Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon

In article
,
says...
Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back).

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. I feel
that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item,

No, they aren't a "necessity". Most homes, if properly
landscaped and maintained, will do just fine without them.

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

Sorry, unless code in your jurisdiction _requires_ gutters
(which is highly unlikely), you do not have grounds to break
your contract.

--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

Gutters are cheap yes, so its trivial.

(Jon) writes:

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

What does your inspection contingency clause in the contract say?
Usually these things are so vague that you can walk away from the deal
for any reason at all within the allotted time, but you need to have
your attorney (you do have an attorney, right?) look over the exact
wording in your particular contract, instead of asking random people on
the net for advice about it.

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Well, what if the seller holds firm in refusing to install gutters?
Is that really a show-stopper for you? You could have the gutters
installed yourself after you move in, after all.

-Sandra the cynic

look at other houses in the neighborhood do they have gutters?

get an estimate to put them on. I would much rather get the gutters I want
than have the seller put on the cheapest they could find!

Wayne

"Jon" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon

From: (Jon)


Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

I respectfully disagree.
What if you "felt" a red front door was a "necessity?" Could you insit the
homeowner re-paint the door?


Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

Correct, because you would have placed a deposit on the home which had front
gutters, and those gutters would be gone when you closed. That's not the case
here.


So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

They're not the same, either "legally" or in "real life."



My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

I'm no lawyer, but the front pond, the front waterfall, and the front 6' tall
slate wall are also "missing." You left a deposit anyway.


Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon

I think it's wishful thinking. Gutters are too cheap to hold up the sale of a
home.

No, they aren't a "necessity". Most homes, if properly landscaped and
maintained, will do just fine without them.

Nonsense. That may be true in Arizona, but falling water from the eaves will
leave a trench around the house that nothing will grow in.

unless code in your jurisdiction _requires_ gutters
(which is highly unlikely), you do not have grounds to break
your contract.

Not so unlikely. Our midwest community requires gutters on new housing per the
new BOCA codes. Other areas have required gutters in public and commercial
buildings for many years. Did you notice the ones on your church this morning?
Cheers

Joe

"Jon" wrote in message
om...

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon

You are willing to walk away for maybe $500 gutter install? Seems petty to
me. Try get some money taken off the purchace price, if that woun't fly,
jusy buy the house and put them on latter.
Greg

On 9 May 2004 11:46:43 -0700, (Jon) wrote:

Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

The ranch my folks live in is gutterless. There is an eve over the
front door so you don't get soaked when it's raining, but no gutters
to speak of. I live in a dutch colonial that has gutters only because
if it didn't you'd get soaked if it was raining, plus I don't have
great drainage like the folks and I consider them "required" so I
don't have basement leak issues.

Gutters are cheap enough, see if you can get him to move on the price
a bit. Unless code says gutters are required (haven't seen this in a
local code, just a few HOAs required them) then either get them to
drop the price accordingly or walk away. If you like this place enough
to have put a deposit down on it then see if she'll budge - or meet
you half way. On the upside you'll be able to put in the gutters that
YOU want, not what SHE wants.

Lastly, talk to a lawyer.

If the lack of a gutter is the biggest problem with this house then
you don't have a lot to complain about.

The seller does not HAVE to do anything. You can buy the house as-is
and then YOU can install the gutter yourself. Installing a gutter and
a downspout is not a huge expense.

The grading at the foundation is a bigger problem than the lack of a
gutter. Properly graded the runoff from the roof will flow away from
the house rather than puddle and seep into the baement. A good mulch
will help dampen the water so you won't get splashback on the house.

"Joe Bobst" wrote in message
...
No, they aren't a "necessity". Most homes, if properly landscaped and
maintained, will do just fine without them.

Nonsense. That may be true in Arizona, but falling water from the eaves
will
leave a trench around the house that nothing will grow in.


But they are still not a necessity. My house was built in 1978 and has
gutter, but the detached garage did not. I added one on one side because it
made a trench in the herb garden, but the other has none and never will as
long as I live here. No need.

Nice to have on a house, but still not a necessity in many cases.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

Jon wrote:
[snip]
So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon


There were no gutters on the front of the house when you put down your
deposit, so apparently it didn't matter that much at the time. IANAL,
but it sounds like you have no basis at all to back out and expect to
get your deposit back, and you either just want to back out of the deal
or are trying to get something for nothing.

