Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.

Jim

"Speedy Jim" wrote in message ...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

The build date and effective year built are two different dates
entirely. Your county tax assessor should have the build date indicated
by the original permit pulled by the developer or builder. Like already
mentioned your planning and zoning department should have a record of
the original build date.

No need to panic though. When the dates differ you just need to find
our why. In many cases it’s an error or the home has been updated and
the work was extensive enough that the county chose an effective year
built of 1985 over original date 1969. I think your seller should have
advertised 1969 regardless.

It could be a good thing, I’ve seen homes that were gutted to the studs
and had new wiring, plumbing, sheet-rock, casing, base etc. replaced.
If you don’t have any permits pulled in 1980’s then I would worry. Plus
make sure that the home doesn’t have aluminum wiring. It would be an
anomaly if it did but these are questions to ask.


There comes a time in the affairs of man when he must take the bull by
the tail and face the situation. -- WCF
http://www.utahhousevalues.com

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message ...
"Speedy Jim" wrote in message ...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

Thanks for the answer,
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?
In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?
Thanks
Djavdet.

(Djavdet) wrote:
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?
In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?

Eh, it's not like foundations wear out (at least, not over the timeframes we're
dealing with her). Why should it be priced lower? As long as the foundation
area was brought up to code (vapor barrier, insulation) at the time of
construction, I can't see how it'd matter.

Now if the reason things were rebuilt was due to a fire, then I'd be a bit more
leery -- there'd be the possibility of all kinds of spalling or other weakening
if the fire had been severe.

"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"Speedy Jim" wrote in message
...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far
but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should
we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

Thanks for the answer,
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?





In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?
Thanks
Djavdet.

yah right!
a rebuilt house would be priced "higher" than the original not lower. It
sounds like you got a great deal.
and BTW
the foundation age should have been on the purchase and sales agreement or
listings page (before you purchased it). You should check your paper work
again.

1- Do you have knowledge that the owner knew it was built earlier?

2- Is there any evidence of the foundation being in poor condition?

3- How did you find out it was built earlier?

"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Difficult to say. I would not automatically assume the price should be
lower or the value of the house is less.

I would suggest a local attorney, after you have done all your homework
and have all the facts about building permits etc. It is a lot cheaper for
you to do it than the attorney.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"Speedy Jim" wrote in message
...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far
but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should
we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

Thanks for the answer,
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?
In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?
Thanks
Djavdet.

Hi Jane,
Please see my answers below,

"Jane" wrote in message ...
1- Do you have knowledge that the owner knew it was built earlier?

Yes I do, I was told that the seller knew about rebuilt, but her agent
did not.
I also was told that seller's agent is supposed to pull the records
from cityhall.


2- Is there any evidence of the foundation being in poor condition?

It looks good enough and our inspector did not notice anything wrong
with foundation.


3- How did you find out it was built earlier?

Appraiser found inconsistentcy in tax papers and some other docs on
the property he also found build permit. I am not sure what docs he
found 'cause I've not seen he's report yet.

Please ask any questions You want, i need to clearfy this situation
ASAP.
Thanks
Djavdet


"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Get an expert to evaluate the foundation, ask the seller about the
circumstances, and if you don't like the answers, YOU be the one to decide
to tell the seller that they should have disclosed it. Or you can pay
somebody to tell you that you can tell the seller the same thing. See what I
mean?
-B

"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Hi Andy,

Andy Hill wrote in message . ..

Eh, it's not like foundations wear out (at least, not over the timeframes we're
dealing with her). Why should it be priced lower? As long as the foundation
area was brought up to code (vapor barrier, insulation) at the time of
construction, I can't see how it'd matter.

I agree and that's why i am asking whether it's worth to escalte the
issue or just drop it as pointless. But just looking at the ads in our
area, some houses like 2002 "new construction" rebuilt on foundation
of '68 cost about 20-30K less. I was wondering why builders would
disclose the information about foundation, Is there a law forces them
to do so?

Now if the reason things were rebuilt was due to a fire, then I'd be a bit more
leery -- there'd be the possibility of all kinds of spalling or other weakening
if the fire had been severe.

I do not know, how would i found it out? I guess there should be some
records about it, right?
Djavet.

Hi Chucky,

"Chucky" wrote in message
yah right!
a rebuilt house would be priced "higher" than the original not lower. It
sounds like you got a great deal.

Before I found out about rebuilt problem , i was thinking it as a good deal.
So why do you think it should be priced higher then brand new house?

and BTW
the foundation age should have been on the purchase and sales agreement or
listings page (before you purchased it). You should check your paper work
again.

