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.
I'm a first time buyer and I'm purchasing a home where an "As Is" paragraph is being used. The phrasing says that the home is purchased "as is" at the DATE OF OFFER. My understanding of this is that we are buying the home as is when we sign the contract, and that the we will not request any repairs/changes to the property BUT that the property must remain in the same condition at time of closing/possession as it was at time of offer. My attorney attempted to include this phrasing (for reinforcement) saying that if any issues or damages occur from time of offer to closing, that seller is liable to restore them back to the condition they were at time of offer. (For example, the furnace was working at time of offer (and inspection) but if it broke in the next 30 days till closing the seller would need to repair it). Makes sense I think and seems to just reinforce the already in place "As Is" provisions, right?
Well, the seller's attorney is being adamant that the sellers do not accept the provision my attorney suggested, and basically they said that they do not want to be liable for any damage or changes in the property from time of contract till closing. Their argument is that this is their interpretation of the "As Is" paragraph, but both me and my attorney are very confused by this. We believe the seller's intent goes against what assurance of the condition of the property is already provided by the As Is provision. The seller's attorney says they are confident the home will remain in good condition, but basically do not want any responsibility if something breaks in the next 30 days. This sounds pretty crappy to me, and I think that their understanding of "As Is" is incorrect. I am now working with my attorney to see if other paragraphs in the contract protect us, as there are provisions for damage to the property and allowances for final walkthroughs, but it is worrisome to me that they just won't accept a statement saying the home must be kept in the same condition till closing...
We love this home, and have been looking for 9 months so we really want this to work out, but I am very confused why they just won't warrant the house will be in the same condition at closing that it was at time of offer. I do not want to walk into a situation where the house is left a mess, appliances/systems are broken, or structural damage was made while they moved their stuff out and just be left with it. I may just be worrying too much, but I want to be protected in the rare case something like this happened. Has anyone ever experienced something like this? Whose interpretation of "As Is" is correct? Is it a dealbreaker if we can't work out some assurance the house will remain in the same condition it was when the contract was first signed?
Stick you your guns. You are buying it as is, but you expect it to be in the condition you saw it in, otherwise they could make changes or take things out, It's like buying and expecting things to be there when you did your inspection and having them the same at final walk thru, you are not asking for anything unreasonable.
The way they have it unless everything is listed in the contract they could remove the central AC and heat and all appliances and you would be stuck. Things should not change in 2 months time.
If you really want it and are getting a great deal you can bend if they are honest and your lawyer and realtor put things in the contract to protect you as much as possible. otherwise they could be rigging things to work short term that will fail when you move in.
If you agree to what they want the seller could strip the walls of copper, rip out windows and sell them, etc, and then you'd still have to pay the original price. He probably wouldn't do that but he could and that's unacceptable uncertainty and expectation to trust.
At the very least if it drops below freezing what is his incentive to go wrap the pipes?
> The phrasing says that the home is purchased "as is" at the DATE OF OFFER. The phrasing says that the home is purchased "as is" at the DATE OF OFFER.
A possible compromise would be to actually write in a date (to be clear that it is the date you viewed the home, not the closing date). And you should probably visit again to take photos. And make sure to do a final walkthrough before closing, and be ready to balk if there is a problem.
> The phrasing says that the home is purchased "as is" at the DATE OF OFFER. The phrasing says that the home is purchased "as is" at the DATE OF OFFER.
A possible compromise would be to actually write in a date (to be clear that it is the date you viewed the home, not the closing date). And you should probably visit again to take photos. And make sure to do a final walkthrough before closing, and be ready to balk if there is a problem.
He can't balk if there is a problem if he agrees to be satisfied based on an earlier date.
How does the "regular" contract in your area, outside from what your attorney wants to add, not cover damages to the property and how the seller must put it back into the condition you agreed to buy? The Texas contract has stuff about fire, flood, and other natural disasters. It also includes that things attached cannot be removed, and that the house is "as is" from the date of executed contract.
Are you sure your contract doesn't have this stuff, and that your attorney is trying to add something that is already in the contract?
Do a walk-through immediately before closing. You can still agree to accept it "as-is", but any significant changes to the house would be subject of a price adjustment. This keeps them from having to do any repairs...and it covers your financial interest in the house.