On the other hand, maybe the owner will agree to put gutters on -- the
cheapest ugliest gutters he can find. Why not? He won't have to look
at them for the next 20 years. (sounds like the makings of a good
practical joke to me.)

If you wait and put the gutters on after you buy, you can get the ones
that you like.

Good luck, and I hope you get what you deserve, ;-)
Bob

You have several options left:
1. Walk away from the deal now.
2. Buy at agreed price as is (and have a gutter installed at your expence)
3. Ask to have the approximate cost (or perhaps 1/2 the approx cost -- in
essence you offer to split the cost) of a gutter deducted from the selling
price agreed to -- and if they balk, go to (1.) or (2.) above.

As the missing gutter was always visible, and the seller is doing some other
tasks, I'd suggest 3, followed by 2 if it fails, which it likely will. In
the total cost of the purchase, gutters will be a very small fraction, and
are probably not worth walking away from a deal for.

In any case, always be polite, you want to encourage the seller to see your
point of view, but do not want to annoy them.

Good luck.

"Jon" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon

Mark wrote in message h.net...

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

Sorry, unless code in your jurisdiction _requires_ gutters
(which is highly unlikely), you do not have grounds to break
your contract.

Thanks for the input. You're probably right in terms of what code
requires--but from what I've been led to believe, it is not uncommon
for a home seller to agree to repair or replace his/her gutters if the
home inspector finds them to be defective. It just makes me wonder
why these people wouldn't just tear down their gutters, rather than
spend money on something that apparently holds no contractual merit...

Jon

In article ,
osspam says...
No, they aren't a "necessity". Most homes, if properly landscaped and
maintained, will do just fine without them.

Nonsense. That may be true in Arizona, but falling water from the eaves will
leave a trench around the house that nothing will grow in.

Did you not see my qualifier of "proper landscaping"? And,
since my comment was specific to the structure (not the
landscaping), what the falling water may or may not do to
the ability for something to grow is irrelevant.

unless code in your jurisdiction _requires_ gutters
(which is highly unlikely), you do not have grounds to break
your contract.

Not so unlikely. Our midwest community requires gutters on new housing per the
new BOCA codes.

Assuming your hearsay is accurate, that is for new, not
existing residential. Completely inapplicable to the point
in question.

Other areas have required gutters in public and commercial
buildings for many years.

Completely inapplicable to the residential dwelling in
question.

--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
snip
Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Never have the owner do the repairs, you will get the lowest, cheapest
shoddiest repair. I am currently buying a home that never had gutters in 25
years and needs them along with a roof, repairs to the deck, fence around
the pool, work on the electrical system and bannisters.

I based my purchase price on doing these repairs myself, however the current
owner has insisted on installing the bannisters, even though I do not want
him do because of the workmanship I will expect to get.
--
Nothing Remains the Same-SLQ

"SLQ" wrote in message


the current
owner has insisted on installing the bannisters, even though I do not want
him do because of the workmanship I will expect to get.

He may be concerned about liability if someone gets injured before you put
in a proper banister.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

"Jon" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Just for perspective, I'll tell you that my house has gutters on the front,
and not in the back. We have a water seepage issue in our basement, but
only in the front, where there are gutters - not in the gutterless back.

Figure out how much it would cost you to put gutters on the front of the
house. Is it worth killing the whole deal over that amount of money? We
are going to put gutters on the back, we just haven't gotten around to it.
The estimate we have is for something like $800. Would you kill the house
deal over that much? If not, let it go for now.

(Jon) wrote in message . com...
the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.
(snip)
My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

If you really want to back out of the deal, wouldn't the water seepage
into the basement be enough to say it failed your inspection?

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Sure. Your lawyer, your realtor, and you should too. Or you
shouldn't have signed the offer.

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Is this a deal breaker? As in you won't buy the house unless the
seller installs gutters? If so, then walk.

Hate to be crass here, but here's your first lesson in buying a house.
Know what you're signing, know what you're getting into and know the
value of the home to you. Be prepared to walk if the home doesn't
meet the value you desire or the money you're spending.

