Flat roof repair options

[Jay-B]

Thanks Vic. I like that idea and I think that's what we'll end up doing.

[HeyBub]

Sure she should have disclosed, she knew the sewer line was defective. A puddle on a flat roof is NOT a defect. It causes no damage nor ever will cause any damage. At worst it might cause uncontrollable twitching on the part of a fuddy-duddie owner.

And I dispute your claim that "not normals" must be disclosed. If the house was painted in vivid colors would you have to disclose that? How about mismatched brick on the outside veneer? A double-ugly wrought-iron sculpture in the patio? Substantial hooks in the ceiling of the master bedroom, whose purpose shall not be mentioned?

[Ron]

Vic,

Oops, I had to post the above reply from a different account and I just realized that it showed up as being from "Jay-B" -- but it is actually from me, the OP, a.k.a. "Ron".

Also, I just met with the person that I have doing the work and he thought your idea of just using roll roofing, roofing cement, and roofing nails at the overlap makes sense. So, we are skipping the idea of using the Liberty self-adhesive roll roofing system etc. Your suggestion should work fine and be much easier and less expensive to do.

Thanks again.

[Ron]

I am in NJ, not PA, but I am near Philadelphia PA. I also own properties in both NJ and PA and I know all of the disclosure rules etc. when it comes to selling, renting, etc. I have no plan to sell now or in the future, so everything I own is a permanent buy-and-hold and will only end up being inherited. But, if I were to sell, I would simply disclose whatever is the truth about each property, so I am not concerned about disclosure.

In what part of PA are you located?

[krw]

Right. They would have to prove that you know. That's certainly possible, particularly if you ask stupid questions. ;-)

I've seen plenty who admit it freely here. ;-)

Right. Don't ask questions where you might not like the answers.

[bob haller]

I am in pittsburgh. Realtors around here say they must sell homes TWICE, one before the inspection and one after.....

disclosure rules state you must list everything that had troubles and what you did to fix them over many years. the statement is worded brodly, to trip up anything you forget..

[bob haller]

i only had solid info from when my mom and step dad got ill, and put that on the disclosure form too.

it was a broadly worded document.

I was told lawyers of homebuyers who find problems check with all contractors in the area.

often times the original owners had contacted contractors before selling.

heck once a old girl friend called me to look at a home she was thinking of buying...... I called some contractor friends to inspect different parts of the home.

my buddy the roofer showed up, he said hi the house needs a new roof, the roof is soft in many areas and all bad around the chimney which needs taken down or replaced. I said you havent been on the roof... how do you know this?

He had been out patching the roof for several years.....

it needed completely replaced with a new deck.....

the plumber found this from inside too, when he checked the cast iron sewer stack that was bad.

the house was a wreck she didnt buy it, and thanked me for saving her from disaster

[krw]

Um, I think you just did. ;-)

[dpb]

On 11/10/2011 7:53 PM, bob haller wrote: ...

Nonsense. The requirement is to disclose "material defects". The definition of a material defect (PA law; yes I looked it up) is not every little cosmetic modification nor minor repair.

?Material Defect? is defined as a problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people in the property. The fact that a structural element, system or subsystem is near, at or beyond the end of the normal useful life of such a structural element, system or subsystem is not by itself a material defect. See 68 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7102.

In addition, the legislation is specifically written such that unless you willingly and knowing hide a material defect, you're not liable for something unknown to you or forgotten. If it comes to light there is something all you have to do to rectify the problem is to make it known at that time.

--

[dpb]

On 11/12/2011 4:22 PM, Oren wrote: ...

???

Is there a "not" missing here, maybe???

[bob haller]

I repaired the gutter leak, cleaned and sealed it. 15 minute job

but realtor insisted that repair be added to the disclosure form.

the buyer backed out anyway, the home inspector scared them off .......

the first home inspector flagged no GFCI for garage sump pump......... so i installed one

the second home inspector flagged the sump pumps GFCI, stating it was bad to have a GFCI on a garage sump pump.....

the first home inspector flagged the main service panel for a faded signature on the inspection sticker, you could see it had been signed but the signature wasnt really legible First buyer insisted I have it reinspected and it passed. cost 75 bucks

home inspector flagged a brand new water heater for gas leak, it required replacement of main gas valve. plumber checked it before replacement said it was fine no leak.

seems home inspectors look for non existent troubles to justify their fee........

.....

[dpb]

On 11/12/2011 5:11 PM, bob haller wrote: ...

