NACHI members to pre-inspect every home. Listen for the giant sucking sound.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

It's a great marketing idea, and the increased revenue would probably allay the risks involved. But the increased liability, as Claude points out, is very real, particularly if every potential buyer had access to the rpre-sale report. In California, disclosure regulation damn near guarantees that every potential buyer would have the right to a pre-sale report, and the Leco decision guarantees that that same potential buyer is legally entitled to rely on that pre-sale report. I know, because I was sued over something that was disclaimed in my report and by persons who had not paid for my report, had never consulted with me, and certainly never paid for my services. Granted this happened in Los Angeles (LA-la-land).

[Russell Spriggs]

Actually, that would be a nice letter to send out as the next NACHI email to Agents.
Care to facilitate that, Nick?

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thank you Keith, certainly I am an avid reader and believer of your experiences offered for all of us to be aware and equally heed with caution. In addition, I know others that have fallen victim to such unfortunate circumstances.

[wforsyth]

read the bottom of the page

[Russell Spriggs]

You may also want to post that link over at
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/ny-inspectors-beware-5001/ ,
Wendy!

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Nick, can we use your text directly, but edited, detailing the benefits of seller inspections on our websites? Or would you prefer that we link to it?

If you prefer just a link, please consider creating a separate document targeted to Sellers and Realtors only. In other words, it would extol the benefits of seller inspections but would be modified so that:

1) the benefits to home inspectors is not included.

2) the sample letters to realtors and sellers is removed.

You can keep the entire text as you have it. Just give us a document and link that is relevant for us to use in marketing to Realtors and Sellers only. (They don't need to see our reasons and methods for increasing revenue by marketing this and may be turned off by that.)

Thoughts?

[Nick Gromicko]

The President of the Greenville Association of REALTORs, who spoke at the SC NACHI Chapter last night, devoted about 40% of his talk to promoting sellers inspections.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

I know. I was there. What about my previous post?

[mnoble]

Just a ? for you guys.Are you performing and generating the same inspection as if it were a pre-purchace inspection for a buyer? And are you pricing it the same?

[Mark H. Roe]

Mark, very good question?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Listen for the giant sucking sound as we pull inspections out of the market for NACHI members:

The following text is required on ALL Texas Inspection reports:

"Property conditions change with time and use. Since this report is provided for the specific benefit of the client(s), secondary readers of this information should hire a licensed inspector to perform an inspection to meet their specific needs and to obtain current information concerning this property."

When the State of Texas says that secondary readers should hire their own inspector, it helps to cover you.

In regard to Realtors wanting me to inspect ANYTHING...

I have not met a Realtor who likes my reports. I take no prisoners and tell it like it is... the good, the bad and the ugly. I have no business model or plans to market to Realtors. It is mute point. They do not like me and I understand why. I am the deal killer and my clients love me for it. My clients pay me for the truth and thats what they get.

Woe be unto the inspector I come behind and he has done a poor inspection. I inspect only one way... the right way.

[Erby Crofutt]

So Keith,

What were the results of the lawsuit you mentioned.

[John McKenna]

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/2006...nspections.htm

Home Inspections: Varied Perceptions
by Al Heavens

In a slower market, buyers aren't willing to throw caution to the wind, and are less willing to buy houses with problems.

Buyers are less willing to fix problems after they buy.

In most areas of the country, the winter hasn't been as bad as it was last year, which reduces the amount of cleaning up you'll need to do before the summer heat propels you poolside.

Whatever has fallen or peeled since the last warm day of autumn needs to be picked up or repaired before then, and certainly before the house goes on the market. That means sooner, not later, because with a slowing real estate market in many regions, the first house on the block for sale has a leg up on the competition.

Before I mix more metaphors, let's just say that when you do get a house ready for sale, you can miss many of the things that will capture the notice of buyer and especially the home inspector or other professional the buyer employs to make sure what he or she is buying is as sound as the dollars being spent.

Should you obtain a pre-inspection of your house before you put it on the market? What this entails is hiring a home inspector to come up with a list of things that the buyer's inspector might find after the house is on the market. Knowing ahead of time might give you a chance to correct all those problems in advance, thus making the transaction go much more smoothly and virtually ensuring that your asking price won't be whittled down by roof replacement or a new heating and cooling system, to mention two examples.

From what my readers, real estate agents and many home inspectors tell me, it doesn't work that way. Depending upon where they are coming from, two inspectors could look at your house completely differently, and their lists could have few similarities as a result.

Here's a reader's example: "I put my house on the market, and it attracted several interested buyers. The successful bidder hired an inspector, who found that we had mold behind a wall in the second-floor bathroom, and that the roof needed to be replaced. We were willing to negotiate, but the buyer was nervous about the mold and pulled out of the deal."

"Those were the only two problems that inspector found with the house," the reader continued. "The next prospective buyer hired a home inspector. We warned the buyer that the previous offer had been rescinded because of the mold and the roof, but that we were willing to negotiate, and would either take care of the problems ourselves or reduce the price of the house by the cost of the work."

Now, the reader's state doesn't require a disclosure statement, which is fairly rare these days, and the buyer didn't mention the roof or the mold to the next inspector. That inspector found the mold (the odor in the bathroom made it hard to miss), but thought that roof seemed in pretty good shape, and might need replacement a few years down the road.

The inspector did find a cracked heat exchanger in the furnace that definitely needed replacement. The other inspector had checked out the furnace and had not found the problem, but expertise only goes so far. Two different sets of eyes don't necessarily see the same thing.

Again, this is not a complaint against home inspectors. I hired my first in 1982 and have used them on every house I've purchased since. I tried to talk the successful bidders on my last house to employ one because there might have been a problem I'd missed in 14 years. They decided not to, so I spent the three months between agreement of sale and settlement finding things on my own and fixing them.

After five years, they still love the house, but it's not the way I wanted to spend a summer, working on a house I wouldn't be living in after Aug. 24.

Real estate agents are divided on pre-inspections. In disclosure states especially, agents say that the less the seller knows the better, since caveat emptor went out the window long ago, and it is easier to sue than not to sue these days.

Other agents like the idea, because it means sellers can get a jump on the problem and get the house quickly on what is becoming in many areas a buyer's market again.

It's the seller's choice. From what I've already seen, however, buyers are getting picky about houses and are taking more time to choose. Inventories are up, so there's more to look at, and with interest rates rising, buyers are beginning to hang on tightly to every dollar before they spend it.

It's something to think about.
Published: March 23, 2006

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

John,

Now, the reader's state doesn't require a disclosure statement, which is fairly rare these days, and the buyer didn't mention the roof or the mold to the next inspector.

Real estate agents are divided on pre-inspections. In disclosure states especially, agents say that the less the seller knows the better, since caveat emptor went out the window long ago, and it is easier to sue than not to sue these days.

Very interesting article! I did find the following two items in the article as exceptionally interesting. I'm surprised not all states require disclosure. As for the second item, IMO that is very narrow thinking. In todays litigious society it does not matter if you knew or not as you still have to fight the lawsuit when it comes. Sad that attitude is still in existence!

[Nick Gromicko]

Remeber, there is NO added liability in having even hundreds of your reports floating around in the hands of buyers who AREN'T buying the property inspected... and... LESS liability in having a client who is LEAVING the home you inspected (the seller) than there is in having a client who is MOVING IN (the buyer).