email@example.com (v) wrote in message
I do not know, when you send your car to bodyshop and they perform
some reparings they give you full description of what has been done
Why the same situation with the house should be any different?
There could be a fire, they painted foundation and i do not see
affected parts of it. How's that?
Well, yeah you're right, couple of things
1. it is his property and he did not disclose rebuilt thing.
It is my turn to suspect him now.
2. If there is no document proving the rebuilt, there could be a case
when the house was not rebuilt entirely but say remodelled.
Again non of this was disclosed why should I beleive on his words?
obviously now have doubts about the house, and don't trust the seller. You
will get upset every time you go in the basement and see the 'old' walls.
Get out, if you still can, and buy something else. You'll be happier, seller
will be happier.
papers. I can if I want, and you are free not to agree to buy i I
don't. And unless I falsely say there was never any work, I am not
obligated to tell you that there was. And if you agree to buy without
me saying, then you cannot later add a requirement that I prove
anything. And the body shop peperwork states so many labor hours and
which parts, it would not say how or why the damage occured in the
first place. You have already found out the house was rebuilt. What
more would the paperwork prove but what you already know.
The laws about whether there is an affirmative duty to disclose a
DEFECT in a house vary widely by state. But I wouldn't think they
apply here anyway, since being rebuilt is not a "defect".
BTW, have you ASKED the owner why it was rebuilt (was he even the one
who rebuilt it) and what did he say?
motor vehicle? Why should that make a difference? Well, *why* do you
get a license plate and a "pink slip" for your car and not your house,
why is a house "deed" "recorded" at the Registry of Deeds and the car
"title" "registered" at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, why are they
taxed differently, why are the warrantees different, one is built in a
factory and shipped to a dealer and is personal property, one is built
or assembled onsite and is real property etc etc A HOUSE IS NOT A CAR.
problem? What Effect did the fire have on the foundation? Assume ALL
of the foundation was "Effected". In what way was it Effected?
Suppose it was not painted, what would you see that was bad, that
could be covered up with just paint? Prove the bad effect.
rebuilt -or- remodeled. So what? Thatr only proves what you already
know, that it was rebuilt (or remodelled). So what? And what if it
WAS remodelled. So what. Wait a minute, isn't that BETTER from your
point of view, since you are worried what was so bad that it had to be
rebuilt? So what is wrong if it was "only" remodelled? Houses
(UNlike cars) do NOT sell by model year, they sell by CONDITION.
Which is determined by the buyer looking at it. So you looked at it.
What is wrong with it?
Suppose he has no document proving it was remodelled or rebuilt - then
what does that mean? That it was not? Which is what you want!
not? Then what does it matter.
I think you had better not buy this house. Let someone else buy it
who will appreciate it. You would be better off with a different
house. This is only a problem for you.
firstname.lastname@example.org (v) wrote in message
As far as I know seller has to disclose certain information about the
I am not sure though whether it is a law or not.
The fact is, the house was listed as 20 yo but appeared as 65 yo.
and there is no proving paper saying that it is 20 yo.
Huh, the seller says it's been rebuilt 20 years back, but he also can
say 10 years back! why not to say 1 year back?
Here is another problem we communicate through agents it slows down
everything. No i did not ask him that question, i am waiting for
appraisal and builing permit.
I think it's bs. no matter how you call the product if you sell it you
have to advertise it correctly or get it back. you can not advertise
one quality and sell different.
Well, i think it's quite easy to prove there was fire. Should be in
records somewhere. Tell me something then, if seller should not
disclose such an information, why many builders list houses and always
say that the house was rebuilt in year 2003 and because of fire?
According to you they do not have to do it, so should not they get
more money though?
Listen, you sound like a lawyer on the hearing :-)
I tell you why I am warried, houses do sell by year too, and there is
a difference, say in inspection knowing that it's 64 yo we should have
odered lead paint test but we did not, because we thought it is 20 yo.
But beleive me, I wouldn't even consider a house that old and besides
if seller listed the house as 64 yo it would never sell for that money
we are buying it now.
We wanted to buy the house because we did not see anything wrong with
it, it does not mean the house's ok. When you see AIDS infected person
You probably won't notice anything wrong ....
Well, that's I suppose the worse scenario, then the house is 64 yo as
deed says and the seller should not say 20 yo so we need to reconsider
our offer and most likely walk away. When I decide to sell it I will
need to lie as current seller does or list it as 64 yo and lose money
just because current seller lied to me. I do not want to get in this
situation neither do you....