Jeff

On 9 May 2004 19:00:41 -0700, (Jon) wrote:

Mark wrote in message h.net...

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

Sorry, unless code in your jurisdiction _requires_ gutters
(which is highly unlikely), you do not have grounds to break
your contract.

Thanks for the input. You're probably right in terms of what code
requires--but from what I've been led to believe, it is not uncommon
for a home seller to agree to repair or replace his/her gutters if the
home inspector finds them to be defective. It just makes me wonder
why these people wouldn't just tear down their gutters, rather than
spend money on something that apparently holds no contractual merit...

Except there's no contractural obligation for them to agree to do
anything. You made an offer, contigent on an inspection. They agreed
to the offer, which if you or your agent did their job, should have
had a value up to which the seller would agree to make repairs as
found in an inspection. If your offer isn't contigent on your
acceptance of the inspection, they're not bound to do anything at all.
If it's contigent on your acceptance of the inspection but no value
for repairs is stated, then they still have no obligation.

Jeff

On 09 May 2004 22:23:15 GMT, osspam (Joe Bobst) wrote:

No, they aren't a "necessity". Most homes, if properly landscaped and
maintained, will do just fine without them.

Nonsense. That may be true in Arizona, but falling water from the eaves will
leave a trench around the house that nothing will grow in.

Doesn't seem to be an issue here in SW Florida, and I guarantee we get
more rain than you.

Not so unlikely. Our midwest community requires gutters on new housing per the
new BOCA codes. Other areas have required gutters in public and commercial
buildings for many years. Did you notice the ones on your church this morning?

Most communities require runoff management, which may or may not mean
gutters. And no, there aren't any on the local church either. Or the
three-year-old commercial building I work in.

Jeff

(Jon) wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Lots of areas "gutters only over the concrete areas" is the standard...not sure
about your area. Unless there is significant damage to the fascia boards,
soffits, siding or foundation from the lack of gutters, my take on this would be
that you're being unreasonable. If you want gutters, cool, put 'em up after
you buy the place, but don't expect the seller to put out money for what is
essentially an esthetics issue.

(Jon) wrote in news:3252df67.0405091046.3011dc44
@posting.google.com:

Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon


You made an offer on the house without the gutters (knowingly or not).

I don't understand the problem.

"Dave Solly" wrote in message
...
(Jon) wrote in news:3252df67.0405091046.3011dc44
@posting.google.com:

Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon


I'm no expert but I'd hold firm on having the gutters added or ask for some
type of price reduction to be able to add them yourself mainly due to the
water seeping into the basement. Just depends on how badly you want the
house and all that comes with it. Ultimately if you buy the house the
problem of seepage into the basement becomes your problem because your home
inspector pointed it out and reported it to you. If you do buy the house
and don't fix the problem then you could run into the same situation but be
on the other end of it when you go to sell it. Again I am no expert but
water seeping into the basement would be enough for me to walk away from the
deal if she didn't at least give you a price reduction.

If you do buy the house I'd also be sure to regrade that area to slope away
from the house.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:26:54 -0500, Matt wrote:
"Dave Solly" wrote in message
...
(Jon) wrote in news:3252df67.0405091046.3011dc44
@posting.google.com:

Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon


I'm no expert but I'd hold firm on having the gutters added or ask for some
type of price reduction to be able to add them yourself mainly due to the
water seeping into the basement. Just depends on how badly you want the
house and all that comes with it. Ultimately if you buy the house the
problem of seepage into the basement becomes your problem because your home
inspector pointed it out and reported it to you. If you do buy the house
and don't fix the problem then you could run into the same situation but be
on the other end of it when you go to sell it. Again I am no expert but
water seeping into the basement would be enough for me to walk away from the
deal if she didn't at least give you a price reduction.

If you do buy the house I'd also be sure to regrade that area to slope away
from the house.

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why anyone considers the
cost of the gutters - which will be absolutely trivial compared to the
cost of just about any house - to be an issue.

What is it with first-time buyers, that they think it's reasonable
to considering breaking a deal for something that is going to cost
a couple of hundred bucks, at most? Cripes, don't they have ANY
sense of proportion?

"user" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:26:54 -0500, Matt
wrote:
What is it with first-time buyers, that they think it's reasonable
to considering breaking a deal for something that is going to cost
a couple of hundred bucks, at most? Cripes, don't they have ANY
sense of proportion?

