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.
As a house buyer, I receive the seller's disclosures and then I have my own inspection done.
Imagine I learn there is a major issue of which the home seller is not aware. I have to disclose that reason to the seller why I am backing-out. I've spent hundreds on an inspection and the seller gets the information for free.
Seems like the seller should also put up some earnest money about their disclosures. If the inspection reveals that they have missed a major issue, then the potential buyer should be reimbursed the inspection cost from the seller's earnest money.
Inspections are for a buyers knowledge, not the sellers. If a buyer gets information from an inspection that causes them to back out the seller doesn't benefit at all. It's just part of a buyers due diligence. You're spending a few hundred to protect a few thousand.
As a house buyer, I receive the seller's disclosures and then I have my own inspection done.
Imagine I learn there is a major issue of which the home seller is not aware. I have to disclose that reason to the seller why I am backing-out. I've spent hundreds on an inspection and the seller gets the information for free.
Seems like the seller should also put up some earnest money about their disclosures. If the inspection reveals that they have missed a major issue, then the potential buyer should be reimbursed the inspection cost from the seller's earnest money.
Seller's disclosure is what they "know". It could be nothing. This is why you pay a professional to evaluate for you. You want the evaluator to be working for you, not the seller.
When you disclose the information to the seller, it hurts them more than it helps.
As a buyer, you do benefit from the inspection (with a good inspector). Not only are you getting a professional evaluation, you should be learning from the inspector. I hope you are not just paying the inspector a fee and wait for the report. You want to be there for the home inspection. Ask questions and learn.
Earnest money is primarily to prevent the buyer from backing out for reasons NOT covered by the contingencies (or to compensate the seller a little if it does happen). Where this happens, the seller has lost out on potential sales because the house is essentially off the market once it goes into contract - many buyers won't look at a house while it is in contract. This is considerably more risk and potential loss than a few hundred dollars for an inspection.
Further, buyers always have the option to negotiate with the seller about the "major issue."
As a practical matter, how would your suggestion work? Does the buyer have to prove that the seller knew about the "major issue" but failed to disclose it? How hard would that be? What about the issue of differences of opinions and expertise from one inspector to another?
Finally, if the seller wanted the information that an inspection would provide, she or he would have paid for it before putting the house is up for sale.
Inspections are for a buyers knowledge, not the sellers.
Can a buyer back-out after an inspection and get back their earnest money without providing the inspection details to the seller?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sj08054
Seller's disclosure is what they "know". It could be nothing. This is why you pay a professional to evaluate for you. You want the evaluator to be working for you, not the seller.
My OP is about the the buyer initially hiring & paying for own inspection. The inspector is only obligated to the buyer.
The seller reimburses the buyer if a MAJOR issue is not on the seller's disclosure. There are issues that, if listed up-front, would cause a house buyer to run away before making an offer. For example: If the foundation has major issues, then the sellers are wasting buyers' time and money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACWhite
As a practical matter, how would your suggestion work? Does the buyer have to prove that the seller knew about the "major issue" but failed to disclose it? How hard would that be? What about the issue of differences of opinions and expertise from one inspector to another?
The buyer could list a few specific measurable indicators. For example, the house must have a radon level below an agreed-upon level. The seller would compensate the buyer for the inspection(s) if the radon level exceeded the level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
No one is forcing a buyer to get an inspection. It is completely voluntary.
It would be voluntary for the seller to stake his or her own earnest money that his/her house will pass specific inspections.
since inspections can be a deal-breaker, I do believe it is wise (tho not necessary) for a seller to do an initial inspection, a few hundred dollars to minimize "surprises"
how many times, have we had a buyer do an inspection, and then the fun begins, emotions are high, and the agent is trying to keep a contract together and appease all parties.
for an owner to do an inspection, and if the results are good- have it on the kitchen table , when having "showings"
how often do we see this??
when selling a property for hundreds of thousands of dollars,,,a 300-500 dollar inspection, seems very wise to me
and yes, i know inspections are time sensitive and can be perceived as bias, but i do wish this was the norm- since inspections have killed many a deals.
even if the owner had an inspection, the buyer(or bank) would do their own,,,,,but again, this should minimize surprises- and make owners aware of issues so they can address them sooner
for an owner to do an inspection, and if the results are good- have it on the kitchen table , when having "showings"
how often do we see this??
In the area I was selling my home it was quite common, and expected, for the inspections to be done by the seller and included in the packet for potential buyers.
Do you want the seller to pay for you to move in, too? Take you out to dinner? Make your first mortgage payment?
After the contract is signed, the ball is in the buyer's court. The buyer has to be a grownup and assume responsibility for a major transaction. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be buying a house.
Why would the seller put up money? He puts up a HOUSE!
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.
