Get an inspection of my own home before I put it on the market? (contingency, agent)

[CristenS]

Is paying for an inspection on your own home ever done? I have no reason to think anything is wrong with my home, but it is about 85 years old. My concern would be I get it on the market, someone makes an offer, and their inspection finds a major problem. Then I have to hurry and make repairs or else lose the buyer. My thinking is that if I pay for my own inspection, if they happen to find something major, I can take care of it at my own pace, before putting the house on the market. And, if the inspection finds nothing, that would be a good marketing tool for the home.

Do people do this? Does it make sense to do? If it only costs around $200-300, it would provide some peace of mind going on the market. But..I don't know if that type of thing is even done

[Bazzwell]

Yes, it is done. Not a common thing in our market yet but a good idea that doesn't hurt. You can make corrections as needed on items found to be a problem. It may lead to some big surprises but better you find out first isn't it?

[TexasHorseLady]

I always recommend that my seller's get a pre-inspection for a couple of reasons. One, and primary, if there's something major they don't know about (and it can happen), they'll find out about it in advance when they can decide what to do (have it repaired after getting multiple estimates, adjust the price to take it into account, whatever) when they're not under the pressure of the inspection period and think they already have a contract and have to make a decision with too little information and time to do it properly. I really don't like my clients having nasty surprises, and this is just one way to avoid them.

For another, it allows them the opportunity to get the house into the best possible shape for being put on the market. It also allows the house to be marketed as "pre-inspected", giving it an edge (at least until everybody catches on and starts doing it).

So, yes, your thinking is right in line with what I've observed and I think it's an excellent idea.

[Gretchen B]

What TexasHorseLady said. (I tried to give you rep points, THL, but evidently you've been on my thumb's up list lately)

[gold*dust1]

It's not commonly done if much at all where I reside and I hope it stays that way! I don't like it for a few reasons:

1. Why fix it if it ain't broken? This is a fairly new way to do things and I like the traditional one where the buyer pays...it shows they are really interested in your house in most cases.

2. If I as a buyer found a house where the seller had performed one, I would wonder what they were worried about!

3. As a recent seller our buyer requested nada after they had their inspection, so with that luck, why mess with a good system

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

It's not commonly done if much at all where I reside. I don't like it for a few reasons:

1. Why fix it if it ain't broken? This is a fairly new way to do things and I like the traditional one where the buyer pays...it shows they are really interested in your house in most cases.

Don't confuse a proactive Seller's inspection with the Buyer's right and responsibility to perform due diligence on the property.
When performing proper due diligence, the buyer still pays. The buyer always has the right to do an inspection and most inspection reports make no representation to anyone but the person who pays for it.
The Seller inspection with repairs is a powerful tool to avoid having a home go under contract and be puked back onto the market a few weeks later due to condition of the property. That puking is poison to Sellers whose next buyer has to be convinced even more that the home is worthy to buy after extended Days on Market and a failed contract after an inspection.

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

2. If I as a buyer found a house where the seller had performed one, I would wonder what they were worried about!

The owner of that 85 year old home may be worried about stuff they have no idea about, and would like to be proactive about diagnosis and contracting for proper repairs rather than the hurry up stuff that happens in a <30 day closing sequence with a Buyer inspection built in.
In North Carolina, our Realtor forms offer the Buyer an escape if a quote for repairs is more than a specified, negotiated amount. Making good repairs without the pressure of a contract puts the Seller in the driver's seat, and takes $$$ off the buyer's inspection report. Those are $$$ that may be used to trigger the Cost of Repair Contingency.

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

3. As a recent seller our buyer requested nada after they had their inspection, so with that luck, why mess with a good system

"With luck." Luck is "when preparation meets opportunity." On an 85 year old home, a pre-listing inspection with deficiencies repaired is preparation. And, "the harder we work, the luckier we get..."

Enough deals fall apart over property condition that the NC Association of Realtors in 2008 put a brief paragraph into the standard "Exclusive Right to Sell" listing agreement that addresses the fact that the agent should at least visit on the benefits of properly preparing a home for market.

[gold*dust1]

[quote=MikeJaquish;7571274]Don't confuse a proactive Seller's inspection with the Buyer's right and responsibility to perform due diligence on the property.

I am not confused about that at all, what gives you that idea? I realize a buyer could still perfrom their own inspection.

"With luck." Luck is "when preparation meets opportunity."

I guess you have your interpretation of luck and I have mine, so we will have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't hire an agent who demanded I pre-inspect. Our agent liked the old school way of doing things in many respects, so I guess we meshed on that level. Luck in our case was really the fact that the buyer found nothing needing attention. Our house is 50 years old. Now if I as a seller knew a blatant "problem" existed in my home it would be disclosed.

Enough deals fall apart over property condition that the NC Association of Realtors in 2008 put a brief paragraph into the standard "Exclusive Right to Sell" listing agreement that addresses the fact that the agent should at least visit on the benefits of properly preparing a home for market.

I was stating my opinion on the matter not telling the OP what direction they should take. Our agent certainly did "visit" the benefits of properly preparing our home for market and never mentioned performing a pre-inspection.

[Brandon Hoffman]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I always recommend that my seller's get a pre-inspection for a couple of reasons. One, and primary, if there's something major they don't know about (and it can happen), they'll find out about it in advance when they can decide what to do (have it repaired after getting multiple estimates, adjust the price to take it into account, whatever) when they're not under the pressure of the inspection period and think they already have a contract and have to make a decision with too little information and time to do it properly. I really don't like my clients having nasty surprises, and this is just one way to avoid them.

For another, it allows them the opportunity to get the house into the best possible shape for being put on the market. It also allows the house to be marketed as "pre-inspected", giving it an edge (at least until everybody catches on and starts doing it).

So, yes, your thinking is right in line with what I've observed and I think it's an excellent idea.

I agree. Couldn't rep you THL.

[futurecruiser]

I wish we did first...especially the water test....I would do radon and full water tests so you are not suprised with the results, and then, as other people have said, you can take your time to properly research it and get a few quotes and not be in rush mode before closing.

[Racelady88]

As a buyer I would like to see "pre-inspected" on a listing. If nothing else I would know that things were either fixed or disclosed.