I agree with what you are saying to a point. However, I remember when we
bought our house (6 years ago now) we had the same feelings...it was a case
that we had saved for our down payment for a while and once we bought the
house, it took most of our savings to pay for the down
payment/closing/moving costs. We were concerned about any possible repairs
we would have to make soon after moving in, as for a few months after
closing, money was a bit tight. I think that is a fairly typical situation
for first time buyers.

Tracey in CT

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why anyone considers the
cost of the gutters - which will be absolutely trivial compared to the
cost of just about any house - to be an issue.

What is it with first-time buyers, that they think it's reasonable
to considering breaking a deal for something that is going to cost
a couple of hundred bucks, at most? Cripes, don't they have ANY
sense of proportion?

No. And not only that, many of them would rather have absolutely the
most things they're entitled to than a house they actually like. I think
its an ego-response the the insecurity of not knowing what the hell they're
doing.

"user" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:26:54 -0500, Matt
wrote:
"Dave Solly" wrote in message
...
(Jon) wrote in news:3252df67.0405091046.3011dc44
@posting.google.com:

Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters,
stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to
be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house
with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know
the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon


I'm no expert but I'd hold firm on having the gutters added or ask for
some
type of price reduction to be able to add them yourself mainly due to
the
water seeping into the basement. Just depends on how badly you want the
house and all that comes with it. Ultimately if you buy the house the
problem of seepage into the basement becomes your problem because your
home
inspector pointed it out and reported it to you. If you do buy the
house
and don't fix the problem then you could run into the same situation but
be
on the other end of it when you go to sell it. Again I am no expert but
water seeping into the basement would be enough for me to walk away from
the
deal if she didn't at least give you a price reduction.

If you do buy the house I'd also be sure to regrade that area to slope
away
from the house.

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why anyone considers the
cost of the gutters - which will be absolutely trivial compared to the
cost of just about any house - to be an issue.

What is it with first-time buyers, that they think it's reasonable
to considering breaking a deal for something that is going to cost
a couple of hundred bucks, at most? Cripes, don't they have ANY
sense of proportion?



I agree with this. If you want the house, just buy it and install the
gutters. If you don't want it, pretext the water infiltration as the deal
breaker, not the absence of gutters, and walk away.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:47:35 GMT, "Tracey"
wrote:


"user" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:26:54 -0500, Matt
wrote:
What is it with first-time buyers, that they think it's reasonable
to considering breaking a deal for something that is going to cost
a couple of hundred bucks, at most? Cripes, don't they have ANY
sense of proportion?

I agree with what you are saying to a point. However, I remember when we
bought our house (6 years ago now) we had the same feelings...it was a case
that we had saved for our down payment for a while and once we bought the
house, it took most of our savings to pay for the down
payment/closing/moving costs. We were concerned about any possible repairs
we would have to make soon after moving in, as for a few months after
closing, money was a bit tight. I think that is a fairly typical situation
for first time buyers.

So you say "Put on gutters and I'll increase my offer by $1,000 to
cover them." Basically nothing out of pocket for the gutters.

Nothing forces you to buy a house.

Jeff

On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:02:28 -0400, "
wrote:

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why anyone considers the
cost of the gutters - which will be absolutely trivial compared to the
cost of just about any house - to be an issue.

What is it with first-time buyers, that they think it's reasonable
to considering breaking a deal for something that is going to cost
a couple of hundred bucks, at most? Cripes, don't they have ANY
sense of proportion?

No. And not only that, many of them would rather have absolutely the
most things they're entitled to than a house they actually like. I think
its an ego-response the the insecurity of not knowing what the hell they're
doing.

Inspectors don't help anyone, and most of their inspection report is to
make people think they got their money's worth from the inspection.

We sold our house to first-timers. What a PITA. We almost walked away
from that deal. They wanted a new house but at the same price as a 30yo
house. They just didn't understand that houses need maintenance and
sometimes things are just old.

After their inspection they asked us to actually cut a new vent into the
attic, becuase the inspector "decided" there wasn't enough ventilation.
The inspector didn't like that some of the breakers were different
brands. He saw some fading paint and assumed that the siding was
failing.

