How much to fix up an old house?

[Aerides]

It sounds like you are calling me a liar. Discussion over.

I think the BS being referred to was stuff your agent tried to feed you.

 

[ivinsfan]

I think the BS being referred to was stuff your agent tried to feed you.

That's what I took from it..sounds like the poster didn't have a forthright knowledge agent.

 

[pb4uski]

I think the BS being referred to was stuff your agent tried to feed you.

Exactly. The BS was where the agent claimed "You can't sell it without fixing it so you are on the hook for the full cost".

I guess I'll be waiting for an apology.

 

[pb4uski]

I actually know of three cases, it's rural so they involved two septic issues and a well issue.

One case I knew the seller, unimproved land sold for a building site. The perc test the buyer did showed he would have to put in a more expensive septic tank then normal to meet standards ..the seller got sued and payed the buyer the extra cost of the septic. Seller never ran a perc test so he had no idea it was an issue.

The well was similar to mine, buyer bought an older farm house and has low water pressure, usable but not to modern standards. The seller was fine with the water pressure, but the buyer sued saying they wanted a new well. Seller payed half the cost of a new well.

Third case is doozey, seller bought a little lake cabin, it was clearly listed as having a "shared" well. Due to lack of due diligence the buyer didn't realize until after closing that their water supply was really a hose connected to the next door property's well. Lawyers involved and the seller had to pay half the cost of a new well. PS, I know this person (buyer) and yes they are that dumb.

I actually know one party on each of these issues so it's not hearsay. I will mention that I used the word sued as a catchall, letters between lawyers on each side were exchanged, suits were threatened ,and some type of agreement was reached. Most of these settlements were in the range of maybe 10-15K. Total costs of the repairs/upgrades in the 20-30K area. So not minor enough for small claims and very expensive as far as actually taking to court,

Since none of they went to trial then we'll never know if the buyers would have won or lost. In the all three cases I think I would have told them to pound sand and let them sue since at least based on what you wrote it doesn't sound like they had much of a case and it would have cost them more to sue than the $10-15k that they got from the sellers.

On the last one, were there well rights in the deed? In our area they typically are... if it isn't in the deed then it doesn't exist.

My lakehouse shares a spring with the neighbor (its on my property but the neighbor has deeded spring rights) and my mother' lakehouse shares a well with two other properties (she has deeded well rights to a well on a neighbor's land)... and our longtime home also has deeded rights to a well on a neighbor's land and we had no trouble with that when we sold it 8 years ago.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

I guess I'll be waiting for an apology.

Or, you could offer one for being sufficiently unclear as to offend him...

From my remove, I thought the same as Travelover, but then upon second reading I could tell what you meant.

 

[ivinsfan]

pB4, We aren't a very sue happy state, so a couple nasty letters from somebodies lawyer usually does the job...

 

[Finance Dave]

NO!

In my area it is recommended that sellers NOT get a property inspection... because if you do and become aware of flaws in the property that you were previously unaware of, you may need to disclose them to the buyer and in some cases where it would be dangerous, fix it. If the buyer finds out that you were aware of some major flaw and did not disclose it in the property information report then they can come back at you.

OTOH, if you are unaware and fail to disclose then you're ok.

In our parts, it is up to the buyer to have an inspection done as part of their due diligence.

Sometimes, ignorance is bilss.

Guess I don’t understand the logic...if the inspection does find something dangerous, you SHOULD fix it. And if it finds an unknown issue you SHOULD disclose it. The end result will likely be the same...you’ll end up negotiating who pays for it....or you can disclose and list “AS IS”.

By not doing the inspection you might be worse off. The buyers’ inspection may turn up the issue and it might turn off the buyer or cause delay in closing, etc.

I was a licensed home inspector for 7 years and did get called to testify in court cases where sellers either failed to disclose or “should have” known about an issue.

 

[Aerides]

I understand the "avoid inspection, know nothing, hope for the best" approach - it's one to take in FL.

