Real Estate Articles & Blog - Don Dunning
Menu
  • Home
  • East Bay Realty Pro
  • Expert Witness
  • Hourly Consulting
  • About Don
  • Contact Don
  • Home
  • East Bay Realty Pro
  • Expert Witness
  • Hourly Consulting
  • About Don
  • Contact Don

Missing information makes all parties miserable


By Don Dunning | March 31, 2011

Originally appeared in Bay Area News Group publications on April 8, 2011

Surprises in an escrow almost always turn out badly. This was true for the buyer, seller and agents in a recent, local purchase. In the end, the sale went through, but only after all involved endured much grief.

This is the one

After more than seven months of searching for the right house, the buyer finally found one that met her needs. It was charming, the right location and size and had wonderful indoor-outdoor living. Most importantly, the property was relatively new and seemed to lack serious problems.

This was critical, because the buyer had declined to make offers on a number of other listings when pre-sale reports indicated expensive issues. Expressing relief, she was pleased this was not a “problem” property.

Missing information

As is common, the buyer was provided with a structural pest control (termite) report and seller disclosures. A pre-sale home inspection report would have been extremely helpful, but was not available.

The termite report indicated that half of the windows had sufficient damage that they needed replacement. Unfortunately, there was no dollar amount for this work, just a bid for two other, small items that totaled under $500.

Offer accepted

After the buyer had visited the home several times, she made an offer that was accepted. The contract contained a contingency for buyer inspections and appointments were scheduled with professionals to evaluate condition.

Due to the fact that replacing a large number of windows tends to be expensive, the buyer’s agent (selling agent) arranged for his “window person” to look at all the windows and give his opinion on condition. The pest control inspector was asked to return, measure the windows and give a proposal for replacing those noted in his report.

Feedback from inspections

Windows on the agent’s home had been replaced to his satisfaction by his inspector. This is why he trusted the surprising news at the end of the window examination – all the windows needed replacement, not just those mentioned in the termite report.

Further, it was not only the windows (sashes), but all the frames were also defective. The window man explained that substandard wood had been used in the window installation. He had seen this before and warned that even those few frames that were not currently showing signs of rot would have significant deterioration in as little as another year or two.

Finally, he expressed his opinion that it made no sense to install new windows in flawed frames and advised against doing so. Interestingly, the pest control company’s bid was for placing new windows in the existing frames. With greater perspective from the window specialist, the pest control company was asked to bid on replacing all windows, including sashes and frames. That estimate came in at roughly $2500 per window, a substantial figure when multiplied by all the windows.

In addition to windows, there were also problems with the gutters, the possibility of replacing the main electrical service panel and water entry into the garage.

After digesting all this, the buyer made removal of her inspection contingency dependent on the seller’s agreement to pay for replacement of all windows – like for like. The buyer was willing to be responsible for all other repairs.

Seller refuses, sale crashes

The seller, now upset about problems that had never been on her radar, offered the buyer a “take-it-or-leave-it” token amount, stating that she would put the house back on the market and be able to sell it quickly to someone else. Not surprisingly, the buyer cancelled the contract.

Seller offers to pay more

About ten days later, and with no new contract in hand, the listing agent forwarded the selling agent a note from the seller, offering to pay the replacement window cost. This was based on a new bid the seller received from a window company she had chosen.

As the buyer still wanted the house, both she and her agent called and spoke to the seller’s window specialist. It turns out that this new bid did not include replacement of the frames. Additionally, the windows were not like for like, wood for wood; rather, they were a composite wood/plastic material.

Upon questioning, the seller’s window man agreed with the first window specialist that almost all the frames were shot and that he would not put new windows in them if it was his own house. When asked how much replacement with all wood windows and frames would be, his estimate was the same $2500 per window as the pest control company’s bid.

At this point, the buyer asked the seller to pay for about seventy-five percent of the cost of replacing with all wood windows and frames and the seller agreed. Escrow closed one week later.

Final Thoughts

The moral of this story is that, before marketing, prudent sellers should have their homes inspected and get bids for any necessary work that will be costly. Not doing so is likely to lead to the type of aggravation encountered by everyone involved in this transaction.

