastic rehab job! On the other side of the coin I have inspected flip homes that should have their Certificate of Occupancy pulled until they correct the butcher job done on the home!
Are you saying that your own lawyer was the mediator? How can one's own attorney be an unbiased mediator?
In Arizona the agent does not fill out the sellers disclosure. That must be done entirely by the seller.
The AZ sellers disclosure is to protect the seller and buyer. As long as defects that are known, or should be known by the seller are disclosed, then the seller has protection.
If the seller does not disclose something that he knows or should have known, then it protects the buyer.
In AZ, an agent is not required to inspect because they are not licensed inspectors. However, they are required to disclose any material defect that they observe. They must inform the seller of it, and must disclose it to the buyer; preferably by having the seller update the sellers disclosure.
The sellers disclosure will have an effect on any legal action that is brought about regarding non-disclosure. That document, signed and dated by the seller will show whether the seller did or did not disclose some disputed issue. A judge would determine if the seller should have known about the issue.
I only mentioned "lawyer" because the mediator, who has to be mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller in my state, gave us reasons why the disclosure means nothing at our legal proceeding. As part of my complaint, I was pointing out all of the items that the seller lied about or was not forthcoming. That is when it was imparted upon me that the disclosure means pretty much nothing. I won the mediation, but it could only be based on what the seller did not follow through on in the actual contract. Since this was from a real estate lawyer/board certified mediator, I am assuming this is correct information in our state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
