I do have a buying agent, who happens to be a family friend which I am
now realizing isnt the best idea for business. She is the one who
orderd the inspection from this company.

The home as far as I know is a Modular Home built by Kaufmun and Broad
in 1988. It looks completely like a real house and has everything a
house does. The last two times it sold it increased in vaule ALOT, Im
not saying this will happen again, Im just saying it has not
depreciated. here is a picture of the front, doesnt look mobile to me.

http://64.80.121.120/private/house/images/IMG_0792.jpg

Any one have any more suggestions for me on what I should do, I really
like the rest of the house. Is rubber roofing the way to go to replace
this, how long will it last? I read that the rolled roofing only lasts
like 10 years?

Thanks guys




"JsWalker LazenbyJr" wrote in message ...
I'm differing to a roofer for any idea of cost or method of
replacement.

But, I have to comment on two things in particular: a. the
seller's failure to disclose a temporary repair of a bad
roof; and b. the lack of "comments" in the provided place
in FYI's report to you.

What appears to you to be concrete (I assume you haven't
seen any more than we have, being the photos, which are a
bit fuzzy) appears to me to be a visible portion of an older
built-up tar and gravel roof under the rolled roofing, which
has blown off. I would hazard an opinion that this built-up
roof (which may be slag or marble or any other "gravel" and
not actually gravel) failed. It was used initially due to
the very shallow pitch (slope) of the roof. Still used
today but this looks like an ideal application for a rubber
roof. I would guess applying the rolled roofing over the
built-up roof destroyed what integrity was left in the old
roof. If it leaked before, I can imagine it is more sieve
than roof by now. The rolled roofing was a patch, not a
roof, and the building inspector should have so advised you
(except he probably doesn't know any more about roofing than
you do . . . or, just enough more to be especially
dangerous, which is more likely).

I don't know the area of the roof section in question.
$3,000 sounds almost reasonable, but there is no question in
my mind that there was deliberate deception on the seller's
part and either that or gross incompetence on the
inspector's part.

I'd see what remedies are available against the seller for
misrepresentation of the product (which is illegal as well
as not a nice thing to do and is a business tort, which
means criminally prosecutory). And, I'd demand my
inspection fee back from FYI. (I love that name! Not too
original, but creative, sorta like the report and advice
that cost wouldn't be too much.) Who recommended or hired
the inspector, the broker representing the seller? If so,
you might consider complaining on that score. If you
indicate you are going to make a formal complaint, I don't
think you'll have any problem with a refund of inspection
fee, if you paid it. If you didn't pay it, you might have
action against FYI for misrepresentation as well.

Depends on how much you want the house. Don't accept a cash
settlement. Specify that the existing "roof" be removed,
the roof sheathing replaced as necessary, and a new "rubber"
roof or suitable built-up roof be installed at the seller's
expense, receipts and releases of liens delivered to you as
a condition of closing. If the seller agrees, I suggest you
find out what difference in cost for rubber vs built-up
roofing and pay the difference if it isn't too much and you
can afford it. Or, considering the mess they seem to have
caused, with their full knowledge, you might just insist on
a rubber roof, period.

Good luck.

(Oh, yes. Did you have a buyer's broker representing you?
Was there even a broker involved? This is the very thing a
broker must advise you of. Ignorance is no excuse. Stand
tall. It appears from what you have posted that you are,
indeed, an aggrieved party and should demand a cure
satisfactory to you.

Jim
"AJ" wrote in message
om...
Hi everyone,

I hope some one can help me with my questions on rolled
roofing (or
roofing in general). I am in the process of buying my
first house and
upon inspection we have found out that the rolled roofing
is blowing
off and has caused leakage on the inside when it rains.
The inspected
made it seem like it fairly minor in cost to repair, but
after looking
at the pictures it seems pretty serious, but Im not
roofing expert.
Can any one comment the looks of these pictures, I notice
there is
concreat in one of the pictures does any one know why that
would be?

HERE ARE THE PICTURES OF SAID ROOF:

http://64.80.121.120/private/house/roof1.jpg
http://64.80.121.120/private/house/roof2.jpg


Please estimate how much it would cost to repair (I know
you cant be
sure because you cant see it but give it your best shot).

The seller did not disclose this to me on the discloser
form but we
did ask for help with closing costs where she did credit
me "$3000
(ie, closing costs, roof repair") which I did not notice.

What do you think I should do, does this make or break the
deal?
Should I call it off, any input on this would be great.

How would this be repaired?

