In article , dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Mike Paulsen" wrote in message
Ask your insurance agent what happens if you have a loss which is somehow
related to work done which should have had a permit, but didn't.

When selling a house the purchase agreement may have an area where the
seller must specify any work which was done without a permit. What now?
I don't know of anyone that ever ran into those situations. Have you?

In the market for a rental now and I've walked away from several that
had "bonus rooms" that didn't look permitted. I don't generally live in
fear of liability issues, but I wouldn't take that one on. Non-permitted
"improvements" can decrease, rather than increase, the value of a home.

That isn't same as seller-declared unpermitted work, though, if read
literally, anyway.

Any shoddy workmanship can be a detriment of course.

Did you actually run into a situation where it was required to and was
be disclosed on the jurisdiction's disclosure forms to have been done
w/o permits?


Two most common remodels around here are "garage conversions" in which
the garage has been converted to a bedroom, family room, or even studio
apt., and back patios enclosed to become a "bonus room."

I do not know what the law requires as far as disclosures, but most
listings will mention whether the work was or was not permitted. In the
case of bank-owned properties (abundant now) the standard disclaimer
applies: "Buyer to satisfy himself whether bonus room was constructed
with permit or not." The fact that these declarations are so common
leads me to believe they are required.

I've seen several houses where the owner claimed ignorance, and I've
seen several where he claimed permit. A declaration of ignorance,
roughly translated, means "there isn't a fat chance in hell this was
permitted," in *my* mind.