Standards question

[Nick Gromicko]

It basically delineates the difference between an inspector (who's job it is to point out things that might significantly affect the value of the property) and an appraiser (who's job it is to calculate the value of a property).

No conflict.

They are different and our SOP reinforces their difference by saying that Inspectors do one, but not the other.

Also, the SOP is not a stand-alone document... see "deemed material" line # 1 in our agreement www.nachi.org/documents.htm The SOP and inspector-client agreement (sister documents) are 2 halves. That's why the combo has never lost in court.

The following is the most important paragraph in the inspection industry:

1. INSPECTOR agrees to perform a visual inspection of the home/building and to provide CLIENT with a written inspection report identifying the defects that INSPECTOR both observed and deemed material. INSPECTOR may offer comments as a courtesy, but these comments will not comprise the bargained-for report. The report is only supplementary to the seller’s disclosure.

[Nick Gromicko]

John, the reason for the future tense in that sentence: The inspector has to point out the defects he/she deems to be "material." If the definition of "material" was limited to only that which is significantly affecting the property on the day of the inspection, then a plaintiff could argue that even though the inspector did fulfill his/her duty to report those defects he/she deemed to significantly affecting the property now as material, the inspector failed to deem another defect that could eventually significantly affect the property because the SOP did not require him to or he/she failed to inspect for it, not because he/she didn't deem it major because he/she didn't believe it to one day affect the value of he property. By expanding the definition of material with future tense, we COVER more defects (those that are significantly affecting the value now and those that might one day affect the value). The agreement, Line 1, then limits the inspector's duty from ALL the defects we covered to only those he/she both observed and deemed to be material. On the surface it may appear that we increased the inspectors duty by expanding the definition of material via future tense, but we did this to make all reportable defects... determined by... the inspector (through the word "deemed"). We took 2 steps backwards and 3 forwards. Or more accurately, we put all the defects in a basket, then took the basket off the table. Hope that makes sense.

In short, use InterNACHI's agreement.

[Jae Williams]

Reporting a "material defect" most definitely is not the same as determining "market, or real, value".

We relay to the client that it could "have an impact on the value", but we do not determine the value, or the amount of impact.

[Nick Gromicko]

Also, the "observed" is very important in the "observed and deemed material" line.

An inspector has a duty to inspect for roof leaks, but no duty to find them all. A plaintiff has to show that the InterNACHI member breached his duty by failing to inspect for something entirely, not just failing to observe something during the inspection. Much harder for a plaintiff to prove as likely, the inspector who failed to observe a roof leak, did in fact, look for roof leaks, and so fulfilled his duty, even though he didn't find the leak.

In other words, use InterNACHI's agreement. Your cousin Marvin who is a collection attorney, may charge you $600 to author a custom agreement for your inspection business, but InterNACHI has spent many years and many hundreds of thousands of dollars on this subject.

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Thanks for that answer. The problem that remains is what is "significant". I inspect 500,000 dollar homes that need 4,000 in foundation repair. I do not consider 4,000 to be significant. It's not even 1% of the value. The taxes are 25,000 a year.

Until recently, high home values made 4,000 repairs immaterial. On the other hand a 4,000 repair on a 90k hoe might be material.

Still seems to place a burden on the inspector to determine "significant" adverse value decisions

Simply explain to your client what you deem is significant while at the same time letting them know that the little things can add up as well......which is why they should read the whole report..............either way you put the ball in the court so they can decide what to do with it.

Jeff

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bwiley

What is the accepted standard for checking the doorbell?

The ding dongs in Texas that wrote the rule state the door bell has to ding dong but not dong or ding only and it cannot dong ding. Any home that plays "The eyes of Texas are upon you" gets 100 bonus points. I am creating an 8 hour CEU course on how to push the button.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jcahill

The ding dongs in Texas that wrote the rule state the door bell has to ding dong but not dong or ding only and it cannot dong ding. Any home that plays "The eyes of Texas are upon you" gets 100 bonus points. I am creating an 8 hour CEU course on how to push the button.

Doesn't the house get destroyed, immediately, if an Aggie inspects a house where the doorbell plays the Longhorn fight song?

And vice-versa.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by gromicko

John, the reason for the future tense . . . . . . .

Nick,

Thats makes sense. I need to read that once or twice. It has a lot of content. I agree with combining the SoP and report as a singular product. Very wise.

I do not do as much expert work as other people on this forum but the little work I do is mostly against lawyers or inexperienced experts interpreting the SoP their way. There are a lot of interelated aspects that defuse their argument and much is it shows in a study of your work. Everytime I read any SoP I can see a new perspective. Thanks for the input.

John

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Doesn't the house get destroyed, immediately, if an Aggie inspects a house where the doorbell plays the Longhorn fight song?

And vice-versa.

The Aggie has not figured out how to push the button. The man that wrote the SoP is a 9 year Aggie (still working on that degree I think).

As far as Texas vice versa. . . . . your probably right on that one.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Doesn't the house get destroyed, immediately, if an Aggie inspects a house where the doorbell plays the Longhorn fight song?

And vice-versa.

Either this or this.

[Rick Maday]

Knew that'd get you Texas guys goin' LOL

[Michael R. Boyett]

Well, you gotta admit...they are catchy little tunes.

[Blaine Wiley]

I rang a doorbell once that was an air horn from a truck. Startled me a wee bit. Turns out the occupant was a bit hard of hearing. Don't know if that was before, or after the doorbell/air horn installation.

[Mark Nahrgang]

I don't like that terminology myself. When I am talking to clients or agents I use this definition: Major Defect: A condition that would have an adverse impact on the habitability of the home, or if left unattended would lead to an adverse impact.

[Nick Gromicko]

When I am talking to clients or agents I use this definition: Major Defect: A condition that would have an adverse impact on the habitability of the home, or if left unattended would lead to an adverse impact.

Could a foundation crack be a major defect yet not affect habitability of the home?