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.
We will likely end up going this route, especially with the crawl space. With the roof the seller will want the option to see if they can get insurance to cover the replacement first. Ultimately if they don’t at least agree to pay for the roof/crawl space, (or most of it), we will walk.
Maybe you should walk. Even though you have lived in an older home, maybe you are not suited for it now.
The roofing estimators are all going to say the roof needs to be replaced because they want the job. They should be able to confirm if it is actually ten years old, or older than that.
I am not clear if the house has two different roofs, front and back? Then obviously the sides would be different ages. Insurance storm coverage only pays for one side if the other didn't get damaged so many homes have different aged roof sides even if shingles match.
The things these inspections found perhaps the sellers had no idea. Why would they if they hadn't had their own inspections. Some of it sounds overblown and suspect anyway and more a matter of opinion than something that is unsafe, which is what inspections really should be about. Old houses are often a PITA, and that's just how it is. They are also often well built in great locations with mature trees and landscaping, and cheaper than new houses.
I would sell for less as a seller to a cash no contingency buyer than play these games.
It makes zero sense to not ask for this information. I thought the same thing: that the buyer does not want to upset the seller for some reason. That the OP believes it is the perfect house reinforces my belief that that is the case. The whole "we didn't ask for documentation because we have a legal right to back out," is a very strange response to me.
I'm picturing being in the situation in which I love a home and take the seller's word on the age/condition of the roof. Then inspections show that the information I received from the seller does not add up. So what do I do? I say, "Oh well, I won't ask them for proof that the roof is only 10 years old because if I find this out later" (through osmosis or in a dream?) I'll be able to legally back out of the deal...
It's all up to the OP how they handle it but do the agents that post here think it's weird that the buyer is not requesting proof of the age of the roof? Wouldn't you insist they ask for it as their advocate/representative in the deal?
I guess I don’t understand where you’re getting some of you’re assumptions. I never said we were opposed to getting documentation on the age of the roof. The day after we got the bad roof inspection, we gave them an ultimatum that said “replace the roof, (or credit for a replacement roof), or we’re out.” We probably will ask for it later in the week, especially depending on how the meeting goes with their roofer/adjuster, but whether or not they can produce the documentation, our stance stays the same. If it’s a 10 year old roof, it’s a crappy one, and we’re asking for a replacement. If it’s a 50 year old roof, we’re asking for a replacement.
Interesting. Within the last year in one of the state threads -- I think North Carolina -- a poster wrote about how most people's new roofs were paid for by their insurance companies and all they had to do was show was some "storm damage" or "hail damage" and even if the roof was 25 years old, they'd get a whole new roof free, courtesy of the insurance company. I was skeptical but it appeared to be common there. (I STILL find it hard to believe, since to replace an entire roof -- especially a relatively new one, as an 8-year-old roof would be -- seems like it would make the cost of insurance sky-high, but the poster insisted that it happened all the time. It certainly doesn't happen in New England, although we certainly get "storm damage" during our winters! I expect to pay $25,000 to have my roof replaced in a few years. )
In any case, I hope the OP comes back, as I am still wondering why the seller couldn't provide info on the roofer if the roof is indeed only 10 years old, as the seller claimed.
Depends on where you are. I'm in central Texas. We get hail storms enough that I seriously don't know a single person who has replaced their roof for any other reason. We'll get a damaging hail storm long before a roof needs to be replaced because of age.
I guess I don’t understand where you’re getting some of you’re assumptions. I never said we were opposed to getting documentation on the age of the roof. The day after we got the bad roof inspection, we gave them an ultimatum that said “replace the roof, (or credit for a replacement roof), or we’re out.” We probably will ask for it later in the week, especially depending on how the meeting goes with their roofer/adjuster, but whether or not they can produce the documentation, our stance stays the same. If it’s a 10 year old roof, it’s a crappy one, and we’re asking for a replacement. If it’s a 50 year old roof, we’re asking for a replacement.
To my mind, it's no longer just about the roof. It's about a seller's dishonesty. The seller told you that the roof is 10 years old. That is an untruth. Perhaps they replaced the front part of the roof as another person here said, but that's an end run around the whole truth. The inspection showed all the cheap, lousy patchwork that was done over the years. That's a huge red flag to me and I would wonder what else was cheaped out on with regard to repairs that you don't see right now but will have to deal with later.
To my mind, it's no longer just about the roof. It's about a seller's dishonesty. The seller told you that the roof is 10 years old. That is an untruth. Perhaps they replaced the front part of the roof as another person here said, but that's an end run around the whole truth. The inspection showed all the cheap, lousy patchwork that was done over the years. That's a huge red flag to me and I would wonder what else was cheaped out on with regard to repairs that you don't see right now but will have to deal with later.
How do you know that? Maybe it is a ten year old roof and the owners got ripped off by a bad roofing company ten years ago. Not an uncommon scenario.
OP hasn't answered whether the roof inspection noted a replaced roof on one side (if competent they would be able to tell) vs older one on the other side.
Whether an older house has been renovated by a flipper or sold by owner there is always risk of past DIY work not up to one's standards. Maybe it is best if other DIYers buy older homes, who might actually not mind redoing some things and don't go into defense paranoia mode because Mr. Johnson did some sloppy drywall patching in 1988.