Thank you so much,

email

Actually, you do save in this scenario. For the purchase price of $170k and
5.5% interest your total payment is $347,486.87.
If the price drops 30% to $119k and the interest goes up 4 points to 9.5%
your total payment would be $360,221.94. The equity would be higher in the
first scenario, but you may find a better investment than 4 percent points
over 30 years to make up the difference.

EJ

"Koert" wrote in message
...
Hi AJ,

As an appraiser in California, these are my thoughts:

If the home is worth more than $150,000 - $200,000 or so, $3,000 to have
the
roof properly repaired is almost insignificant.

I think the more important decision is the timing of your purchase.

The market in California (assuming you're near Lake Elsinore) has been on
a
rampage for the last five years and the state of the current market has
been
described by some as "irrational exuberance". (Does this bring to mind the
stock market of a few years ago?) Real estate values are now based as much
on their speculative value as on the value of shelter.

Real estate values could go anywhere from here. It seems impossible that
it
could continue upwards, but I was saying the same thing two years ago and
it
hasn't missed a beat. (Similar to when the stock market was going crazy in
spite of what analysts were saying.)

But, you are buying during a period of historical high values, at the peak
(?) of a strong run in value, and at the time of year when prices are
typically at their highest. (The market is usually strongest in June-July,
settles a bit in August, and then has a final strong push in September. If
I
owned the property that you're buying, I'd be anxious to sell exactly
now.)

Also, the effects of the market are compounded by the type of property you
are buying. When the market is strong, most buyers ignore atypical
construction, location problems, etc. but when the market softens, buyers
could demand huge discounts for manufactured homes compared to
conventional
construction. This would translate to a faster drop in value than you
would
experience with a conventional home.

So, either way is a gamble. You can buy now and hope we don't see a 30-40%
decline in value over the next three years, or you can wait and try to
pick
up the same type of property at a huge discount when the foreclosures
start
showing on the market. Today's interest rates are attractive, but it
doesn't
make sense to pay an extra 30% for a property because you're saving 4% on
the interest rate.

Anyway, over the last three years all my forecasts (the sky is falling!)
have been wrong and the market has continued to remain strong. However,
you'll want to go into this deal with your eyes open and aware of the
possibilities.

In spite of your friend's good intentions, agents are usually encouraged
to
remain optimistic about the market. Ask almost any agent, any time, if
right
now is a good time to buy or sell, and the answer is almost always "yes".

Whatever we do, it's a gamble, but the most important rules seem to be:
Never buy anything you can't hold onto for at least ten years and Never buy
a property you don't really like or can't really afford.

Yes, I agree, infact I thought the exact same thing bout the real
estate bubble. This is how I look at it, let me know what you guys
think.

1. My lease on my appartment is up soon, I pay 920 a month + utils
2. Upon the end of my lease the will surley raise my rent tho who
knows how much.
3. The home I'm purcahsing is 185,000, and payments will be around
1220 high estimate. (total, piti)

So I need a place to live, at the end of the day, the cost monthly
will be very close (as the new apartments here in 92562 go for
1300-1500 for a 2 bedroom). For the slight increase, I get more
privacy, my own land, garage, quiet neighboorhood. I make plenty of
money to maintain those kind of costs even if I were to loose my job.
And, not to mention I am getting railed on my taxes every year with no
write offs. I guess the bottom line is, this cost of living has risen
so much here that at the minimum I will paying in to the same price
range of purchasing a house, with none of the benifits.

Now on the down side, the prices are on the high side, although I am
not buying more than I can afford. There is a fear of prices dropping
and me being stuck with a house thats worth less than I owe on it. For
this problem, I could turn to renting the house out until prices rise
(or maybe longer who knows?).

Are there any problems with my logic?, I do like the house, I do need
a place to live, I can afford it, worse case hopefully I can rent it
out while I buy more properties. I do not plan on living there for 10
years however, I am 22 I am hoping to be on to bigger and better
things with in the next 10 years

Please comment

Thanks

AJ wrote:


Whatever we do, it's a gamble, but the most important rules seem to be:
Never buy anything you can't hold onto for at least ten years and Never buy
a property you don't really like or can't really afford.

Yes, I agree, infact I thought the exact same thing bout the real
estate bubble. This is how I look at it, let me know what you guys
think.

1. My lease on my appartment is up soon, I pay 920 a month + utils
2. Upon the end of my lease the will surley raise my rent tho who
knows how much.
3. The home I'm purcahsing is 185,000, and payments will be around
1220 high estimate. (total, piti)

You need to plan your future in a little more detail than
"bigger and better things in less than 10 years..."

but financially, if you figure out when you expect to sell the house,
you can then compare how much money you'll have in your
pocket at that point if you (A) rent, (B) buy the house,
and sell it at the end of that time, or (C) buy a cheaper house,
and sell it, instead. Choose the result that leaves you
with the most money.

