BobK207 wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:07 pm, dpb wrote:
Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:29:40 -0500, dpb wrote:
...

And I can tell you that my personal experience in selling is contrary to
your belief. The AHJ did inspect prior to closing, and did require
repairs before closing could take place.
...

If that's so, then I'm definitely w/ Edwin on being glad I'm not there...

--

Based on this thread, I'm now REALLY sure that NJ is a good place to
be "from".

Having been "from" NJ for nearly 50 years!

Even the People's Republic of Kalifornia is less intrusive (but not by
much), who woulda thunk?

Well, I got curious again and did do (actually repeated because I
discovered pretty quickly my previous search _had_ been NJ as I thought
I recalled) a fairly long search of NJ statute and what I could find of
real estate buy/sell advice. I found _NO_ indication of any state law
requiring a jurisdictionally sponsored or required inspection other than
the seller disclosure form nor any other indication that any of these
restrictions are actually law, at least at the State level. In perusing
this, I found several sites of NJ-licensed inspectors and all of them
indicated their services were optional to the buyer except possibly by
the lending institutions, etc., as we all know.

My conclusion is still that many/most/(all?) of the hoops Art has jumped
through are either very local (and I found several sections in NJ
statute Sect. 46 that mentioned they overrode the localities' ability to
write their own regulations altho I can't swear in such a quick review
those cover all possible items) or a case of a realtor/broker/agent
handling the transaction and masking the actual legal _minimum_
requirements by handling it at a "higher level" if you will.

I'll be interested to see what additional info Art actually has as it
would be interesting to see just how bad it has gotten in some
localities if it is indeed that bad...

--