Do you just let them roll you over? Make 'em prove it if it isn't so (or, of course, if the first guy was wrong seems like should have recourse there as well).

It's their job to find problems but there's no reason in letting nonsense stand unchallenged.

--

[krw]

In Vermont, the forms specifically listed the "major subsystems" that needed disclosure (plumbing[1], electrical, roof[2], foundation, etc.). I don't remember all of them but certainly gutters weren't in the list [3].

[1] Yep, leak in upstairs 1/2-bath. Repaired leak, replaced wall, and subfloor. Add tile... Done. [2] Yep, we had a leak. Replaced roof. Painted ceiling (along with the rest of the house). Done. [3] Cleaned Maple helicopters from gutters without bragging about it on the disclosure.

[dpb]

On 11/12/2011 7:39 PM, [e-mail] wrote: ...

...

Neither were existing major defects; ergo, were not required to be disclosed.

Now, if you _want_ to, your choice, but there's nothing (I'm sure even though I haven't looked at the specifics of VT law) in the rules that would require it for routine maintenance and repair which those are.

If I ever gt a nanny-type agent such as Haller talks about (assuming it isn't typical make-a-crisis-of-everything he's known for), they'd be fired or educated, one; I certainly wouldn't do anything not required in that regards.

--

[krw]

According to the VT disclosure form, they were.

It wasn't the agent, rather a standardized form.

[bob haller]

neighbor got sued for 10 grand and lost, probably cost her a few grand more lawyer fees.

all because she failed to disclose bad sewer line.....

this isnt made up its a real hazard at home sale.

[dpb]

On 11/13/2011 8:02 AM, bob haller wrote: ...

...

All because she chose to not disclose a material defect.

If it had been repaired/replaced/whatever it took, then it would have been moot point.

Again, read the actual legislation--

"b) The property information report shall disclose the condition of the property, to the extent known by the seller at the time the purchase and sale agreement was prepared,..."

--

[dpb]

On 11/13/2011 8:02 AM, bob haller wrote: ...

...

And to be perfectly clear...

The disclosure law seems to have worked as intended here.

Far from being a "hazard", the neighbor here failed to do the conscionable thing whether the requirement for disclosure existed or not.

When faced with the prospect of spending some money to have a repair done or negotiating the cost out of a sale price, she instead chose to attempt to foist her problems onto the buyer.

(BTW, when you move, let us know, Bob. It's extremely unsafe to be a neighbor--it seems you're a carrier for catastrophes.) :)

--

[krw]

Again, that's not what the state (-wide? not sure of its source) form said. It didn't require a "repair" but it was worded to the effect of "has there ever been...".

Thanks for the education. I'll be selling this house, likely in the Spring. I'll check out the particulars closer when I do (though there are no defects - house is only three years old).

Many (RE agents included) have had their asses sued off for undisclosed defects. My wife worked for an agent who had been sued, successfully, for some really questionable stuff. E&O insurance had jumped substantially.

[dpb]

...[list elided for brevity]...

The above is still, as far as I was able to discover on the VT State web site the limit of the actual legislation covering residential real estate disclosure.

There is quite a lot of additional stuff on shared residence (condos and their ilk) and rental property, but they have no bearing on single-family residential transactions.

I was not able (to my surprise) find a State-approved/issued standardized form although I will say it was not an easy site to peruse.

It would require knowing accurate details of any given situation. Obviously, as noted above, if there is a failure to disclose a material defect, the recourse can be onerous and undoubtedly there are suits filed both with and without merit. The agents are going to be on the suit simply because they'll be seen as the target with the deeper pockets in most cases.

I would suggest, however, that in an actual case, the disclosure of petty defects or past repairs will have little if any mitigating effect on the severity of any judgment if there actually were an undisclosed defect.

The key is to be straight up and don't try to fudge around an issue.

As you say, definitely go to the source and learn of all the actual legal requirements. Also be certain to ascertain on whose side any agent or inspector is in any transaction--yours, the buyer's or perhaps both. One of the key problems in such instances as Haller talks of w/ inspectors is they're working for the buyer and often in cahoots w/ an agent representing same so they have motive to provide a list of as many possible issues as can as opposed to simply providing an impartial evaluation. It is also why I would never enter into any agreements or sell w/o having legal representation even though many forego it on account of the expense and being assured often that it's simply not necessary. It is like other insurance, expensive when one doesn't ever have a claim, but like the bank card commercial if it averts a problem--priceless.

--