It's the way to go if you have no reason to think there are issues. But an inspector WILL find them, so if you have a pretty good reason to expect them, it's usually just a matter of waiting for confirmation that might make your buyer walk away.

But if you have no real reason to suspect major problems, then a seller-initiated inspection is generally not advised. Plausible deniability is a thing.

No matter what, an inspection will occur before the sale, so it's a judgment call and you, the seller, know your home. IE: If you know the roof leaks, it's not going to escape the inspector.

 

[Audie Murphy]

I would recommend to fix the roof and leave the remodeling to future homeowners. This will keep the price low and more marketable for a wider range of home shoppers.

 

[pb4uski]

Guess I don’t understand the logic...if the inspection does find something dangerous, you SHOULD fix it. And if it finds an unknown issue you SHOULD disclose it. The end result will likely be the same...you’ll end up negotiating who pays for it....or you can disclose and list “AS IS”.

By not doing the inspection you might be worse off. The buyers’ inspection may turn up the issue and it might turn off the buyer or cause delay in closing, etc..

I was a licensed home inspector for 7 years and did get called to testify in court cases where sellers either failed to disclose or “should have” known about an issue.

Not necessarily. I agree that any dangerous issues that the seller knows about should be remedied and that certain lesser issues shoud be disclosed and that other lesser issues need not be disclosed.

You could be worse off or you could be better off. You could be worse off if the buyer's inspection finds an issue that you are unaware of that blows up the sale or causes a delay. But at the same time, a seller inspection could unearth an issue that the seller discloses or spends good money to remedy that the buyer's inspection fails to discover.

An example: Our old house had a foundation that was below grade... front was 1/2 below grade and rear was 3/4 below grade. A few years after buying it I noticed that the rear foundation wall was not plumb... it was leaning in about 3/4" from bottom to top. For a few years, I would check it every so often and it was the same 3/4". Since it wasn't changing I pretty much forgot about it... I totally forgot about it when preparing the property information report because the questions were more focused on past problems with the property.

It was discovered during the inspection and at the inspector's recommendation the buyer had a structural engneer look at it. The structural engineer's conclusion was that it was not unusual for foundations in our neighborhood, was unlikely to become a problem and if it did there were reasonable fixes available (I don't remember the details). The sale proceeded.

 

[pb4uski]

I understand the "avoid inspection, know nothing, hope for the best" approach - it's one to take in FL.

It's the way to go if you have no reason to think there are issues. But an inspector WILL find them, so if you have a pretty good reason to expect them, it's usually just a matter of waiting for confirmation that might make your buyer walk away.

But if you have no real reason to suspect major problems, then a seller-initiated inspection is generally not advised. Plausible deniability is a thing.

No matter what, an inspection will occur before the sale, so it's a judgment call and you, the seller, know your home. IE: If you know the roof leaks, it's not going to escape the inspector.

Totally agree. Unless the seller has significant concerns about flaws in the property IMO to have a pre-emptive seller paid inspection is sort of like leading with your chin.

 

[Rianne]

Buyers should always hire their own inspectors. BUT even so, inspectors are limited in where/how they inspect. They cannot go behind paneled walls or under tacked carpeting. Thus, our experience:

We purchased an older ranch with a full basement in Elmhurst, IL. Perfect for us, no kids. We hired the inspector. He cautioned us about the places he could not inspect. We thought, how bad could that be? The sellers had lived there over 7 years and had 3 kids. The sellers lucked out big time, no rain in a long time. After closing it rained for days. Long story short, there was a huge hole behind paneling in the basement and the sewer main pipe in the front yard was completely detached. The tacked carpeting in the basement hid big water stains. We contacted an attorney and he said, fix the problems yourself. The cost of suing might cost more than it's worth.
We had to dig up the front yard and put in a new water main, rip out the carpeting in the basement, close up the hidden hole in the basement and buy a water pump, not a cheap one either.

Anytime you buy a house there are risks and prepare to pay for repairs. Closed means closed. Examine as much as you can before that date.