Depending on the state laws, it *might* be something he/she could have fixed but it also would have to be really close to the selling time, not 'years later'. It would depend on the disclosure laws of the state, and the code specs for roofs.
I'd say find out first what state the OP is in before worrying about the 3 layers. Most of the USA is not actually in heavy snow-line country . That seems to be the main area where 3 layers and weight is an issue.
Not saying anything about what the seller does or doesn't know about roofing. Only that if you just bought a house and find out that
1 - The roof was recently re-done with 3 layers of shingles and this is not allowed by code, which is the case in most places 2 - No building permit, which is typically required was pulled before the roof was done.Then you have a good case against the seller. I doubt a seller will have much luck arguing in court that their ignorance of the legal requirement of a building permit is an excuse. The seller in turn could have a case against whoever installed the roof, but it's possible they even did it themselves.
hey you bought the house it's yours what you gonna go after the guy for Don't waste money on attorneys
in addition some state codes will let you put three layers for example on very steep roofs and so on
And check you roof again about three layers or get a roofer to look at it free estimate for re roofing costs you nothing right?
For the amount it takes to re-do the roof right and to code.
If you read my post, I said IF:
1 - It was recently re-roofed2 - Code says 3 layers are not allowed
3 - A building permit was required, but not pulled.Then you have a good case.
l:
No need for attorney's fees. You can bring this case in small claims if necessary.
Unless the roof caves in. =A0I haven't read a
And if code says 3 layers are not allowed? And if code also says a building permit is required, but one was not pulled? And the roof is obviously new? The buyer should just roll over and accept that?
Most jurisdictions have a limit for small claims courts and that limit may be exceeded here. Sometimes you have to actually be out the money for which you're suing which means you've got to replace the roof THEN sue to recover.
Not only. What if the city discovers an illegal three layers on YOUR house? Claiming someone else did it won't impress the authorities.
So, what if the limit is exceeded? It's common for the small claims limit to be $5,000. Some places it's lower, maybe $3,000 and some it's as high as $10,000. If it happens to be capped at $3000, that still goes a long way towards covering the cost and would make it worth pursuing. Having the limit doesn't mean you can't bring the case to small claims, it only means any recovery is capped at that limit.
Sometimes you have to actually be out the money for which
In many locations, the presumption is that these are issues/questions that the buyer is expected to resolve at or before closing. After the sale is complete, you don't necessarily get to retroactively address these issues.
If you read my post, I said IF:
1 - It was recently re-roofed2 - Code says 3 layers are not allowed
3 - A building permit was required, but not pulled.Then you have a good case.
:I moved into my house not too long ago and had the first occasion to :want to go up to the roof yesterday. It looks like there are three :layers of shingles. I've read that you should never have more than :two layers of shingles because of the weight. How much should I worry :about this? : :Thanks for your input, :-Ben
My understanding is that 3 layers is maximum, i.e. if a roof with 3 layers needs reroofing, a complete tearoff is the first step. This is what happened when my roof was redone around 3 years ago. Judging from this thread, many if not most areas now require no more than 2 layers. As noted, make sure about your assessment of how many layers are on there.
Dan
:Having just one and only one layer is best. Shingles are heavy and :can put extra stress on a roof. I've seen some really bad sagging :roofs with 2,3 and 4 layers of shingles on it.
My roof was a sad sagger before the complete tearoff of the 3 layers that were on there around 3 years ago. It's amazing how nice it looks now. All that sag is gone.
Dan
replying to Ben, uglyhouse101 wrote: This should have been caught When you had your home inspection during your Due Dilligence period. Home Inspectors look critically at roofs for such issues. I would read through your home inspection report and contact them if you still have any concerns. They can come out and explain what you are seeing.
And they will also explain how even if they missed it, their contract says that you can't come after them.
Yes, aad I know of home inspectors that don't go up on the roof, so if you didn't see it before you bought the house, neither did he. Too bad, so sad.
I doubt any home inspector is going to come out 9 years after the inspection was done.
I wouldn't be surprised if the inspector (and his gerbils) have retired to Florida by now.
For an intelligent homebuyer like most on this list, the majority of home inspections are a TOTAL waste of money and time. Better to take a few of your good buddies along to look at the house _ they are likely to catch more than the inspectors will, and you'll be buying them a few beers anyway.
I would disagree. In most cases you can recover the cost of the home inspection and then some in reductions from the seller. And it's a lot more likely a seller is going to knock off $1000 for things that an inspector finds than those that a buyer and his buddies claim need addressing. It's worked for me.
That's for sure. IDK if you could get them to come back out after just a few months to explain what you are seeing. I suppose if you raise a big stink, they might, but they aren't in the business of hand holding.
That seems to be the main reason inspections are done and some lenders require it too. When I was buying you did your own inspection and maybe brought along dad or an uncle. Never used one so I don't now the real value of their work.
I've done the "pre-inspection" for several people who then hired a home inspector who missed every serious issue I pointed out, and caught a few things like cracked switch plates and poorly attached trim, and a missing crank on a casement window - missing the fact that the "redone" wiring was a total disaster and the roof, although it looked good from a distance, was about 5 years past it's "best before date" with serious issues in the valleys. Not to mention one of the carport posts was not carrying any weight because it was roted off under the recent aluminum cladding, and the asphault driveway was almost the consistency of gravel. ( that's just on the latest one) A total waste of, IIRC, $450.
There is ONE home inspector in the area I would trust to do an adequate home inspection - a former building contractor and developer who's been raising a bit of a "s*it storm" in the provincial property inspection circles for several years. Real estate selling agents are not happy when he's on the job.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required