I'm looking to buy a house and in the 'standard' purchase agreement it
says a "defect" means a condition that would have a significant adverse
effect on the value of the property, that would significantly impair
the health or safety of future occupants of the property, or that if
not repaired, removed, or replaced would significantly shorten or
adversely affect the expected normal life of the premises.

So the inspection comes back with a bunch of small stuff and one major
thing. How do I know what meets the definition of "defect' as quoted
above ? Thank you.

Major item: Deterioration and settlement were noted in the patio.
Repair is needed. The rear elevated porch slab is 15' x 6', and is
broken clean in two. The supporting concrete block structure, the top
few feet of which is visible from the outside and which forms the
basement wall, has deteriorated to the point where much of the mortar
is missing and a few of the blocks have been displaced by half an inch.

Minor items:

Negative slope was noted in the furnace flue pipe. A quarter inch rise
per floor is required.

The furnace flue pipe is in contact with wood in the basement. A 1 inch
clearance is required from combustibles.

The humidifier water panel needs to be replaced.

The furnace burners are short cycling. Service is needed.

Insufficient combustion air supply was noted in the furnace closet.
Proper air supply is needed.

Improper clearance was noted between the furnace flue pipe and
combustibles. Six inch clearance is required.

No overflow pan was noted below the furnace.

The main electrical service wire is less than 10 ft. above the patio.

Visible mold was noted on the upper level bathroom wall and wallpaper.

Visible mold was noted in the half bathroom wall below the sink.

Missing counter flashing was noted at the chimney. Repair is needed.
Existing flashing is not cut into chimney mortar.

Cracking and deterioration were noted in the chimney mortar cap. Repair
is needed.

Improper and unsafe steps were noted at the patio.

wrote:

I'm looking to buy a house and in the 'standard' purchase agreement it
says a "defect" means a condition that would have a significant adverse
effect on the value of the property, that would significantly impair
the health or safety of future occupants of the property, or that if
not repaired, removed, or replaced would significantly shorten or
adversely affect the expected normal life of the premises.

So the inspection comes back with a bunch of small stuff and one major
thing. How do I know what meets the definition of "defect' as quoted
above ? Thank you.

SNIP details

That's the problem with "standard" realtor contract forms.
Who will interpret the inspection result?

Does the contract say you can get out if you don't like the
results?

If you manage to get out of this one, hire a lawyer to write
your next offer and tell the realtor.......

I'm not just making snide remarks; this can be a tough situation.
If you're in doubt about how to handle this one, consider
getting an atty now to represent you against the realtor and seller.

OTOH, maybe it will go smoothly and they will meet whatever
demands you have to make.

Jim

As you mention, a lot of those seem like "minor items" to me. Very
minor. You won't find a house without a list of minor items at least as
long as that one.

If it were me, I'd pick maybe two or so of the more important things on
the list, and ignore the rest. 1. The service line being too low would
concern me. The utility can probably move it, but I'm guessing they
will charge at least $1k to do it. 2. The furnace flue could be fixed
by any company that installs furnaces. Shouldn't cost too much.

If you buy the house, then go ahead and get the furnace serviced, and
deal with the other things you listed. A little paint in the bathroom;
some caulk on the chimney cap; etc.

On 2 Mar 2005 18:45:02 -0800, someone wrote:

I'm looking to buy a house and in the 'standard' purchase agreement it
says a "defect" means.....

It says right there what constitutes a defect.

You should be asking your lawyer, not a bunch of anonymous people on
the NG. You are asking if specific conditions fall into a general
category. Well, do you think they do or not?


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

I did ask my attorney. I was hoping to get lucky and find someone
who'd been thru a similar process of having to pick thru a number of
items and determine which were significant. I cannot think of a better
way to take a shot at getting an impartial opinion from a large number
of people in a very short period of time, than posting on the news
group. The question is at least as appropriate as some of the other
posted questions about whether their oddly-behaving electric switch or
gas line or whatever is going to burn their house down.

Thank you for the comments, it has also occurred to me that some of the
code violations might even be of interest when getting a mortgage. The
mortgage co. asked for a copy of the inspection and I would expect them
to at last look for serious structural defects that would affect
their/my investment. I will follow where the path of the code
violations takes me.

wrote:
Thank you for the comments, it has also occurred to me that some of
the
code violations might even be of interest when getting a mortgage.
The
mortgage co. asked for a copy of the inspection and I would expect
them
to at last look for serious structural defects that would affect
their/my investment. I will follow where the path of the code
violations takes me.

You either want this house or your don't. If you don't, that one big
item is enough of a defect to back out in my opinion. Let them spend
money to fight it if they wish. One problem is that that cement crack
and gap is "open and notorious" and you were able to see it on a visual
inspection of your own. That's an arguing point in their favor.
Nevertheless, I'd back out if I wanted to and get an attorney if I
needed to.
Next time make sure your contract includes an inspection that is a
total weasel clause permitting you to back out if the inspection does
not meet with your approval.

"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
.... snip ...
I would think that whether or not your municipality requires it, you
should
ensure that the house meets all building codes before you buy it. Because
if it doesn't, you might be responsible for fixing those problems before
you
sell it. In other words, while you're there, whatever municipality it is
might decide to institute a rule that requires all houses to meet code
when
they're sold. In which case the problem is on your shoulders.

That is not practical. The general rule of thumb is that the building was in
compliance with the code at the time it was built or renovated and
subsequently inspected/signed off. Today's code is much stricter than in the
past. Having a municipality force you to come up to code would be
prohibitively expensive given the number of older homes.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA

Alan Sung wrote:
"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
... snip ...

I would think that whether or not your municipality requires it, you

should

ensure that the house meets all building codes before you buy it. Because
if it doesn't, you might be responsible for fixing those problems before

you

sell it. In other words, while you're there, whatever municipality it is
might decide to institute a rule that requires all houses to meet code

when

they're sold. In which case the problem is on your shoulders.


That is not practical. The general rule of thumb is that the building was in
compliance with the code at the time it was built or renovated and
subsequently inspected/signed off. Today's code is much stricter than in the
past. Having a municipality force you to come up to code would be
prohibitively expensive given the number of older homes.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA


Except if the code violation would have been a violation "back then"
when the house was built you could still be liable. Don't count on the
city inspectors to find much if anything, based on my experience.

"gary" wrote in message
...
Alan Sung wrote:
"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
... snip ...

I would think that whether or not your municipality requires it, you

should

ensure that the house meets all building codes before you buy it.
Because
if it doesn't, you might be responsible for fixing those problems before

you

sell it. In other words, while you're there, whatever municipality it
is
might decide to institute a rule that requires all houses to meet code

when

they're sold. In which case the problem is on your shoulders.


That is not practical. The general rule of thumb is that the building
was in
compliance with the code at the time it was built or renovated and
subsequently inspected/signed off. Today's code is much stricter than in
the
past. Having a municipality force you to come up to code would be
prohibitively expensive given the number of older homes.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA


Except if the code violation would have been a violation "back then"
when the house was built you could still be liable. Don't count on the
city inspectors to find much if anything, based on my experience.

Let's say for example there was some code violation "back then" BUT the
building inspector at that time signs off and says everything is fine (like
you said, they might not find anything).
Now you go sell today... the municipality cannot force you to correct what
was originally approved by them. There are cases where the municipality is
held responsible if it can be proven that it knowingly and negligently
approved work that was in violation of the code "back then" but this is not
an easy thing to do.

-al sung