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.

You have to prove financial damage. Sounds to me like you haven't found
anything that needs repair yet. If you do find something, talk to a lawyer,
and weigh the legal cost, time off from work, and aggravation, against what
you'd get in return IF you won. Post your question to alt.legal

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Many people now believe that a dry unventilated crawlspace is better than a
ventilated one since moist air enters a ventilated space, cools, and drops
moisture in the crawl space. So that may not be considered a defect at all
provided it is dry.


wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

If you are in the US many states have laws requiring sellers to disclose
defects in homes to potential buyers. You should check out your state laws.


wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

In article .com,
says...

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.

Was the inspector referred to you by the agent?

Looking over your objections below, I don't offhand see an actual problem.


#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.

Common practice may have been to use plywood; that doesn't mean that this house
therefore was built before then.

What are the building codes in your area? What were they in 1973? I have some
aspects of my house I *know* aren't current code because it's a semi-rural area
which didn't have codes until more recently, but they're grandfathered in.

Banty

In article , pe says...

On 22 Jan 2006 11:55:21 -0800, Banty wrote:

In article .com,
says...

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.

Was the inspector referred to you by the agent?

Bad idea, but even if you choose your own they all depend on Real Estate agents
for their bread and butter. No inspector lasts in business long if he costs the
Agents too many sales.


Agreed.

Banty

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


I say this kindly, you are over reacting. You have new mortgagee remorse.
15-20 extra years onto the age of a house that is at least 35 years old is
no big deal. It is the problems that exist within the property that cause
the value to lower.

I don't see where you have a problems that materially affect the value of
this home. As another person pointed out the old garage area is not a
problem unless it wet. Most likely if it was wet the floors would have
rotted a long time ago.

Your basement may be 300 square foot smaller but if you needed an inspector
to tell you that you have a vision problem. You saw it and you bought it.

Why is your siding now worthless in your mind?

And lastly you can visit the building department and determine exactly when
the structure was built. The online records may be wrong but the paper on
file will be correct. If they don't have this information just trace the
deeds back to the initial development. Or if the toilet is the original
look at the date stamped inside the tank.

Sincere best wishes and if you get the final answer let us know what it was.

Colbyt

wrote:
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.


Since this is partly a legal issue the only useful opinion on the legal
part will be that of a local attorney.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Joseph Meehan wrote:
wrote:

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.



Since this is partly a legal issue the only useful opinion on the legal
part will be that of a local attorney.

Hmmm,
Overly qualified did not do proper job? Interesting!

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


Home infections are just that. And no I did not miss-spell the word.

I live in Arizona and the infector is liable for squat............. Short of
showing up to the wrong house their report is worthless. I have bought and
sold real-estate for 30 years. NEVER saw one report that I thought was worth
the power to blow it to hell.

You say PE.... in what? Professional Engineers are to my knowledge done by
discipline Mechanical, Civil, or Electrical. Last time I checked there was
not PE for residential construction. Hell most are carpenters and do not
have a clue about electrical, or mechanical.

I do my own inspections. Save the $300 toilet paper.
Like I said I live in Arizona. I filed a written complaint on the last two
inspectors. Neither complaint was ever acknowledged. As far as I can see it
is a lot like insurance, a license to steal.

You can tell I am not impressed with home infectors.

Suggested by other posters, if your interested, hire a shark that is into
real estate law. Your probably going to spend lots of dollars, what is
it worth to you?

13. Al Moran Jan 23, 7:49 am

"Did you purchase title insurance with the home? If so, you may or may
not have a course of action. "

Since when does title insurance cover a crawl space that isn't
ventilated or a house being older than it was represented? The title
insurance covers getting a clear title, meaning the seller actually had
title to the property, could sell it, had no outstanding unknown claims
against the title, etc. It has zippo to do with defects or a house
being older.

title insurance should of turned up the age area, since they supposedly
look bak to the beginning of time for leins

"title insurance should of turned up the age area, since they
supposedly
look bak to the beginning of time for leins "

Yes, they look at any liens on the property. What does that have to do
with when the house was built or renovated by a previous owner? The
title company make sure the seller has clear title to the land, not at
what point in the homes history it was built or renovated You could
buy a pice of land, with or without title insurance, build whenver you
want, rennovate, etc, without the title insurance company knowing
squat. A building permit isn't recorded in the deed. Take a look at
your title insurance and see if it says they warranty that the
representations the seller makes as to the age of the home are valid.

You have buyer's remorse. It's not uncommon. Time will usually heal
it (can be up to a year or more).

If you are losing sleep about the unventilated 300 sq ft, drill a hole
in an inaccessible area and stick a sensor down there to measure
humidity. If it's dry you should stop worrying. Or, if you are sure
that the floor joists are not resting on the concrete (how do you know
this?) then drill 2 holes, one each in opposite corners, blow air into
one of the holes, and measure the air coming out the other for mold
spores (test kits are available online) and humidity.

As far as legal options are concerned, it may depend on what state you
live in. In some states, it is required by law that the seller must
declare any remodelling. If the person who sold you the home was the
owner when the remodelling was done, and they didn't notify you, then
you have a legal option.

EJ