How does the "regular" contract in your area, outside from what your attorney wants to add, not cover damages to the property and how the seller must put it back into the condition you agreed to buy? The Texas contract has stuff about fire, flood, and other natural disasters. It also includes that things attached cannot be removed, and that the house is "as is" from the date of executed contract.
Are you sure your contract doesn't have this stuff, and that your attorney is trying to add something that is already in the contract?
The contract does have a paragraph for fire, flood, and natural disaster, but my attorney said that does not cover normal wear and tear damage which includes other troublesome things like water damage due to pipe burst or leaking appliance, removed fixtures, or appliances/systems damaged by the owner or from normal wear and tear. (ex. the system just happens to die).
This is also a paragraph that allows the buyer to inspect the property prior to closing, but there is actually no laid out provision within this clause for what happens if the condition is changed or no longer acceptable to the buyer. My attorney said this actually happens often, but is usually resolved at closing between the attorneys, buyer, and seller with credits or price adjustments typically being negotiated.
Finally there is also a paragraph detailing what fixtures, appliances, and systems are included with the home. This paragraph also includes warranty that these items will be in good operating condition at time of closing, however this particular line (only) is canceled by the as-is paragraph, which says any warranty provisions in this paragraph no longer apply.
The paragraph containing the "as is" provisions simply states that "the buyer agrees for the sale and purchase of the home in as is condition at the date of offer." There is no provision here for what happens if condition changes, which is what my attorney is trying to include, but the seller keeps denying it. The contract already provides protection from major natural disaster and removal of any fixtures, appliances, property, or systems between time of offer to time of closing, but we are trying to include the provision of what happens if there is other damages or MAJOR changes of condition to the property which does not seem to be currently covered in the contract. Like others have echoed here, this does not seem unreasonable at all, and serves to protect us against the rare, but potentially disastrous cases that the seller does something accidentally stupid or intentionally malicious to the property prior to closing.
I hope we can reach a resolution! Sheesh! We want this deal to work out!
The paragraph containing the "as is" provisions simply states that "the buyer agrees for the sale and purchase of the home in as is condition at the date of offer."
This is your protection right there. It specifically states that you're buying it in the condition per the date of your offer. If you get to closing and it's not in the same condition, you have a way out or you negotiate a credit to put it back into the proper condition. I think you, and your attorney, are trying too hard to write in every "what if" situation, but it simply states that the property must be in the condition you agreed to buy it. That also goes further to imply that the condition cannot be made worse. Adding words to the contract to make this specific doesn't change the words already written.
I guess this is why Texas is not an attorney state. We keep things simple and everyone understands that "condition at time of sale" means the condition better be the same at time of closing.
Firstly, if you have an EXPERIENCED attorney that has done real estate deals in Illinois and so does the seller then they REALLY ought not trouble you too much -- the standards have been hammered out over MANY legal cases and while the GENERAL principle of "buyer beware" typically applies there are not a whole lot of judges that take kindly to having their court docket clogged up with scammers trying to strip out a house that the seller knows is not going to be torn down...
THAT SAID, if you are thinking about "tearing the place down" (which is actually more than a little common in certain nicer suburbs of Chicago...) and you are trying to lock-in value for certain elements that you want for salvage value then you really have to get agreement on spelling that out in the contract or have no "meeting of the minds" and the deal won't go forward...
Given the fact that you are moving forward with a place in "AS IS" condition it is fair to assume that you know the place NEEDS WORK and even if you are not going to tear it down it makes sense that you and the seller understand that ANYTHING that makes that work HARDER / more extensive between 'now' and when you get the place fixed up is GOING TO COST YOU MONEY so it is entirely understandable that you have some assurance that the seller will take "reasonable care" getting whatever junk they want out of the place. Is there an especially worrisome level of "hoardness" here? Maybe the seller wants to hire some crew with shovels to "clean it out" and you are better off telling them you will accept the place with any personal items / chattle...
Alternatively you might suggest your attorney and the seller's attorney put in some kind of mediation & arbitration clause instead of traditional escrow... Real Estate Mediation and Arbitration If this is a "first deal" for you maybe you are freaking over nothing?
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.