Related Articles:

Pre-sale Inspections
Condition is Critical

 

 

Copyright 2011 Don Dunning (Bureau of Real Estate Lic. #00768985)
Permission is given to freely copy any or all articles for personal and
noncommercial use provided they are copied in full without
modification and that proper attribution is given.
These articles may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, nor linked to from another site.

2 thoughts on “Missing information makes all parties miserable”

  • akenclark says:
    June 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    As a former accountant, now a Realtor, I am a BIG believer in “no surprises” and “full, frank, and plain disclosure”. I loved your article from a few years back about pre-listing inspections.

    I remember hearing about a case where some aggressive attorneys were trying to create a liability for the Realtor when serious flaws were revealed! Their argument was that the Realtor’s advice to get an inspection had robbed the seller of the possibility of selling to a naive buyer who might not have any of his own inspections, and the Realtor’s advice had created an obligation to disclose that harmed the seller. Are you aware of this case and/or how it turned out? (Or is it an urban myth that I should be consulting Snopes about?)

    Good work on your blog!
    regards
    Ken

    Log in to Reply
    • Don says:
      June 19, 2011 at 7:54 pm

      Ken,
      Thanks for the kind words. I have not heard of that case and believe I would have as a Calif Assoc of Realtors director at our legal update meetings. It sounds like an urban myth. As an expert witness, I would love to be on the opposing side of the ridiculous premise you cited for not getting pre-sale inspections.
      Don

      Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Categories


  • Adding Value – Gardening/Landscaping/Renovations (29)
  • Alameda (2)
  • Around the House (20)
  • Carmel (1)
  • Community (43)
  • Condos (2)
  • Environment (27)
  • Events (13)
  • Expert Witness (7)
  • General Information (23)
  • Going Green (14)
  • History (13)
  • Home Maintenance (15)
  • Homeless (1)
  • Homes for Sale (8)
  • Hourly Consulting (10)
  • Local Attractions (24)
  • Mortgages-Loans (9)
  • New Orleans (1)
  • Oakland Neighborhoods (27)
  • Oh, Please (7)
  • Parks (1)
  • Pets (4)
  • Real Estate (285)
  • Real Estate Advice (109)
  • Real Estate in the News (77)
  • Real Estate Newspaper Articles (164)
  • Restaurants (3)
  • Rockridge (1)
  • Shops (6)
  • Technology (1)
  • The Economy (48)
  • Travel (3)

Tags


Buying Buying a home California unemployment Choosing an agent City Ordinance Cohousing Communal Housing construction data mining Dimond East Bay Events Expert Witness gardening green living Historical Sites home inspections Home Loans home maintenance lead paint legislation Mortgages multiple offers Newspaper article Oakland Oaktoberfest Oktoberfest Online real estate organic Pets Points of Interest Real Estate Advice Real Estate Law real estate news renovation Rockridge schools Selling a Home shopping social networking Tax Credit Technology termites The Economy Travel

Archives


  • May 2017
  • February 2017
  • November 2016
  • September 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • October 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003
  • November 2002
  • October 2002
  • September 2002
  • August 2002
  • July 2002
  • June 2002
  • May 2002
  • April 2002
  • January 2002
  • November 2001
  • October 2001
  • September 2001
  • August 2001
  • July 2001
  • June 2001
  • May 2001
  • April 2001
  • February 2001
  • January 2001
  • November 2000
  • October 2000
  • September 2000
  • August 2000
  • July 2000
  • June 2000
  • May 2000
  • March 2000
  • February 2000
  • January 2000
  • November 1999
  • August 1999
  • July 1999
  • May 1999
  • April 1999
  • March 1999
  • January 1999
  • October 1998
  • September 1998
  • July 1998
  • June 1998
  • February 1998
  • November 1997
  • October 1996
  • May 1996
  • August 1995
  • July 1995

Copyright © 2018 Don Dunning - Bureau of Real Estate Lic. #00768985

Theme created by PWT. Powered by WordPress.org