Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to misc.consumers.house
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently purchased a house that I had inspected prior to closing. The
inspector was an overly qualified proff engineer (PE) home inspector. I recently learned that he overlooked two very obvious and important defects. Not sure I wish to persue this matter, but I wouldn't mind getting opinions. #1---Was told that this is a 1973 house, (county records on the internet say this as well). However, I have found strong evidence that this house was probably a total remodel of an older house built maybe 10-20 yrs prior. A)--there are exposed areas of the sheathing (siding) in several places that are easily observed (where the exterior cedar shakes don't quite cover). This sheathing is shiplap. I understand that shiplap sheathing was replaced by plywood or particle board long before 1973. Also, the foundation has lines etched all over showing that before the shiplap boards were used as siding, they were used for cement forms for the foundation. This is supported by the cement stains seen on the shiplap boards. #2--- This is a daylight basement. During the inspection, I pointed out to the inspector that the basement was missing 300 sq feet in the corner, when compared to the upstairs....I wondered what was in this missing space. He just shrugged his shoulders. Well, I didn't know enough to worry about it, but a recent re-inspection revealed the obvious...the upstairs portion (above this missing 300 sq ft) is built above a cement pad....presumably the old garage floor before the remodel. While my original inspector may not have been expected to know about the cement pad...he should have wondered what the upstairs was sitting on, if not the basement walls. A quick look around the outside shows absolutely no crawlspace access or even ventilation. It was easy to see that part of the hous was built on a fully enclose, inaccessable, unventilated void. It was obvious that this wasn't a cement slab, because the hardwood floors above sound very hollow. Obviously, this devalues the house because it is an undesirable defect that cannot be fixed....who knows what condition the framing / subfloor is down there after 30 yrs of unventilated...the old garage floor is cement and could be damp. I'm guessing there is around 4 inches of space beneath the 2x8 floor joists and the cement floor....not enough of a void to ever put in access...ie cralspace. I am not sure if I want to sue the inspector (I already know the bit about liability waivers....and I don't believe that releases them from negligence in my area). Some considerations are #1--even if my house is a 1960 isntead of 73....it will be hard for me to quantify my damages in dollar terms (court may say the house is still worth what I paid....defense might claim that houses in the 60's are often built better than the 70's) #2--the crawlspace/void isn't necessarily a problem as there is no sign of mold/damage. How can I say how much this defect is worth in damages? #3--If I persue this case and research the records and find that the house is a remodel....someday when I sell it, I will have to disclose this fact which might make it hard for me to sell or lower the value. This is all very frustrating for me as these defects were pretty obvious (the second inspector found them in minutes....along with completely worthless siding on the whole house.) As I said my first inspector is a lic engineer (so was the 2nd) with 35 yrs of experience and thousands of inspections under his belt...so this is unbelievable. If I had known about any of this I would have walked away from that house like it was on fire. Now I own it and am indebted for 30yrs. Just curious if anyone has thought of anything that has yet to occur to me....doubtful as I've been dwelling on it a lot. |