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 would opt to split the cost of a replacement and be done with it "
I would too, but first the sellor has to give that option of replacement.
It appears from the OP he is not offering that option ( replacement) but wants the repairs split.
IMHO, it is the seller who is not reasonable.
From post #1: "The sellers had someone come look at it and they said a patch would not hold long and it needs replacing. The furnace is roughly 17 years old. The sellers current position is that they will put up half the cost to repair, and are asking us to put up the remaining half."
I inferred the OP meant replace. Perhaps I assumed too much.
Those home warranty companies usually only cover like $2,000 or $2,500 towards a new unit, so you would still be **** out of luck for several thousand at least. Make the seller pay for a new unit, screw splitting costs. its his to fix, not yours to go in 1/2way. Trust me, he will gladly eat several thousand more bucks to close and be rid of his house.
Those home warranty companies usually only cover like $2,000 or $2,500 towards a new unit, so you would still be **** out of luck for several thousand at least. Make the seller pay for a new unit, screw splitting costs. its his to fix, not yours to go in 1/2way. Trust me, he will gladly eat several thousand more bucks to close and be rid of his house.
Oh good! It sounds like you know the seller personally - so maybe you know if he has a boiler or furnace?
Why would I lose my deposit? That is the whole point of a walkthrough. If the property doesn't meet the standards of condition that it was in when the contract was signed, then I have every right to my deposit. Can anyone provide a pseudo-legal reason why this would not be the case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by superfly10
I close next week. My contract says the fixtures, appliances and furnace and boiler must be in "working condition" at closing, and that the roof must be "free of leaks."
Sounds like the OPs situation is similar. If they are offering to repair, they should pay. If they are offering to split the cost of replacement, I would jump at it.
What "repair" means is where it gets sticky. Sounds like they want to "patch" it so it works for a few weeks while they get out of Dodge and declare it "working".
If you want a leg to stand on, get your own heating guy/plumber to give a prescription for a proper repair... better yet, get two. If the current situation could be classified as "hazardous," I'd have them include that in the paperwork. If they can address the current "patch" prescription as insufficient, that might help.
Bottom line, you need a pro to dispute what constitutes a valid "repair."
Sounds like an Apollo system, notoriously expensive to repair...
Couple of questions...
Is this property in one of the United States of America?
If so, any particular state?
Is there an actual written contract for purchase on the property?
I have a hunch that a written contract for purchase of the property may well describe the condition in which the property will convey, and in North Carolina, one of the United States of America, the standard NCAR/NC Bar Offer to Purchase and Contract says, property will convey "in equal or better condtion than at time of contract."
If the property is in NC, or another of the United States of America, and a standard form was used, it is possible, even likely, that the terms are described in that standard contract form.
My considered advice, after wading through bilge:
READ THE CONTRACT.
AVOID AND IGNORE GOSSIP AND SUPPOSITION ON AN ANONYMOUS INTERNET FORUM.
DANG! YOU ARE LESS THAN A DAY FROM CLOSING, AND IT IS TIME TO DEAL WITH FACT NOT GOOFINESS AND DISTRACTIONS.
READ THE CONTRACT.
^doesn't matter, the ball is in your court completely as the buyer, so you got to play bad cop and bust some balls.
As a rule, I advise against "busting balls" unless & until it becomes absolutely necessary. I recommend a civil conversation where you persuade the seller that he is far better off working with you now, so that you will complete the transaction, than he would be by taking his chances in trying to keep your deposit money and having to sell the house again.
Sounds like an Apollo system, notoriously expensive to repair...
Couple of questions...
Is this property in one of the United States of America?
If so, any particular state?
Is there an actual written contract for purchase on the property?
I have a hunch that a written contract for purchase of the property may well describe the condition in which the property will convey, and in North Carolina, one of the United States of America, the standard NCAR/NC Bar Offer to Purchase and Contract says, property will convey "in equal or better condtion than at time of contract."
If the property is in NC, or another of the United States of America, and a standard form was used, it is possible, even likely, that the terms are described in that standard contract form.
My considered advice, after wading through bilge:
READ THE CONTRACT.
AVOID AND IGNORE GOSSIP AND SUPPOSITION ON AN ANONYMOUS INTERNET FORUM.
DANG! YOU ARE LESS THAN A DAY FROM CLOSING, AND IT IS TIME TO DEAL WITH FACT NOT GOOFINESS AND DISTRACTIONS.
READ THE CONTRACT.
Yep. And go see this broken furnace for yourself, so you will know what you're dealing with and to see if any related damage occurred.
^doesn't matter, the ball is in your court completely as the buyer, so you got to play bad cop and bust some balls.
There is case law that show judges siding with sellers in such disputes. The law gives considerable discretion to the judges to determine when a seller has not complied with side of the deal. Depending on the exact circumstances and the judges interpretation of the cases in the the OP's state being uncooperative in the face of an unanticipated problem could very well result in forfeit of the earnest money...
There is case law that show judges siding with sellers in such disputes. The law gives considerable discretion to the judges to determine when a seller has not complied with side of the deal. Depending on the exact circumstances and the judges interpretation of the cases in the the OP's state being uncooperative in the face of an unanticipated problem could very well result in forfeit of the earnest money...
Would not the CONTRACT be material in court?
If not read before closing, it may well be read in court....
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.
I would not be so sure...