If you have the cash to pay for the roof, or if you can get a escrow/closing cost credit to approximate the cost of replacement, that might be preferable to having the current owner's insurance company replace it. If the current owner insurance company pays for it, either they or the current owner will hire someone to do the job. You'll have no control over the color or quality. They will seek the cheapest roof option, whereas you might want a nicer architecture shingle and a more premium felt or ice guard. Let's assume the room really is only 10 years old and has these issues. What would you do if the owners hired the same company again?
This appears to be deterioration over time and not direct damage. I doubt that any insurance company will pay for that roof under the conditions you describe.
Your own insurance company isn't likely to inspect before you buy the policy. The cost of inspections is not within their cost of doing business. Insurance law gives them 60 days after issue to cancel if adverse underwriting conditions are discovered. Besides, you are obliged to reveal the condition of the home when you apply for coverage. I suspect if you got any insurance at all it would be in a high risk category.
.
No, but they are apt to ask for the inspection report and whether or not the repairs were made. Also, in some areas when you change insurance companies they do require an inspection but given there is an inspection report when sold there is no reason for another inspection.
We currently have a $495K house under contract out of state. The home was built in 1960ish, so it’s an older home. We’ve lived in an older home before, so we had realistic expectations and were prepared to spend some money without being overly picky on seller repairs. The sellers disclosure made reference to the 10 year old roof having a leak “one time” during an ice storm, and they patched with tar, and never had an issue again. They also noted “some” water getting into the crawl space durian “extremely heavy rains”.
Fast forward to the inspection, we are in due diligence, so we can back out for any reason and pay a small termination fee if we don’t agree on repairs. We’ve had the general home inspection as well as inspections by a roofer and crawl space expert. Multiple opinions on the roof are saying it’s beyond repair. Tar everywhere, flashing installed wrong, boots missing, shingles deteriorating, etc. The seller now has their own roofer coming out with an insurance adjuster to take a second look.
The crawl space has about $8k worth of work to be done, including foundation support, a sump pump, and ground cover. The sellers seemed less surprised about the crawl space but still no answer on agreed repairs yet.
Are insurance companies less likely to cover roof replacements if they know the house is about to be sold? Would it help our position to get my insurance company (USAA) out there to inspect and see if they’d even insure it in this condition?
Any experience with similar situations is appreciated! :-)
Edit: I should add that the roofer did see “some hail damage”. Not sure how that works when a roof is also completely worn out and useless.
OP, this house is not for you. This house is a disaster area. Bail.
We currently have a $495K house under contract out of state. The home was built in 1960ish, so it’s an older home. We’ve lived in an older home before, so we had realistic expectations and were prepared to spend some money without being overly picky on seller repairs. The sellers disclosure made reference to the 10 year old roof having a leak “one time” during an ice storm, and they patched with tar, and never had an issue again. They also noted “some” water getting into the crawl space durian “extremely heavy rains”.
Fast forward to the inspection, we are in due diligence, so we can back out for any reason and pay a small termination fee if we don’t agree on repairs. We’ve had the general home inspection as well as inspections by a roofer and crawl space expert. Multiple opinions on the roof are saying it’s beyond repair. Tar everywhere, flashing installed wrong, boots missing, shingles deteriorating, etc. The seller now has their own roofer coming out with an insurance adjuster to take a second look.
The crawl space has about $8k worth of work to be done, including foundation support, a sump pump, and ground cover. The sellers seemed less surprised about the crawl space but still no answer on agreed repairs yet.
Are insurance companies less likely to cover roof replacements if they know the house is about to be sold? Would it help our position to get my insurance company (USAA) out there to inspect and see if they’d even insure it in this condition?
Any experience with similar situations is appreciated! :-)
Edit: I should add that the roofer did see “some hail damage”. Not sure how that works when a roof is also completely worn out and useless.
The roof alone is not a killer for the deal. If it were me, I would request the cost to replace the roof and any damage to be deducted from the sale price then have it done as soon as papers were passed.
Again, same issue with the crawl space so long as you have no mold issues. Deduct the cost from the sale price and have it done yourself as soon as you pass papers. I would get several quotes on that work though. $8K seems low for having a sump pump, foundation support and ground work and probably having to have a moisture barrier put down as well. Many termite/bug companies do this type of work and will quote for free.
I can't say what his insurance company will do, nor can anyone else. It can be a hit or miss with them as to whether or not they will cover the hail damage and how much. Personally, I would want to avoid the homeowner doing anything except reducing the price.
Thanks for the advice everyone - really appreciate it.
A common theme is having the seller credit us the cost of the new roof I stead of letting their insurance cover. I do t disagree with that being preferable, but it’s going to be a hard sell to get them to credit us $15-$20k instead of just paying their $5k deductible. I’ll say we had insurance cover a roof on our new house and they used mid-range materials, we got to pick our own roofer, etc. The whole thing was not cheaply done at all.
But like many have said, we may be better off just walking away, which we may also do.
I’ll keep you all updated! Thanks!
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.