It all depends, we have number of houses same age on the market, and
they are priced lower in same fair condition so I would probably
consider bigger house though.
Well, if I new all the truth about the house I'd be already off. But
now it's kinda late to simply say goodbye. From other hand I still
think that seller is not lieing about rebuild year and probably the
house is 20 yo so I would buy it because i like it for this money.
know what that law is that you say he is breaking. But in the end
what does it matter. Suppose he broke the law, are you going to try
to balckmail him with it, or do you still want the house? WHAT DO YOU
If you even *think* it is a 65 y.o. house and you instead want a 20
y.o. house, you should not buy it no matter what any paper says.
Suppose he *refuses* to "prove" it is 20 y.o., what will you do
then???? WHAT DO YOU WANT???
whether you want the house or not, yet you have not even asked, even
through agents? Why are you speculating out here, until you find out
what he says? How can you say he is lying if he has not even been
asked the question yet?
WAS NOT a fire? WHich do you want?
don't hold bad English against you entirely, in that if I tried to
post in Hindu or Farsi then I wouldn't do any better, but then I am
not buying a house in India or Iran.... There is not a specific price
one gets for a 2003 house or for a 1968 house, it is by condition, you
inspect the house for yourself and offer what you think it is worth to
you, there is no list of prices.
would you like it tested for? Apparently it looks just like a 20 y.o.
house. What hidden things do you think it has, and test for those.
It is a house not a person or a car. How long do houses stand where
you are from (which is apparently not here from your English). Why
would you not buy a house with a 64 y.o. foundation if it is
indistinguishable from a 20 y.o. house.
But never mind all that, you have become tiresome & boring, I will ask
yet again WHAT DO YOU WANT? Do you want it proved that there was, or
was not, a fire? What would you do differently if it was one answer
or the other?
Do you want it proved that it was or was not rebuilt? What would you
do differently one way or the other?
That it was or was not remodelled? What would you do differently one
way or the other?
Suppose the Seller did break the law, so what, you have discovered his
lie, you did not rely upon it, now that you know the truth, what will
you do? What is the worst truth there could be? Which is worse, was
or was not remodelled, was or was not rebuilt, was or was not a fire?
Suppose all is the worst, what will you do? WHAT DO YOU WANT?
With the money you have on the table, it is time to discuss your
concerns with your lawyer. That what you paying him for.
As a sanity check, in my town houses are torn down regularly with the
foundations being reuse. Why? In my town, if you keep the orginal
foundation it is consider a remodeling job for permit purposes. The
resulting houses sell for 700K-1.5 million. I don't think the 100 year
old foundation is hurting the price. But ever town is different.
Also, in my state, you have to declare known defects. I doubt a old
foundation in sound condition is considered a defect. If you are
really worried and still want the house, have it check out by a
structure engineer. If you want out of your contract, it could be a
reason. If you are just trying to get a lower price, you can try but
you also run the risk of the seller walking away.
email@example.com (Djavdet) wrote in message
Walk away. You'll never be happy...you'll always be suspicious, you'll
always feel screwed over. Why bother. Is this the only house for sale in the
area where you live? Why are you pursuing it? Go buy another house. The age
of the house is meaningless. Where I live there are plenty of 100 year old
houses that sell for over a million dollars while new houses sell for 500 to
800K. Age has nothing to do with anything. Get a competent building
inspector if you must have this house and only this house out of all the
houses in the universe. The inspector can pretty much figure out what was
changed. You sound like a person who thrives on aggravation and drama.
we had a similar issue...the house listed as 1978, but all windows labelled
as 1984. Furnace is 1984 too...during the
requisite lawyer signings, I noticed something...the home was listed as
1978, but original permits were in 1969!! Turns
out that there was another house here, and a bunch of stuff happened "in
between" sans permit. local neighbours confirm
that a much smaller house "used to be here", and to avoid complication, a
single part of the foundation was left original
and built "around" to avoid needing permits....apparently it was possible
I had an appraiser cornered and ran this by him...he agreed to take a look
at the house quickly (family friend) and let me know....
he didn't even get inside the house and told me it was worth every penny and
more of what I paid, no matter the age. Local
neighborhood, quality, etc were all too high to even think of starting
litigation to get back some money....
I guess being surrounded by $300K homes does well, doesn't it?? :) If the
house is "the one", and its right in every other
way...have it thoroughly inspected and looked over. if its got a clean bill
of health, who cares? I know I don't...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.