"dpb" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 8:34 am, Doc None@Youremail wrote:
wrote
groups.com:



On Apr 1, 11:31 am, "Eigenvector" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Apr 1, 2:25 am, "Jackson" wrote:
"cmiles3" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 26, 3:23 pm, wrote:
My wife and I were planning to sell our home in Central NJ
(clay dirt) with very high water table. We have a septic and
the septic appeared to be fine but figured that we should have
it tested so we don't have any problems when we sell.

(Much clipped for brevity)

Whether the OP should or should not have had this inspection done to be
nice is moot as in New Jersey both well and septic tests have to be
performed to sell a house. What might be worth doing is to get an
inspector without any fiscal incentive to find a problem to look at the
septic system. Also keep in mind that we have had lots and lots...and
lots and lots of rain recently. This might also impact the ability of a
marginal leach field to absorb water in the system.

It might make sense to have the system pumped and have an inspection
done so you can document the actions to a buyer, although if memory
serves, the septic inspection has to be done within 45 days of closing.

Good luck.

I couldn't find any indication of there being State law in NJ
requiring inspection by search of the NJ web site links for real
estate and

http://research.lawyers.com/New-Jers...ew-Jersey.html

doesn't indicate anything other than what looks to be the standard
disclosure of known defects/conditions by seller w/ the information
that the seller can expect a purchase offer to contain the right of
the prospective buyer to have an inspection performed.

Whether some localities may have some "occupiability" rules based on
health ordinances that might require a certification of septic/well
systems is something I didn't look at/for. And, of course, the
prospective buyer may well not be able to get a mortgage approval w/o
the inspection report, but doesn't look like there is anything
preventing a willing buyer to buy a home uninspected if they're
willing and have the wherewithal.

Of course, now that OP has a known or suspected problem, what he knows
and whatever is/isn't done to resolve that knowledge _will_ have to be
disclosed and to fail to do so constitute committing fraud and being
liable therefore.

(BTW, it's too wet here for much of anything I need to be doing
otherwise and was kinda' bored, hence the diversion... )


In my state an inspection isn't required. My buyer put it into the contract
as a requirement for sale, but it wasn't required by law.