Obviously, the longer you stay in one place, the more sense
buying makes. Equally obviously, owning a house always
costs more in maintenance than you think it will.

"AJ" wrote in message
om...

Whatever we do, it's a gamble, but the most important rules seem to be:
Never buy anything you can't hold onto for at least ten years and Never
buy
a property you don't really like or can't really afford.

Yes, I agree, infact I thought the exact same thing bout the real
estate bubble. This is how I look at it, let me know what you guys
think.

1. My lease on my appartment is up soon, I pay 920 a month + utils
2. Upon the end of my lease the will surley raise my rent tho who
knows how much.
3. The home I'm purcahsing is 185,000, and payments will be around
1220 high estimate. (total, piti)

So I need a place to live, at the end of the day, the cost monthly
will be very close (as the new apartments here in 92562 go for
1300-1500 for a 2 bedroom). For the slight increase, I get more
privacy, my own land, garage, quiet neighboorhood. I make plenty of
money to maintain those kind of costs even if I were to loose my job.
And, not to mention I am getting railed on my taxes every year with no
write offs. I guess the bottom line is, this cost of living has risen
so much here that at the minimum I will paying in to the same price
range of purchasing a house, with none of the benifits.

Now on the down side, the prices are on the high side, although I am
not buying more than I can afford. There is a fear of prices dropping
and me being stuck with a house thats worth less than I owe on it. For
this problem, I could turn to renting the house out until prices rise
(or maybe longer who knows?).

Are there any problems with my logic?, I do like the house, I do need
a place to live, I can afford it, worse case hopefully I can rent it
out while I buy more properties. I do not plan on living there for 10
years however, I am 22 I am hoping to be on to bigger and better
things with in the next 10 years

Please comment

Thanks

Mortgage and utilities are not the only expenses. Add taxes, insurance, and
repair expenses. Just reading this news group can raise your hair. If you
buy an almost new house these expenses hit a low about 5-10 years after the
purchase, but then rise steadily. And if you don't spend on fixing your
house on average you will loose the value of your house. If you figure the
total of 1.3 to 1.5 x your mortgage payment you should be in the right
ballpark.

EJ

No HOA fees? The saving grace could be that this house is truly
"affordable". A tax write-off is never a reason to buy something you don't
need, but it does reduce the cost. It could be that the $1,220 per month you
pay could be actually closer to $850 a month, after taxes (depends on your
bracket).

If you really would like living there for a while (make sure you carefully
check out the neighbors!) it sounds like it could work for you. But, be
warned, many neighborhoods are full of 30 year owners who only planned on
staying for five years or so. At 22 years old, the years still go by fairly
slowly. At 24, the years will go by four times as fast; at 30 they'll go by
164 times as fast; and at 40 they go by 26,896 times as fast.

It sounds like a good deal, but if your real dream is to live in a one
bedroom condominium in Dana Point, there might be some deals in the next 3-5
years.

"AJ" wrote in message
om...

Whatever we do, it's a gamble, but the most important rules seem to be:
Never buy anything you can't hold onto for at least ten years and Never
buy
a property you don't really like or can't really afford.

Yes, I agree, infact I thought the exact same thing bout the real
estate bubble. This is how I look at it, let me know what you guys
think.

1. My lease on my appartment is up soon, I pay 920 a month + utils
2. Upon the end of my lease the will surley raise my rent tho who
knows how much.
3. The home I'm purcahsing is 185,000, and payments will be around
1220 high estimate. (total, piti)

So I need a place to live, at the end of the day, the cost monthly
will be very close (as the new apartments here in 92562 go for
1300-1500 for a 2 bedroom). For the slight increase, I get more
privacy, my own land, garage, quiet neighboorhood. I make plenty of
money to maintain those kind of costs even if I were to loose my job.
And, not to mention I am getting railed on my taxes every year with no
write offs. I guess the bottom line is, this cost of living has risen
so much here that at the minimum I will paying in to the same price
range of purchasing a house, with none of the benifits.

Now on the down side, the prices are on the high side, although I am
not buying more than I can afford. There is a fear of prices dropping
and me being stuck with a house thats worth less than I owe on it. For
this problem, I could turn to renting the house out until prices rise
(or maybe longer who knows?).

Are there any problems with my logic?, I do like the house, I do need
a place to live, I can afford it, worse case hopefully I can rent it
out while I buy more properties. I do not plan on living there for 10
years however, I am 22 I am hoping to be on to bigger and better
things with in the next 10 years

Please comment

Thanks