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.
A home was listed 6 months ago. It got delisted and now is active again with a different realtor. During the process, the home size went from 1248 sq ft to 1293 sq ft. I noticed the discrepancy because I have been following this house. Since this is a patio home, I don't think the owner can make changes to the house size. Every other online record I could find indicate that this house is 1248 sq ft. Is this cheating? It is strange because this exact model in this community are all 1248 sq ft. This matters to me because if it is anywhere near $500K I can buy it but not at $540K. I think the 50 sq ft is a big difference for a house this size.
Unless the previous realtor did not include an additional space- the agent I hired said that we had not previously included the upstairs finished attic in our sq footage so there is a jump in size from tax records to what house is listed. I personally think we a re fudging a bit but he actually had someone come in and measure each room so I assume that is where the figures came from.
No, not necessarily. When the new listing agent took over they most likely verified all the home dimensions and didn't look at tax records and the like. This small of difference is not a big issues as you or your agent would trust but verify all of this information anyway.
In the MLS listing i promise you your agent will find the words "information deemed reliable but not guaranteed" and "Agent to verify all information provided" or similar.
It happens... so cheating? may be an honest bad mistake or it may be accurate and more correct than the previous listing and tax records.
There are a lot of threads on here about square footage discrepancies. There are different ways of measuring and there are debates about what is considered living area and what is not. Chances are neither of these numbers is wrong.
Even though the difference is only 50 sq ft. I am hoping that the house is less attractive to prospective buyers if it is deemed ~1200 sq ft rather than ~1300 sq ft. Price is a little high. Right now I don't think an offer of $500K would be competitive, especially if the house is ~1300 sq ft.
The SqFt number is really more about the search results than anything at this point. Cost per SqFt has little to no practical value. It is just easy math that can compare two or more properties quickly, but doesn't give a bigger picture.
So if someone is looking for a 1250 SqFt home or more, it will now appear in the search results. If they wanted a home less than 1250 SqFt, it will not show up.
In my MLS, agents have to state whether the square footage measurement came from an appraiser, the builders' plans, the county public records, or whether the agent measured it themselves. And those numbers can vary a lot. Even on my house, the builders plans and the public records are different. And the appraisal I had done for a refi had a 3rd different answer. So 3 sources, 3 answers, and my home is a simple single level box, only about 13 years old, with no additions or changes. (Incidentally, I'm about 1250 square feet, about the same as in this story).
I was also told by the appraiser that they don't adjust for square footage unless the discrepancy is over 100 square feet. So the discrepancy you have described would make 0 difference to an appraiser, at least in my area.
If you are basing your offer price on the square footage, you're doing it wrong.
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.