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.
Question: How about this scenario? If the first buyer of a bank owned foreclosure walks away due to environmental damage such as water, mold etc. found during home inspection AND they send the Inspector reports to The Bank, detailing the damage, inspector reports etc. Is the Bank not then required to disclose these reports to the second buyer that might come along or can they sell AS IS without any disclosures?
In North Carolina, the bank is exempt from disclosure on a foreclosure. Do NOT expect ethical behavior from an REO department.
The REALTOR entering the home into the MLS either better disclose, or maintain some sort of "plausible denial."
In North Carolina, the bank is exempt from disclosure on a foreclosure. Do NOT expect ethical behavior from an REO department.
The REALTOR entering the home into the MLS either better disclose, or maintain some sort of "plausible denial."
After looking at the law in NV I was surprised to find that the lenders have no immunity. What they are in fact doing is forcing a general let out to disclosure that is available to all sellers. It appears the statute was modified so the lenders did have to disclose anything they knew so they then went to the general notarized waiver. RE Agents still tell clients that lenders are exempt...but it is not true.
I would think any knowing agent is in big trouble. The buyer is almost guaranteed to come back at the brokerage.
There may be insurance proceeds to be had to fix up the place.
What lender would not winterize a property in an area that is subject to freezes?
Well if this Round Lake happens to be the Round Lake way north of Chicago, I can think of many similar instances where winterizing fell through the cracks. These situations become obvious during the winter.
Well if this Round Lake happens to be the Round Lake way north of Chicago, I can think of many similar instances where winterizing fell through the cracks. These situations become obvious during the winter.
This post is 7 months old....so the timing works.
I've also seen addendums stating the buyer is responsible for de-winterizing and re-winterizing (as well as utility turn ons) when it comes to inspections.
I wonder if that wasn't the case with the original poster.
After looking at the law in NV I was surprised to find that the lenders have no immunity. What they are in fact doing is forcing a general let out to disclosure that is available to all sellers. It appears the statute was modified so the lenders did have to disclose anything they knew so they then went to the general notarized waiver. RE Agents still tell clients that lenders are exempt...but it is not true.
I would think any knowing agent is in big trouble. The buyer is almost guaranteed to come back at the brokerage.
NC REO listing agents routinely cut corners in disclosure.
REO listings commonly verge into ethically scandalous territory, IMO.
And the banks have no requirement to disclose here. I am glad to see that NV has addressed the topic.
Of course, any selling party in NC can disclose "No Representation," which amounts to the same thing.
Did you ever get reimbursed the appraisal, inspection, etc on the foreclosed property that was not winterized?
The EXACT same thing just happened to me. I had a foreclosed house under contract (in the Houston area). The bank did not winterize the property. The pipes burst a few days ago (only 2 days before closing), and did a lot of damage to the walls, ceilings, floors. The bank said they would give me the earnest money back. However, the bank said that the inspection, appraisal and survey fees would not be reimbursed. How did this situation resolve for you?
I have never, not once, heard of anyone being successful in getting the bank to pay for the home inspection or appraisal if the deal subsequently goes south.
Heck, I am not aware of a buyer being reimbursed even when it's a traditional sale, unless such language was written into the original contract.
I have never, not once, heard of anyone being successful in getting the bank to pay for the home inspection or appraisal if the deal subsequently goes south.
Heck, I am not aware of a buyer being reimbursed even when it's a traditional sale, unless such language was written into the original contract.
I cannot imagine any bank agreeing to such terms.
All this falls under the "ship happens" banner.
However it might make a fun small claims case. Allege gross negligence which would likely top the contract language.
Corporations are often unwilling to do battle in small claims court.
However it might make a fun small claims case. Allege gross negligence which would likely top the contract language.
Corporations are often unwilling to do battle in small claims court.
I happen to agree.
Moreover, it's possible you can use the banks own contract language agaisnt them. Most likely, they wrote in an "AS-IS" clause. They didn't want anyone thinking they would do any sort of fixing or repairing. Check the clause. If it says anything along the lines of "the house is purchased in substiantally the same condition in which it is when viewed...", why not sue to force them to return it to that condition? Of course, that assumes yo still want to buy it.
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.
