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.
If it measures for more Sq Ft than advertised, will you pay more ?
That is not a fair statement. If something is being misrepresented by the seller (and I have no idea if that is actually true) to the seller's advantage that is not the same thing as misrepresenting something to the buyer's advantage.
If you contracted to have a garage built and they built it smaller than what you asked for would you be happy to pay the original price? If they built it larger would you pay a bigger price? I can't imagine anyone would treat those two the situations the same.
If you contracted to have a garage built and they built it smaller than what you asked for would you be happy to pay the original price? If they built it larger would you pay a bigger price? I can't imagine anyone would treat those two the situations the same.
If the going price is $150 sq ft and I sold the house at $135 sf but the house measured 75 sq ft smaller and the house DID appraise, should the seller lower the sales price based on the smaller size ?
The house did appraise. The seller may originally have given him a great deal below the market price where the footage is not a factor.
There are standards of measurement taught in licensing classes, and an agent who measures and advertises SF had better be within 5% of a measurement that complies with those standards.
Also, posted on the NC Real Estate Commission site.
Locally, that is complicated by the fact that the Triangle MLS requires listing agents to enter a SF value.
Regardless, the NC Real Estate Commission considers the ability to measure a home and calculate an accurate square footage as fundamental to licensing.
Inept or dishonest agents disclaim "Buyer or Buyer's agent to confirm square footage." Dumber yet is "SF taken from Wake County Taxes."
Both entries are so thoroughly disavowed in licensing class and CE, either should cost an agent suspension, IMO.
Yet, I hardly measure any more. It is quite acceptable to use a licensed appraiser to measure and for $60-$90 that gets me a liability umbrella and a very nice floor plan rendering from a nice guy who measures more homes in a month than I would in a year.
That measurement I did behind the bank appraiser was pretty eye-opening.
They talk about it in licensing class here, but there isn't a big emphasis on it. $60-$90 would be a no brainer to have an appraiser come out and measure the home. Our county is generally close on square footage. They like to get their money. When it isn't close it is obvious why...an addition that didn't get assessed yet, a builder change in floor plan, or a finished basement.
If the going price is $150 sq ft and I sold the house at $135 sf but the house measured 75 sq ft smaller and the house DID appraise, should the seller lower the sales price based on the smaller size ?
The house did appraise. The seller may originally have given him a great deal below the market price where the footage is not a factor.
Well, I think your focus is a bit misplaced here. It appears through the lens of sales and marketing, rather than the lens of the actual item sold and bought as intended by the parties. For commercial real estate, the answer is quite obvious: if it's a material variance, yes the seller and buyer (or landlord and tenant) would renegotiate and the price would be re-adjusted. I think the same rule applies to residential real estate too, if a major variance occurred and one or both parties grounded the purchase on space considerations or it impacts future marketability.
So what if the house appraised? Why is that material or significant to this discussion? If I were to pay cash for the house and obtained my own appraisal with a material variance in square footage, then what? This is not a great deal by the way; it's very fair and reasonable under the circumstances, taking into account all factors, except the square footage might be off, by 10 percent. And square footage was prominently identified in the listing for the house and, as I said before, I purchased the house sight unseen based on information in the listing and sales literature of the house from realtor.com, trulia.com and zillow.com. In fact, the listing literature at the house when I visited it after we signed the purchase contract had a very specific number on square footage.
The most recent appraisal could be wrong on the square footage number, but from your posts, it appears that whatever number is in the appraisal shouldn't matter to me. The house appraised, right? Maybe that's the position a listing agent might think appropriate to take, but if you were my buyer's agent, I'd terminate you immediately because you certainly would not be representing me.
A 500 sf difference seems a little much. Try comparing the SF listed in public records for the comparables used in the appraisal against what the appraisal shows as the SF for those comps. You could be comparing apples to oranges.
This whole thing to me is much ado about nothing. Perhaps that's because, in our area, we look at the space and see if it fits our needs for the price, not if the square footage is accurate.
Jeez, if we stopped buying homes based on seller or agent misrepresentations, there would be no transactions at all where I live. I am in the midst of waiting for my sellers to complete their certificate of occupancy for part of the home we want to buy. The house was up for sale -- off and on -- for almost two years with part of the interior illegal and no one did anything about it. As part of that process, I am learning day by day from attorneys and agents that a lot of homes don't have C of Os for finished basements and basement baths. And just yesterday, I looked at a condo where it appears the sellers and agent have deliberately misrepresented the HOA fees using last year's rate instead of the higher rate that took effect January 1. (And that doesn't even include disclosure of the $1500-$2500 in special assessments that I know residents of this complex are charged each year.)