It's not in PnS, we agreed on PnS and later on appraiser found the problem.
What should I do?
Thanks
Djavdet.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:35:00 GMT, someone wrote:

Get an expert to evaluate the foundation, ask the seller about the
circumstances,

This is getting nuts.

Why would THIS foundation be any better if the house had NOT been
rebuilt. What evidence is there that there is anything WRONG with it.
The present house has been there how long????

At this point the Buyer needs to demonstrate that they will suffer
some harm from the foundation being older. They need to show they
were harmed by not finding this out earlier.

Okay so maybe they can get out of the contract if they squawk enough.
But to me expecting to continue to buy but get a lower price is a
little much. Who knows, maybe the Seller is highly motivated and
would make a concession to save the sale. But maybe not.

I am not seeing a problem here. There *could* be one under some
far-fetched scenario, but what is it besides speculation here.

-v.

If the foundation has been around since 1969 and is still in good
condition I'd prefer it over a newer, probably lower quality foundation.

Old doesn't always mean bad.

RB

Djavdet wrote:
Hi Jane,
Please see my answers below,

"Jane" wrote in message ...

1- Do you have knowledge that the owner knew it was built earlier?


Yes I do, I was told that the seller knew about rebuilt, but her agent
did not.
I also was told that seller's agent is supposed to pull the records
from cityhall.


2- Is there any evidence of the foundation being in poor condition?


It looks good enough and our inspector did not notice anything wrong
with foundation.


3- How did you find out it was built earlier?


Appraiser found inconsistentcy in tax papers and some other docs on
the property he also found build permit. I am not sure what docs he
found 'cause I've not seen he's report yet.

Please ask any questions You want, i need to clearfy this situation
ASAP.
Thanks
Djavdet


"Djavdet" wrote in message
.com...

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Hi ,


This is getting nuts.


What do you mean nuts?!
As I already described all houses in our area are listed lower price
and always described as rebuilt if they are rebuilt. And one of the
thing I am trying to find out if it is possible to ask the seller step
down a little... I bet if he listed the house as rebuilt the price
would be lower.

Why would THIS foundation be any better if the house had NOT been
rebuilt. What evidence is there that there is anything WRONG with it.
The present house has been there how long????

Well, it's suspicios at the least, why the seller did not desclose it
and even more suspicion why the house was rebuilt that early.


At this point the Buyer needs to demonstrate that they will suffer
some harm from the foundation being older. They need to show they
were harmed by not finding this out earlier.

That's true, if the seller demonstrates that the house is clean of any
problems and simply happened to be rebuilt on a bit older foundation
yes I would not have any problems to buy it.


Okay so maybe they can get out of the contract if they squawk enough.
But to me expecting to continue to buy but get a lower price is a
little much. Who knows, maybe the Seller is highly motivated and
would make a concession to save the sale. But maybe not.

I still like the house, and if the seller shows all documents
supporting he's words I'll buy the house, but from my experience, if
people are hiding something at the first place, very offten they keep
lieing to you to the end.
I am just trying to avoid bigger problem if there is any....


I am not seeing a problem here. There *could* be one under some
far-fetched scenario, but what is it besides speculation here.

Thanks for sharing your opinion anyway, it is always good to have more
then one head :-)

Djavdet.

"Djavdet" wrote in message
m...
Hi Chucky,

"Chucky" wrote in message
yah right!
a rebuilt house would be priced "higher" than the original not lower. It
sounds like you got a great deal.

Before I found out about rebuilt problem , i was thinking it as a good
deal.
So why do you think it should be priced higher then brand new house?

and BTW
the foundation age should have been on the purchase and sales agreement
or
listings page (before you purchased it). You should check your paper
work
again.

It's not in PnS, we agreed on PnS and later on appraiser found the
problem.
What should I do?
Thanks
Djavdet.

Get an attorney! Unfortunately I learned the hard way. Never purchase a
home without an attorney.

Brigitte

I think the point is that if you have knowledge
before the close of escrow, you can't complain later about lack of
disclosure.

You may have grounds to back out of the deal and can use that to renegoitate
a better price.

Or don't buy the house.

Buyer's remorse is common. But in this case, you can't blame the
seller/seller's agent.




--Remove -NOSPAM- to contact me.

On 7 Feb 2004 19:45:33 -0800, someone wrote:

.... if the seller shows all documents
supporting he's words....

And what kind of documents would those be?????