On the day of closing, the buyers gave a new addendum to the escrow
agent to give to us, and told her not to distribute any funds until she
heard from them. Bast***ds are out of contract and useing the words
"dry rot" in the addnendum, and claiming theres was bad siding (the
inspection report didn't have any in this spot). We slapped some primer
on and called it done, since all they were seeing was a spot where
something had dented the siding a couple of years earlier.

If I hadn't been towards the end of a work contract, and us needing to
close on the new place while I was still employeed, we would have told
them to take a long walk off a short pier.

Geez buy the house and add the gutters yourself I mean they are cheap
enough and you must like the house if you have entered negotaions just
buy it

On 9 May 2004 11:46:43 -0700, someone wrote:


... the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house...

Well, now you know what your first project will be, if you buy the
house.

seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating...

Doesn't matter what Seller is "stating", for WHATEVER reason Seller
will not install the gutters. What is the time limit on your
Inspection clause? Either exercize it within the time limit, or buy
the house as-is and install the gutters yourself. Either take the
house as is or walk. All rationalizations about what they SHOULD do
are not worth a crap.

-v

On Tue, 11 May 2004 02:58:50 GMT, someone wrote:

.... They agreed
to the offer, which if you or your agent did their job, should have
had a value up to which the seller would agree to make repairs as
found in an inspection...

And if the Seller and his Agent were doing THEIR job, that value would
be ZERO. Otherwise a Seller might as well just give them that money
off the price up front. They are putting out a red carpet inviting
their inspector to justify his fee by comingn up with things to fix up
to that limit.

These customs do vary by local practice, but my policy is that they
can inspect all they want, but the property will be sold As-Is. If
they find something objectionable they have XX hours or X days to
cancel, otherwise its take it or leave it.

-v.

over gutters? Good god, now I know how real estate agents earn their money.

P
"Jon" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience negotiating gutter
repairs/replacement in the purchase of a home. Here's my situation:

I am a first time homebuyer and recently I had the home inspected,
where--among other things--the inspector noted that rain gutters were
missing from the front of the house (curiously there are gutters in
the back). It was visually apparent from the discoloration of the
concrete foundation due to splashing, that the lack of gutters (and
poor yard grading) was causing rain water from the roof to puddle and
become trapped next to the house, which was causing minor water
seepage into the basement.

Based on the inspection results, I asked to the seller to perform a
number of tasks, including re-installing the gutters in front. The
seller has since responded and refuses to install the gutters, stating
simply that there weren't any front gutters when she purchased the
home 7 yrs ago. While that may be true, I feel that gutters are to be
considered a home necessity, rather than an optional item, so I still
feel that I am being reasonable in asking that they be installed.

Moreover, my point is this:

IF the house had come equipped with front gutters, but the inspector
found them to be in terrible shape or nonfunctional, I would have
obviously asked for them be replaced. To address this problem, I'm
assuming the seller cannot simply opt to take them down and leave the
house 'gutterless'. If this WERE to happen, I would have grounds to
exercise my Inspection Contingency Clause and walk away from the deal
with my deposit back, correct (or no)?

So to me, a house with non-working gutters is the same as a house with
no gutters, although legally I am wondering they are one in the same.

My concern is that if neither side were to budge, and I tried to walk
away from the deal on the basis of the missing gutters, that this may
not be sufficient grounds to reclaim my deposit. Does anyone know the
answer to this?

Should I hold firm in asking for new gutters, or is this wishful
thinking?

Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jon

In article %ovpc.55672$iF6.5023264@attbi_s02,
El Penguini wrote:

over gutters? Good god, now I know how real estate agents earn their money.


I made a bid on a house once where the prospective buyers (that I lost out
to) wanted the *door knobs* replaced. The sellers called me and asked me
if I was still interested because they were going to refuse to do anything
else asked (the doorknobs were the 2nd or 3rd ticky tack item). I already
had an accepted offer somewhere else, but I marvel that someone wanted
the door knobs replaced as a condition of sale.


Dimitri

"Tracy" wrote in message
om...
(Jon) wrote in message
. com...

If you really want to back out of the deal, wouldn't the water seepage
into the basement be enough to say it failed your inspection?

I would think no, if it was included in the disclosure.
--
JennP.