I just think it's more important to do your own observations and measurements and determine if the home and its space are right for you. If you think 200 square feet on a good-sized single-family home is bad, you should see the creativity that NY City agents use to measure 1,200-square-foot apartments!
This whole thing to me is much ado about nothing. Perhaps that's because, in our area, we look at the space and see if it fits our needs for the price, not if the square footage is accurate.
Jeez, if we stopped buying homes based on seller or agent misrepresentations, there would be no transactions at all where I live. I am in the midst of waiting for my sellers to complete their certificate of occupancy for part of the home we want to buy. The house was up for sale -- off and on -- for almost two years with part of the interior illegal and no one did anything about it. As part of that process, I am learning day by day from attorneys and agents that a lot of homes don't have C of Os for finished basements and basement baths. And just yesterday, I looked at a condo where it appears the sellers and agent have deliberately misrepresented the HOA fees using last year's rate instead of the higher rate that took effect January 1. (And that doesn't even include disclosure of the $1500-$2500 in special assessments that I know residents of this complex are charged each year.)
I just think it's more important to do your own observations and measurements and determine if the home and its space are right for you. If you think 200 square feet on a good-sized single-family home is bad, you should see the creativity that NY City agents use to measure 1,200-square-foot apartments!
Actually, the current topic is a 10% variance, about 500 SF.
The poster erred by glomming onto another thread, and posting in the RE Forum instead of the proper state forum, but the difference in dimensions between two numbers and the impact of the difference is definitely material in the area where the poster is buying.
Actually, the current topic is a 10% variance, about 500 SF.
The poster erred by glomming onto another thread, and posting in the RE Forum instead of the proper state forum, but the difference in dimensions between two numbers and the impact of the difference is definitely material in the area where the poster is buying.
It's an interesting geographic difference. I have to tell you that even 500 square feet wouldn't make a difference here if the home fit the family. A lot of the listings don't even show square footage. People look at the number of bedrooms and baths and view the photos. If it looks promising, they go to see it. If people are at all surprised, it's that the pictures shot by agents' photographers, with their fisheye lenses, make the rooms look much bigger than they really are.
Square footage only seems to make a real difference if you're challenging your tax assessment and are looking for comparables.
It's an interesting geographic difference. I have to tell you that even 500 square feet wouldn't make a difference here if the home fit the family. A lot of the listings don't even show square footage. People look at the number of bedrooms and baths and view the photos. If it looks promising, they go to see it. If people are at all surprised, it's that the pictures shot by agents' photographers, with their fisheye lenses, make the rooms look much bigger than they really are.
Square footage only seems to make a real difference if you're challenging your tax assessment and are looking for comparables.
Your posts remind me of the "The New Yorker" print I have in my office, where people from NYC and vicinity think their regional area dominates space. http://imgc.artprintimages.com/image...4-YATF100Z.jpg. Having lived in NYC and still owning in NYC, with a sister who is a real estate broker, my observation is that real estate agents in your area are less reliant on MLS than the rest of the country; and that hard metrics like SQF as reported in widely available data bases are more important to transactions to the rest of the country. I suppose you are certainly right that in certain residential real estate asset classes, like luxury homes, square footage is not a significant factor, but for non-luxury homes, I think hard metrics like square footage will have a very significant role.
Funny, the agents around where I live, frequently remark that there is a gender driven quality to factors that men and women look at when buying homes. They observe that the men are always asking about sqf and women asking about other qualities of the home. My wife and I, however, are both concerned about square footage for future marketability. If this home we're to be our final resting spot, we'd be less concerned about it.
BTW, this is my last post here. The discrepancy was resolved by an amended appraisal. So it was much to do about nothing, but I appreciated the views of many here.
It may be different in your market, but here in my part of NJ,?
Yes, it is different. I'm from NY and no one there pays any attention to sq footage, no one would ever be concerned with paying based on that.
Here in NC it is a big part of the pricing strategy. So I can understand the OP's distress, but as other's have advised this is someone to handle thru the buyer's agent or an attorney.
Just another thing that points out how local real estate is.
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.