What are his words? His words are that it was rebuilt many years ago.
So he comes up with a document that confirms that it was? If *you*
are claiming there is a problem, then where are *your* docunents
supporting your words?

You apparently want him to "prove" there is NOT a problem. But
instead, can you PROVE that there *is*??? If you can't, why should he
lower the price???

-v.

RB writes:

If the foundation has been around since 1969 and is still in good
condition I'd prefer it over a newer, probably lower quality foundation.

Old doesn't always mean bad.

Up here in Minnesota, I'd say a lot of the new basements are better than
the old. Many of them are now poured concrete instead of blocks. The
waterproofing seems to be better now. More drain tiling is required.

I'll have to say I have seen a few new homes with some pretty shoddy block
work, but that seems to be the exception, not the norm.

Brian Elfert

(v) wrote in message ...
On 7 Feb 2004 19:45:33 -0800, someone wrote:

.... if the seller shows all documents
supporting he's words....

And what kind of documents would those be?????

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
right?
Why the same situation with the house should be any different?


What are his words? His words are that it was rebuilt many years ago.
So he comes up with a document that confirms that it was? If *you*
are claiming there is a problem, then where are *your* docunents
supporting your words?

There could be a fire, they painted foundation and i do not see
affected parts of it. How's that?


You apparently want him to "prove" there is NOT a problem. But
instead, can you PROVE that there *is*??? If you can't, why should he
lower the price???

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?
Djavdet.








-v.

"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
(v) wrote in message
...
On 7 Feb 2004 19:45:33 -0800, someone wrote:

(snip)
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?
Djavdet.

IMHO, time to walk away from the deal. The house is probably fine, but you
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.

aem sends....

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
right?
And if you bought my car, I am under NO obligation to show you those
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?


Why the same situation with the house should be any different?

Because it is a house which is real estate and not a car which is a
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.

There could be a fire, they painted foundation and i do not see
affected parts of it. How's that?

Prove there was a fire. And what if there was? Why is that a
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.


2. If there is no document proving the rebuilt, there could be a case
when the house was not rebuilt entirely but say remodelled.

Right. And so he has a "document" that PROVES he paid $X to have it
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!


Again non of this was disclosed why should I beleive on his words?
Djavdet.

Because you are LOOKING at the house. Do you like what you see or
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.

-v.

(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
right?
And if you bought my car, I am under NO obligation to show you those
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

As far as I know seller has to disclose certain information about the
house.
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.

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.

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?

BTW, have you ASKED the owner why it was rebuilt (was he even the one
who rebuilt it) and what did he say?

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.

Why the same situation with the house should be any different?

Because it is a house which is real estate and not a car which is a
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.

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.


There could be a fire, they painted foundation and i do not see
affected parts of it. How's that?

Prove there was a fire. And what if there was? Why is that a
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.

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?


2. If there is no document proving the rebuilt, there could be a case
when the house was not rebuilt entirely but say remodelled.

Right. And so he has a "document" that PROVES he paid $X to have it
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.

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.

Which is determined by the buyer looking at it. So you looked at it.
What is wrong with it?

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 ....

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!

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....

Again non of this was disclosed why should I beleive on his words?
Djavdet.

Because you are LOOKING at the house. Do you like what you see or
not? Then what does it matter.

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.

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.

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.
Djavdet.

On 11 Feb 2004 00:46:20 -0800, someone wrote:

As far as I know seller has to disclose certain information about the
house.
I am not sure though whether it is a law or not.

Well, if you are saying he is doing something illegal, you'd better
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
ACTUALLY WANT????



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.

There is no paper saying it is 65 either. Again, WHAT DO YOU WANT.
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???


BTW, have you ASKED the owner why it was rebuilt (was he even the one
who rebuilt it) and what did he say?

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.

Then you are an idiot, if this is your big question that controls
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?


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.

So do you want the house or not, WHAT DO YOU WANT, *KNOWING* what you
know?


Well, i think it's quite easy to prove there was fire. Should be in
records somewhere.

Then prove there was. Do you want the Seller to prove there WAS or
WAS NOT a fire? WHich do you want?


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?

Your English has slipped so badly I do not know what you mean. I
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.


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 ....

You would know if you got that person tested. This is a house. What
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?

-v.

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.

(Djavdet) wrote in message . com...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

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.


"Philip" wrote in message
om...
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.

(Djavdet) wrote in message
. com...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

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
back then!

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...

b

"art" 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.


"Philip" wrote in message
om...
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.

(Djavdet) wrote in message
. com...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet