In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

It's called breach of contract. If you read the OP, you will see they are
not fixing anything out of the kindness of their heart. Everything you want
to know has been addressed in other responses.

Reading is knowledge.

I haven't seen what I want to know addressed. Can you link me to the
specific post that answers my specific question? Do you understand my
specific question?

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

==============reply below=========

Reply below? Is your newsreader broken, or did you learn quoting
technique from Stormy, or what?

What's the matter, sore because I wouldn't hold your hand, telling you what
it's about? Wow, a bunch of sore heads.

Let's see how your reader quotes Google Groups

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:36:47 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"Big Jim" wrote in message
...
You and this FHA, FHA. You're wrong and you;re angry not everyone gets
taken like you did. You yourself provided evidence the seller can
limit his repair costs . So FHA FHA means nothing if a seller refuses
to fix things or sets a limit that doesnt fix everything. It's in the
contract as you say. The OP's buyers need to either get different
financing or report the inspector's strange behavior and lack of
specific remedies for supposed problems. If the seller has made an
effort he has fulfilled his obligation. We dont know exactly what he
agreed to do. It seems that FHA has similar appraisal/inspection
procedures that many lenders do. Anytime a buyer and seller cant
agree on price, repairs , closing date etc a deal dies.

========= reply below========

Jim,

Exactly, I provided proof the seller is contractually bound to fulfill
their obligations.

If they fail to fulfill their obligations, they can't just walk away. I
don't care if they put $100 as a limit, and never spent it, they don't
have
a right to walk away. They can, but then that's where lawyers come in for
breach of contract. The seller must exhaust their obligations.

You & saltydog are a big part of what's wrong with this country. You both
think you can just walk away from responsibilites.



You don't know a damned thing about either one of us, chump.

Oh, I seemed to strike a nerve. Walk away, it's appears to be your forte.

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Oscar"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate
contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause allows
the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major defects
that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix *anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses
major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care, I'll
buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm outta
here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer is
under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's expense;
the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's expense,
in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he refuses
to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the
defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the
contract
by refusing to do so?

Doug,

This is FHA, not a typical conventional sell. Did you not notice?

Everything you have written, is pretty much a moot point.

An FHA appraiser does the inspection for FHA. FHA recommends getting your
own professional inspection.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA. This is _not_ done by the nod of the head, a
handshake, verbally, or any other method, except contract.

This thread would not even be here, with the OP bitchin about FHA, unless
they agreed to sell FHA.

We're still waiting - at least I am - for you to tell us just what the
**** it is about agreeing to sell FHA that obligates the seller to
satisfy the whims of the inspector and consummate the sale? If you've
addressed that issue in one of your posts, I must've missed it. But
truth be told, I don't think you even understand the question.

"Big Jim" wrote in message
...

Responsibilities? I've bought and sold enough homes to know when a
buyer or seller is jerking my chain. It's better to bail on a deal
than get suckered. What happened to you and how were you taken?

And now you're gonna tell me, you've done them all FHA, and walked away.

You're just being plain silly.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:10:25 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
I don't know **** about FHA, haven't read the links, and don't want to,
but until someone says why the seller can't just *walk away from the
sale,* I'm going to have to side with the salted dog here.

Did the seller actually sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue, or did he only sign something that says he *WILL* fix the paint
issue *IF* he wants the sale to close? There's a world of difference
between the two.

It's called breach of contract. If you read the OP, you will see they are
not fixing anything out of the kindness of their heart. Everything you want
to know has been addressed in other responses.

Reading is knowledge.

I haven't seen what I want to know addressed. Can you link me to the
specific post that answers my specific question? Do you understand my
specific question?

Careful there, Smitty. You keep this up and his head may explode. I'm
pretty sure it contains LEAD.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news

We're still waiting - at least I am - for you to tell us just what the
**** it is about agreeing to sell FHA that obligates the seller to
satisfy the whims of the inspector and consummate the sale? If you've
addressed that issue in one of your posts, I must've missed it. But
truth be told, I don't think you even understand the question.

The "inspector" is actually a FHA appraiser.

It's obvious, the OP _agreed_ (signed a contract) to sell FHA, because
that's the only way you can sell FHA.

The OP has repeatedly attempted to satisfy FHA, they have never said how
many $$$ they agreed to spend to sell FHA. But, they're not painting out of
the kindness of their heart, they _had_ to agree to this (contract). They
must fulfill their contractual obligation, whether it be $100 or $5000.

Now read the addendum, I'm not copying/pasting for your convenience.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

BTW, I've addressed it more than once. There's been a couple other people
address it also, you must not be reading through the thread, or you have
them blocked.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:21:25 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Oscar"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate
contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause allows
the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major defects
that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix *anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses
major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care, I'll
buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm outta
here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer is
under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's expense;
the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's expense,
in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he refuses
to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the
defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the
contract
by refusing to do so?

Doug,

This is FHA, not a typical conventional sell. Did you not notice?

Everything you have written, is pretty much a moot point.

An FHA appraiser does the inspection for FHA. FHA recommends getting your
own professional inspection.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA. This is _not_ done by the nod of the head, a
handshake, verbally, or any other method, except contract.

This thread would not even be here, with the OP bitchin about FHA, unless
they agreed to sell FHA.

We're still waiting - at least I am - for you to tell us just what the
**** it is about agreeing to sell FHA that obligates the seller to
satisfy the whims of the inspector and consummate the sale? If you've
addressed that issue in one of your posts, I must've missed it. But
truth be told, I don't think you even understand the question.

Oscar is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Smitty. Unless
you can figure out a way to draw pictures with crayons on usenet, you
are not going to have much luck getting him to understand much of
anything.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:21:25 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Oscar"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more
efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the
sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate
contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause
allows
the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major
defects
that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix
*anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses
major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care,
I'll
buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm
outta
here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer
is
under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's
expense;
the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's
expense,
in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he
refuses
to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the
defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the
contract
by refusing to do so?

Doug,

This is FHA, not a typical conventional sell. Did you not notice?

Everything you have written, is pretty much a moot point.

An FHA appraiser does the inspection for FHA. FHA recommends getting
your
own professional inspection.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA. This is _not_ done by the nod of the
head, a
handshake, verbally, or any other method, except contract.

This thread would not even be here, with the OP bitchin about FHA,
unless
they agreed to sell FHA.

We're still waiting - at least I am - for you to tell us just what the
**** it is about agreeing to sell FHA that obligates the seller to
satisfy the whims of the inspector and consummate the sale? If you've
addressed that issue in one of your posts, I must've missed it. But
truth be told, I don't think you even understand the question.

Oscar is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Smitty. Unless
you can figure out a way to draw pictures with crayons on usenet, you
are not going to have much luck getting him to understand much of
anything.

LOL dog, you said I didn't know you. I know your kind well, as well as
everyone else knowing your kind. Not only do you shrug your shoulders & run
from your responsibilities, when you get shut down on Usenet, you throw a
tantrum. Seen it many times. LOL. Thanks for confirming.

In article ,


Oscar is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Smitty. Unless
you can figure out a way to draw pictures with crayons on usenet, you
are not going to have much luck getting him to understand much of
anything.

Well, maybe I'm the idiot. Oscar obviously knows something I don't, but
I'll be damned if I can get him to tell me what it is.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,


Oscar is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Smitty. Unless
you can figure out a way to draw pictures with crayons on usenet, you
are not going to have much luck getting him to understand much of
anything.

Well, maybe I'm the idiot. Oscar obviously knows something I don't, but
I'll be damned if I can get him to tell me what it is.

I replied to you elsewhere, are you having a hard time following? Don't
much matter now, the OP has started a new thread, saying it wasn't FHA.

For the sake of replying, here it is again.

The "inspector" is actually a FHA appraiser.

It's obvious, the OP _agreed_ (signed a contract) to sell FHA, because
that's the only way you can sell FHA.

The OP has repeatedly attempted to satisfy FHA, they have never said how
many $$$ they agreed to spend to sell FHA. But, they're not painting out of
the kindness of their heart, they _had_ to agree to this (contract). They
must fulfill their contractual obligation, whether it be $100 or $5000.

Now read the addendum, I'm not copying/pasting for your convenience.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf

BTW, I've addressed it more than once. There's been a couple other people
address it also, you must not be reading through the thread, or you have
them blocked.

rile wrote in news:fe7c7517-d1c1-44cb-95f9-e248ed94a692
@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:



http://tinypic.com/r/4s192o/3

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:



Now read the addendum, I'm not copying/pasting for your convenience.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf


IOW, you don't have Adobe Acrobat, and therefore are unable to
copy/paste from a pdf.


BTW, I've addressed it more than once. There's been a couple other people
address it also, you must not be reading through the thread, or you have
them blocked.

I see your lips moving, but I don't hear you answering my question. Here
it is again:

Did the OP sign a contract agreeing to fix the paint issue, or did he
sign a contract saying that he would fix the paint issue IF HE HOPED TO
SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE ???????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

If you can answer THAT QUESTION, without using the words FHA, or
ADDENDUM, then I'm all ears.

Oscar wrote:
"You _must_ agree to sell FHA, nobody can say, oh BTW, we're
going FHA.
Hence, an agreement (contract) is in place."

OK, I believe you.

How does one protect oneself against the FHA (or VA as
well?) when selling?

Do you just tell realtors or prospective buyers that you
refuse to sign anything pertaining to FHA or VA? That the
property you have for sale is "as is", and nothing more?

Just how does one do this?

I expect to be selling an old house soon, in need of a LOT
of work, and want to avoid being pressed into a situation as
was the original poster to this thread....

- John

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:18:20 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:21:25 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Oscar"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more
efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the
sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate
contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause
allows
the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major
defects
that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix
*anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses
major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care,
I'll
buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm
outta
here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer
is
under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's
expense;
the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's
expense,
in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he
refuses
to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the
defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the
contract
by refusing to do so?

Doug,

This is FHA, not a typical conventional sell. Did you not notice?

Everything you have written, is pretty much a moot point.

An FHA appraiser does the inspection for FHA. FHA recommends getting
your
own professional inspection.

You _must_ agree to sell FHA. This is _not_ done by the nod of the
head, a
handshake, verbally, or any other method, except contract.

This thread would not even be here, with the OP bitchin about FHA,
unless
they agreed to sell FHA.

We're still waiting - at least I am - for you to tell us just what the
**** it is about agreeing to sell FHA that obligates the seller to
satisfy the whims of the inspector and consummate the sale? If you've
addressed that issue in one of your posts, I must've missed it. But
truth be told, I don't think you even understand the question.

Oscar is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Smitty. Unless
you can figure out a way to draw pictures with crayons on usenet, you
are not going to have much luck getting him to understand much of
anything.

LOL dog, you said I didn't know you. I know your kind well, as well as
everyone else knowing your kind. Not only do you shrug your shoulders & run
from your responsibilities, when you get shut down on Usenet, you throw a
tantrum. Seen it many times. LOL. Thanks for confirming.



Oh, so now you claim to peak for everyone? I think that labels you
pretty well all by itself. Again, for your own good, I urge you to put
down the shovel.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

Unless you removed ALL paint put on before the 80's and then
repainted the raw surfaces, you could have lead paint. It need not be
currently exposed. A child will chew or teeth on painted surfaces
and the lead on old paint can e consumed.

If I am wrong about my interpertation

...

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

Having been painted does not prevent lead paint that is now
covered from being a problem. It would appear you have not totally
removed any possible layer

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

Unless you removed ALL paint put on before the 80's and then
repainted the raw surfaces, you could have lead paint. It need not be
currently exposed. A child will chew or teeth on painted surfaces
and the lead on old paint can e consumed.

If I am wrong about my interpertation

...

So you're not sure whether this quote:

There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

means

a. any house built before 1978 cannot have any "peeling, checking, or
flaking paint."

or

b. any house with lead paint has to have all the lead paint removed?

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:



Now read the addendum, I'm not copying/pasting for your convenience.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf


IOW, you don't have Adobe Acrobat, and therefore are unable to
copy/paste from a pdf.

Wrong, I paid a good $ for it, and am a bit stingy about sharing it.




BTW, I've addressed it more than once. There's been a couple other
people
address it also, you must not be reading through the thread, or you have
them blocked.

I see your lips moving, but I don't hear you answering my question. Here
it is again:

Did the OP sign a contract agreeing to fix the paint issue, or did he
sign a contract saying that he would fix the paint issue IF HE HOPED TO
SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE ???????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

If you can answer THAT QUESTION, without using the words FHA, or
ADDENDUM, then I'm all ears.

Don't much matter, OP started a new thread. Besides this was started an FHA
thread, I know you choose to ignore it, but that's not my problem.

"John Albert" wrote in message
om...
Oscar wrote:
"You _must_ agree to sell FHA, nobody can say, oh BTW, we're going FHA.
Hence, an agreement (contract) is in place."

OK, I believe you.

How does one protect oneself against the FHA (or VA as well?) when
selling?

Do you just tell realtors or prospective buyers that you refuse to sign
anything pertaining to FHA or VA? That the property you have for sale is
"as is", and nothing more?

Just how does one do this?

I expect to be selling an old house soon, in need of a LOT of work, and
want to avoid being pressed into a situation as was the original poster
to this thread....

- John

I would consult a real estate attorney. Make sure you are protected.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:



Now read the addendum, I'm not copying/pasting for your convenience.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf


IOW, you don't have Adobe Acrobat, and therefore are unable to
copy/paste from a pdf.

There, correct user. Anyways, you're wrong, and I have no intentions of
sharing with someone too lazy to read facts.



BTW, I've addressed it more than once. There's been a couple other
people
address it also, you must not be reading through the thread, or you have
them blocked.

I see your lips moving, but I don't hear you answering my question. Here
it is again:

Did the OP sign a contract agreeing to fix the paint issue, or did he
sign a contract saying that he would fix the paint issue IF HE HOPED TO
SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE ???????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

If you can answer THAT QUESTION, without using the words FHA, or
ADDENDUM, then I'm all ears.

So, you want to know about the FHA appraiser/inspector discretion per FHA
addendum, but don't want to hear about FHA. You need a lot more help than I
can give you on Usenet.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:18:20 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:

Oh, so now you claim to peak for everyone? I think that labels you
pretty well all by itself. Again, for your own good, I urge you to put
down the shovel.


I certainly don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to
spell.

On Aug 13, 7:27*am, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. *There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".
The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

* * * * Unless you removed ALL paint put on before the 80's and then
repainted the raw surfaces, you could have lead paint. *It need not be
currently exposed. * A child will chew or teeth on painted surfaces
and the lead on old paint can e consumed.

* * * * If I am wrong about my interpertation

*...

There is no requirement for removal of all lead paint, not even in
abatement projects. You need to contain it. However, if you did it
yourself, it would be difficult to prove and therefore it would be as
if there was still lead there. Unless you have it tested, you presume
it is there. Since the OP did the work himself, he did not use lead-
safe work practices, he didn't use interim controls, and he didn't
clearance; so it is as if the lead is still there. In fact, the lead
might still be there because you don't know what quality of work was
done. For example, did he clear the soil outside the house as the end
of painting?

Working with lead isn't bad and isn't hard, but you do need training
and need to do it right.

On Aug 13, 9:29*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. *There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

* *Unless you removed ALL paint put on before the 80's and then
repainted the raw surfaces, you could have lead paint. *It need not be
currently exposed. * A child will chew or teeth on painted surfaces
and the lead on old paint can e consumed.

* *If I am wrong about my interpertation

*...

So you're not sure whether this quote:

There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

means

a. *any house built before 1978 cannot have any "peeling, checking, or
flaking paint."

or

b. *any house with lead paint has to have all the lead paint removed?

contained or abated; but not removed.

On Aug 13, 7:27*am, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. *There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".
*The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

* * * * Having been painted does not prevent lead paint that is now
covered from being a problem. *It would appear you have not totally
removed any possible layer

Even removing the lead paint doesn't matter. It is pre-78. If it
hasn't been tested, then you presume it's lead. The homeowner's word
doesn't mean anything. Besides, there lead in things other than paint.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:57:34 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:



Now read the addendum, I'm not copying/pasting for your convenience.
http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/N...A_addendum.pdf


IOW, you don't have Adobe Acrobat, and therefore are unable to
copy/paste from a pdf.

There, correct user. Anyways, you're wrong, and I have no intentions of
sharing with someone too lazy to read facts.



BTW, I've addressed it more than once. There's been a couple other
people
address it also, you must not be reading through the thread, or you have
them blocked.

I see your lips moving, but I don't hear you answering my question. Here
it is again:

Did the OP sign a contract agreeing to fix the paint issue, or did he
sign a contract saying that he would fix the paint issue IF HE HOPED TO
SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE ???????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

If you can answer THAT QUESTION, without using the words FHA, or
ADDENDUM, then I'm all ears.

So, you want to know about the FHA appraiser/inspector discretion per FHA
addendum, but don't want to hear about FHA. You need a lot more help than I
can give you on Usenet.

Oscar, nobody's disagreeing with you that FHA sales have an addendum
to the sales contract, that FHA criteria are strict and can't be
waived by the buyer, or that the seller may have to do unlimited
repairs if they want to sell to this FHA buyer.

What some are disagreeing with is the assertion that once you accept
the FHA offer (with addendum), the seller is all of a sudden obligated
to spend unlimited amounts on repairs to pass the inspection (perhaps
beyond the sale price), or face breach of contract charges. That
simply isn't true. Obviously, if the seller put "up to $1000" on the
addendum, and then refused to even spend that much, they could perhaps
be sued, but beyond that amount ($0 if not provided), the seller can
always refuse additional repairs, FHA or not, provided they're willing
to return the deposit (because at that point, the buyer isn't
breaching the contract by backing out) and find another buyer (or this
buyer finds alternate financing).

Josh

In article ,
"Oscar" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message


I see your lips moving, but I don't hear you answering my question. Here
it is again:

Did the OP sign a contract agreeing to fix the paint issue, or did he
sign a contract saying that he would fix the paint issue IF HE HOPED TO
SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE ???????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

If you can answer THAT QUESTION, without using the words FHA, or
ADDENDUM, then I'm all ears.

So, you want to know about the FHA appraiser/inspector discretion per FHA
addendum, but don't want to hear about FHA. You need a lot more help than I
can give you on Usenet.

Smack. I guess you were right, Salty. I shouldn't have flung myself
headlong into the brick wall of stupidity that Oscar calls his head. He
appears pathologically incapable of comprehending simple concepts put
forth in short, clear, unambiguous sentences. I've had disagreements on
a.h.r., but it's rare to find someone who is utterly incapable of
understanding the nature of the disagreement.

In article
,
PatM wrote:

On Aug 13, 9:29*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), rile
wrote:

We are selling a house to a buyer using an FHA mortgage. *There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

The property has no
lead paint....all buildings have been repainted since the late 80's.

* *Unless you removed ALL paint put on before the 80's and then
repainted the raw surfaces, you could have lead paint. *It need not be
currently exposed. * A child will chew or teeth on painted surfaces
and the lead on old paint can e consumed.

* *If I am wrong about my interpertation

*...

So you're not sure whether this quote:

There is a
rule, because of lead paint, that any house built before 1978 cannot
have any "peeling, checking or flaking paint".

means

a. *any house built before 1978 cannot have any "peeling, checking, or
flaking paint."

or

b. *any house with lead paint has to have all the lead paint removed?

contained or abated; but not removed.

Thanks for jumping in to answer my question to someone else, but your
answer is neither an option, nor correct. If you want to play, you get
to choose from a or b.

"Josh" wrote in message
...
Oscar, nobody's disagreeing with you that FHA sales have an addendum
to the sales contract, that FHA criteria are strict and can't be
waived by the buyer, or that the seller may have to do unlimited
repairs if they want to sell to this FHA buyer.

What some are disagreeing with is the assertion that once you accept
the FHA offer (with addendum), the seller is all of a sudden obligated
to spend unlimited amounts on repairs to pass the inspection (perhaps
beyond the sale price), or face breach of contract charges. That
simply isn't true. Obviously, if the seller put "up to $1000" on the
addendum, and then refused to even spend that much, they could perhaps
be sued, but beyond that amount ($0 if not provided), the seller can
always refuse additional repairs, FHA or not, provided they're willing
to return the deposit (because at that point, the buyer isn't
breaching the contract by backing out) and find another buyer (or this
buyer finds alternate financing).

That's exactly what I said, somewhere. It doesn't matter whether its $100
or $5000, the seller must fulfill their obligation.

I did say initially, back when I sold a place FHA, they never had where you
could put caps. I then looked over the revised addendum, and said you _can_
put caps on the limits, I said this numerous times. You can't just shrug
your shoulders and walk away like some think, once you commit yourself.
Well, you can, but be ready to go to court.

Of course, there are those who don't read everything in the thread.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
Smack. I guess you were right, Salty. I shouldn't have flung myself
headlong into the brick wall of stupidity that Oscar calls his head. He
appears pathologically incapable of comprehending simple concepts put
forth in short, clear, unambiguous sentences. I've had disagreements on
a.h.r., but it's rare to find someone who is utterly incapable of
understanding the nature of the disagreement.

To put this in simpleton terms, so you will understand. Painting, roofing,
broken windows, broken ceramic etc, all fall under the heading _repairs_.

They don't spell out, spend this amount of $$$ on this or that. You agree
or disagree to spend x amount on repairs.

I know this is going to be another WHOOOSSSHHHHHHH to you, get someone to
read to you.

One more time, when you sell FHA, you must sign the addendum, whether you
want to acknowledge of not. Another WHOOSH!

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:58:44 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"Josh" wrote in message
.. .
Oscar, nobody's disagreeing with you that FHA sales have an addendum
to the sales contract, that FHA criteria are strict and can't be
waived by the buyer, or that the seller may have to do unlimited
repairs if they want to sell to this FHA buyer.

What some are disagreeing with is the assertion that once you accept
the FHA offer (with addendum), the seller is all of a sudden obligated
to spend unlimited amounts on repairs to pass the inspection (perhaps
beyond the sale price), or face breach of contract charges. That
simply isn't true. Obviously, if the seller put "up to $1000" on the
addendum, and then refused to even spend that much, they could perhaps
be sued, but beyond that amount ($0 if not provided), the seller can
always refuse additional repairs, FHA or not, provided they're willing
to return the deposit (because at that point, the buyer isn't
breaching the contract by backing out) and find another buyer (or this
buyer finds alternate financing).

That's exactly what I said, somewhere. It doesn't matter whether its $100
or $5000, the seller must fulfill their obligation.

I did say initially, back when I sold a place FHA, they never had where you
could put caps. I then looked over the revised addendum, and said you _can_
put caps on the limits, I said this numerous times. You can't just shrug
your shoulders and walk away like some think, once you commit yourself.
Well, you can, but be ready to go to court.

Of course, there are those who don't read everything in the thread.

Even for those of us who have read everything still disagree with your
basic premis that "whether it's $100 or $5000, the seller must fulfill
their obligation", because you're not willing to add "or return the
buyer's deposit and release them from the sale".

