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

Buyers: Use common sense negotiating repairs


By Don Dunning | July 15, 2013

Originally appeared in Bay Area News Group publications on July 12, 2013

“Common sense is not so common.”
– Voltaire

Despite its technical aspects, almost everything in residential real estate involves common sense, including negotiating for repairs after a home inspection. Successfully doing so requires knowledge of the business and of people and their circumstances. It is important to use good judgment. Not everyone does.

Although getting money back for problems is more difficult in a seller’s market such as we have today, there are situations where it is appropriate. Nonetheless, how you handle your request can be the difference between a successful closing and a frustrating sale that flops.

The basics

A major consideration is whether the buyer is provided with comprehensive disclosures and reports, including a recent general home inspection, before he makes an offer. If he receives them, the buyer will have significant material upon which to base his bid. If not, he will have limited information about the property’s condition and, unless otherwise disclosed, will be forced to assume there are no costly conditions requiring repair.

In the former scenario, the buyer is still entitled to, and should be encouraged, to hire his own inspectors to substantiate the findings in reports provided by the seller. Generally, only new problems, and/or already disclosed difficulties with a much higher repair cost, are considered for funds back to the buyer. It is assumed that serious issues, disclosed in advance with the cost to repair, will be understood and accepted when the buyer decides how much to offer.

In the latter situation, anything that comes up in the buyer’s reports that has a significant price tag is fair game for negotiation with the seller. This is one of the reasons I strongly suggest that my sellers have general home inspections before the home is marketed. Surprises can be deadly.

For either scenario, I counsel my buyers that inspections are intended to uncover expensive problems with a property, not to create a laundry list of relatively small items.

Sale almost failed

Not long ago, in competition, an East Bay purchaser made an offer well over asking price. It was accepted. After home inspections, he committed some serious, strategic mistakes in negotiating with the seller, almost sabotaging the transaction.

This buyer was provided with disclosures as well as a structural pest control report and a pre-sale home inspection. During his inspection period, the buyer had another pest control inspection, as well as inspections from his own home inspector, structural engineer, roofer, heating contractor, asbestos removal company and others.

Shortly before his inspection contingency was due, the buyer had his agent email the listing agent a long list of problems with the property along with reports and bids totaling around $90,000. The selling agent said the buyer planned to do everything on this list and he was asking only about half this amount. The buyer’s estimate far exceeded reports and proposals the seller had shared before the buyer wrote his contract.

Bids of almost $11,000 for a new furnace and heating ducts and an additional $1500 for removing existing ducts covered with asbestos were presented. The most common reason for a new furnace is a cracked heat exchanger; however, both the seller’s and buyer’s home inspectors had checked the heat exchanger and indicated it was not cracked.

The furnace was working fine. A new furnace and accompanying asbestos removal were not needed and this was rejected out-of-hand.

The structural engineer estimated over $40,000 for foundation, seismic and drainage work despite the fact that the buyer had had significant foundation work done while he owned the home. And this work was based on the same engineer’s previous recommendations. The seller did not believe the home had drainage problems, but agreed to some credit for this issue in order to keep the transaction together.

Previous roof inspections had been disclosed by the seller. A bid from the buyer’s licensed roofer was for more than $12,000, implying the buyer would hire this company to do the work.

The seller saw this as uncalled for as the buyer was a licensed roofer and his report was from another firm. Clearly, the buyer’s cost would be nowhere near this figure. Other items and costs on the buyer’s long list were also dismissed as unreasonable.

In the end, the seller offered what he considered a reasonable credit to the buyer and the buyer refused. The seller stood his ground and, after sleeping on it, the buyer accepted.

If the sale had crashed

In transactions like this, the stigma of unfair and purposely puffed up repair costs often sticks and the seller would probably have suffered financially if the sale had not closed.

The seller would have been obligated to have his agent give every inspection report and bid from the failed buyer, including the unnecessary heating and asbestos proposals, to all future buyers. This could have severely diminished the property’s value because buyers and their agents normally just scan reports and disclosures and ask few, if any, questions. When repair costs are high, buyers typically lose interest and go on to the next home.
Final thoughts

I constantly remind clients of the importance of condition, especially in a seller’s market where it is challenging for buyers to get price adjustments.

I also counsel them to focus on real, expensive, previously unknown issues and not pump up the cost and lead the seller and his agent to question their honesty and integrity. Doing otherwise can lead to an unhappy ending.

Related Articles:

Condition is Critical

 

 

Copyright 2013 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.

Tags: Buying a home, home inspections, Newspaper article, Real Estate Advice

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