Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:25:17 -0500, dpb wrote:
I don't know what "AHJ" stands for???

Authority Having Jurisdiction. Shorthand for whatever government agency
has its hand in this.

A CO certainly isn't a requirement for a sale to close in many (I'd
even venture most) jurisdictions.

News to me, but then I've only sold and purchased homes in NJ.

I've had to move an electrical outlet (closer to a "shop light"
flourescent fixture in the basement so as to eliminate an extension
cord), repoint a masonry chimney, and repair an exterior railing to
satisfy an AHJ in previous sales. All clearly code issues.

As the buyer, I do not interact with the AHJ, and I think (not certain)
that any inspection I purchase will come after the AHJ has given
approval. I do know that inspection reports I have received have not
called out code issues.

There is a requirement in most (is it all now? I don't know) states
for a disclosure form to be supplied by the seller to a prospective
buyer, but for all jurisdictions I've been in, any actual inspection
is a requirement placed by either the buyer or perhaps the lending
institution, not something with any actual legal authority.

Requirement for inspection by AHJ here is in addition to and separate
from anything required by the buyer. Real estate disclosure is required
here, and again is separate from government inspection; it includes all
issues known to seller, including things that would not be covered by an
inspection such as easements and deed restrictions. Real estate agents
suggest that buyers order an inspection from an independent provider,
but this is not mandatory.

As for the rhetorical question, it's a mixed bag -- if I were buying a
property w/ the intent of moving in and expecting to live in it w/ no
upgrades/maintenance required, sure I'd want anything _significant_
found in an inspection taken care of. OTOH, maybe I'm looking for a
"fixer-upper" or similar and I'd far prefer to take the house "as-is"
and use sweat equity to fix it up rather than have to pay up front.
And, that doesn't even begin to address the philosophical front of
whether it's "big gov't's" role or that of the buyer. Many are more on
the side of the latter than the former...

I agree about a "fixer". I do not know what provision the law here makes
for such a thing. I have seen real estate listings specify "structure
as-is", essentially disclaiming suitability for occupancy. In such a
case, I think buyer is buying the land, and no CO would be forthcoming.
Just a guess, but I think a very small minority of buyers are looking
for or would be willing to purchase a fixer.

It is my understanding that as a seller, I would NOT have the option to
negotiate code issues, found by the AHJ, with the buyer.

I (obviously) don't know NJ law, but somehow I'm having a hard time
believing there is force of law behind much of this as far as closing on
a sale. I can believe local jurisdictions may have requirements for a
CO prior to actually occupying a dwelling, but having a much harder time
believing they can prevent a willing seller/buyer from consummating a
transfer of title to a dwelling prior to it meeting all current code(s)...

That just "doesn't sound right". I could see where for a typical
homeowner/buyer it might "look" like that, but there has to be a way for
dilapidated properties, for example, to be bought/sold--otherwise, they
never would be and I really don't think that's the case.

None of this is meant as a personal castigation, I'm just thinking the
details of the law and how it may appear for "ordinary" transactions
aren't totally in consonance...and, of course, I _could_ be wrong...

Something similar to this came up not too long ago and I did a web
search for state laws in (I really want to say it was NJ) and came up w/
basically the same thing as other states -- the disclosure form was all
that was actually in state law. Inspections were optional (although
highly recommended to the buyer of course) and noted as possibly being
required by lenders for example to qualify a loan, but not required by
the force of law. That search, obviously, was at the state level and
local jurisdictions can do more, but probably not too much more or they
would have such a rebellion from property owners who couldn't divest
that can't seem them being able to go that far...

IMO, ymmv, $0.02, etc, etc., etc., ...

--


--