Let's say it's not $5000 -- I agree to sell a house for $100,000 to an
FHA borrower. Inspector says the house needs a new foundation, septic
system, and roof. This will cost $120,000. Are you really claiming
that the seller is required to pay $120,000, then sell for $100,000,
or be sued for not "fulfilling their obligation"? Ridiculous; if even
close to true nobody would ever give an FHA borrower the time of day.
Accepting an FHA addendum simply means that if the FHA requirements
aren't met, the buyer is allowed to back out with no penalty (deposit
returned).

Josh

"Josh" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:58:44 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"Josh" wrote in message
. ..
Oscar, nobody's disagreeing with you that FHA sales have an addendum
to the sales contract, that FHA criteria are strict and can't be
waived by the buyer, or that the seller may have to do unlimited
repairs if they want to sell to this FHA buyer.

What some are disagreeing with is the assertion that once you accept
the FHA offer (with addendum), the seller is all of a sudden obligated
to spend unlimited amounts on repairs to pass the inspection (perhaps
beyond the sale price), or face breach of contract charges. That
simply isn't true. Obviously, if the seller put "up to $1000" on the
addendum, and then refused to even spend that much, they could perhaps
be sued, but beyond that amount ($0 if not provided), the seller can
always refuse additional repairs, FHA or not, provided they're willing
to return the deposit (because at that point, the buyer isn't
breaching the contract by backing out) and find another buyer (or this
buyer finds alternate financing).

That's exactly what I said, somewhere. It doesn't matter whether its $100
or $5000, the seller must fulfill their obligation.

I did say initially, back when I sold a place FHA, they never had where
you
could put caps. I then looked over the revised addendum, and said you
_can_
put caps on the limits, I said this numerous times. You can't just shrug
your shoulders and walk away like some think, once you commit yourself.
Well, you can, but be ready to go to court.

Of course, there are those who don't read everything in the thread.

Even for those of us who have read everything still disagree with your
basic premis that "whether it's $100 or $5000, the seller must fulfill
their obligation", because you're not willing to add "or return the
buyer's deposit and release them from the sale".

Let's say it's not $5000 -- I agree to sell a house for $100,000 to an
FHA borrower. Inspector says the house needs a new foundation, septic
system, and roof. This will cost $120,000. Are you really claiming
that the seller is required to pay $120,000, then sell for $100,000,
or be sued for not "fulfilling their obligation"? Ridiculous; if even
close to true nobody would ever give an FHA borrower the time of day.
Accepting an FHA addendum simply means that if the FHA requirements
aren't met, the buyer is allowed to back out with no penalty (deposit
returned).

Josh

LOL.... NO!

If you cap repairs @ $1000. Lets say you have some flaking paint, missing
shingles, electrical, broken windows etc. You start fixing, you spend your
$1000 you agreed to pay, but you haven't even put a dent in fixing
everything. Your obligation is fulfilled.

"Josh" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:58:44 -0400, "Oscar" wrote:


"Josh" wrote in message
. ..
Oscar, nobody's disagreeing with you that FHA sales have an addendum
to the sales contract, that FHA criteria are strict and can't be
waived by the buyer, or that the seller may have to do unlimited
repairs if they want to sell to this FHA buyer.

What some are disagreeing with is the assertion that once you accept
the FHA offer (with addendum), the seller is all of a sudden obligated
to spend unlimited amounts on repairs to pass the inspection (perhaps
beyond the sale price), or face breach of contract charges. That
simply isn't true. Obviously, if the seller put "up to $1000" on the
addendum, and then refused to even spend that much, they could perhaps
be sued, but beyond that amount ($0 if not provided), the seller can
always refuse additional repairs, FHA or not, provided they're willing
to return the deposit (because at that point, the buyer isn't
breaching the contract by backing out) and find another buyer (or this
buyer finds alternate financing).

That's exactly what I said, somewhere. It doesn't matter whether its $100
or $5000, the seller must fulfill their obligation.

I did say initially, back when I sold a place FHA, they never had where
you
could put caps. I then looked over the revised addendum, and said you
_can_
put caps on the limits, I said this numerous times. You can't just shrug
your shoulders and walk away like some think, once you commit yourself.
Well, you can, but be ready to go to court.

Of course, there are those who don't read everything in the thread.

