- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 13,988
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.
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.
I think the BS being referred to was stuff your agent tried to feed you.
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,
I guess I'll be waiting for an apology.
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”.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.
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.