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 am seriously considering selling my home and moving to another area. My dilemma is, my home caught on fire last year and was damaged. The insurance company covered all of the repairs and the home looks better than new. But, I'm worried that potential buyers will be hesitant due to the previous fire damage. I'm having an independent inspector to come out and check all of the work that was done by the contractors before placing the home on the market in hopes to make any potential buyers feel better about the quality of the repairs.
If you really liked a house and but it had been damaged by fire, would that stop you from purchasing the home? What would make you feel better about it?
It would all depend on the cause of the fire. If it was an electrical problem then I would be very nervous. If it was a natural occurance (such as lightening) I would be more comfortable with it as long as I had a through home inspection done.
It's really no different than buying a car that has been totaled but rebuilt.
I've sold two fire damaged homes that were fixed. Both were caused by cigarettes so that cause aspect wasn't worrisome in that regard. We provided the buyers copies of all invoices and insurance information. It wasn't an issue. Just give them whatever documentation they want to feel comfortable with the work done.
I am seriously considering selling my home and moving to another area. My dilemma is, my home caught on fire last year and was damaged. The insurance company covered all of the repairs and the home looks better than new. But, I'm worried that potential buyers will be hesitant due to the previous fire damage. I'm having an independent inspector to come out and check all of the work that was done by the contractors before placing the home on the market in hopes to make any potential buyers feel better about the quality of the repairs.
If you really liked a house and but it had been damaged by fire, would that stop you from purchasing the home? What would make you feel better about it?
I would never buy a home that was damaged by fire because there are to many chances of problems hidden from view. The only way I would even consider buying it is if a fully documented "Before" and "After" set of photos, worker receipts with guarantees, as well as all supporting documentation was made available not only for review but for my future records if needed.
It does not matter how much work was supposedly performed on a fire damaged home, how much money was spent to repair it, and how many guarantees are there for the work. If I can not see the detailed results of the work I would walk away from it.
I would want to know the cause of the fire and obviously have a very careful inspector take a look at the fire damaged and repaired areas. I would want documentation of the repair work and I would want to see that everything was repaired with permits and to code. If all that stuff was ok, then the fire in and of itself would not deter me. But, anything that looked fishy in the repair work (either poorly documented or indicated by the inspector) would probably make me walk away.
That said, the only reason it probably seems relevant is that the fire was relatively recent. I wonder what the disclosure regulations are about this kind of thing. It would seem to me that if enough time had passed, it wouldn't be something that needed to be disclosed. This makes me wonder if our neighbor from a few years back ever disclosed to their buyers that they had had a fire....
I would never buy a home that was damaged by fire because there are to many chances of problems hidden from view. The only way I would even consider buying it is if a fully documented "Before" and "After" set of photos, worker receipts with guarantees, as well as all supporting documentation was made available not only for review but for my future records if needed.
It does not matter how much work was supposedly performed on a fire damaged home, how much money was spent to repair it, and how many guarantees are there for the work. If I can not see the detailed results of the work I would walk away from it.
Couldn't the same be said for ANY house out there? Fire damaged or not there could always by some hidden problem that you can't see.
I am seriously considering selling my home and moving to another area. My dilemma is, my home caught on fire last year and was damaged. The insurance company covered all of the repairs and the home looks better than new. But, I'm worried that potential buyers will be hesitant due to the previous fire damage. I'm having an independent inspector to come out and check all of the work that was done by the contractors before placing the home on the market in hopes to make any potential buyers feel better about the quality of the repairs.
If you really liked a house and but it had been damaged by fire, would that stop you from purchasing the home? What would make you feel better about it?
In DC and MD you are not legally required to disclose that there was ever a fire in the house, only if you are aware if there is any structural damage that has not been repaired. Kinda stinks for buyers, I know, but it all depends on how ethical the seller is in filling out the disclosures for the house. This is why I have ALL of my home buyers do a thorough home inspection with a reputable inspector.
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.