Even for those of us who have read everything still disagree with your
basic premis that "whether it's $100 or $5000, the seller must fulfill
their obligation", because you're not willing to add "or return the
buyer's deposit and release them from the sale".

Let's say it's not $5000 -- I agree to sell a house for $100,000 to an
FHA borrower. Inspector says the house needs a new foundation, septic
system, and roof. This will cost $120,000. Are you really claiming
that the seller is required to pay $120,000, then sell for $100,000,
or be sued for not "fulfilling their obligation"? Ridiculous; if even
close to true nobody would ever give an FHA borrower the time of day.
Accepting an FHA addendum simply means that if the FHA requirements
aren't met, the buyer is allowed to back out with no penalty (deposit
returned).

Josh

Darn, wrong id for forum......again

LOL.... NO!

If you cap repairs @ $1000. Lets say you have some flaking paint, missing
shingles, electrical, broken windows etc. You start fixing, you spend your
$1000 you agreed to pay, but you haven't even put a dent in fixing
everything. Your obligation is fulfilled.

writes:

On Aug 11, 9:15*pm, dpb wrote:
Oscar wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...

Afaict there is no contract w/ the seller at this point...he apparently
has an offer but that's no contract...

You missed the OP original statement. *"We are selling a house to a buyer
using an FHA mortgage."
FHA just doesn't go around inspecting houses, because someone is thinking
about buying this one or that one. There must be an offer & acceptance.

Obviously there's an offer; apparently OP is satisfied w/ the pricing as
he made some attempts to satisfy the conditions of an (pretty obviously
contingent) inspection but that still doesn't lead to there actually
being any contract yet in place. *There's an existing document that
could conceivably turn _INTO_ a contract, but it ain't one at this point.

Of course there is a contract in place. I've yet to see a bank/
mortgage company involved with inspections on a property without
having a purchase contract. That is the most basic requirement as
part of the whole mortgage process. They want a contract that shows
what the property is, what the purchase price is, how much is being
financed, how much is being put down, etc. together with the
application fee. Only then do they send out any appraisers/
inspectors.


And also, any buyer would be an idiot to pay a mortgage application
fee, home inspection fees, attorneys fees, etc without having a
contract. He could spend that money and then have the seller say:
"Never mind, I found another buyer at a higher price."

It's not always that simple. The process and sequence from offer to
contract varies regionally.

In MA, it typically works as follows:
1. Buyer and seller negotiate price and basic conditions resulting in
a written, signed "offer" from buyer to seller that is then signed
by the seller. Typically, a small ($1000) deposit is given by buyer
to obligate himself which is placed in escrow. Seller also is
precluded from marketing and selling property. The offer itself is
short, boilerplate, and sparse on details with only a few blanks to
add in things like "includes fridgerator and curtains".

2. Typically, the "offer" has several contingencies such as
inspection and mortgage overall. The buyer usually has about 1-2
weeks to resolve the contingencies, including getting an inspection
and obtaining a mortgage commitment. If contingencies aren't met
then, the buyer can walk. Alternatively, they can renegotiate
terms. The contingencies are usually worded to make it easy for the
buyer to walk at this stage in almost all cases. At worst, the
buyer loses his $1000 deposit.


3. A Purchase & Sale (P&S) agreement is then signed. Typically, an
additional deposit of 5-10% of purchase price is added. A lawyer is
usually brought in at this stage to review and/or edit the "boiler
plate" basic agreement. This agreement is much more detailed and
binding than the Offer and typically has few real outs unless buyer
is willing to give up his much larger deposit and potentially be
subject to suit for damages. The P&S also lays out the timing and
terms for the actual sale

4. Final sale documents are negotiated and agreed upon between buyer
and seller. Both sides are advised to have lawyers involved. The
bank is also involved when there is a mortage. The sale documents
are signed at the time of the closing.

Seller doesnt have to agree to the €˜subject to repairs from the FHA appraiser. They can even make the buyer pay for them. Been there, done that. That part of the timeline is another time for negotiation.