New Texas Rule: Forms

[John McKenna]

FROM THE TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION:

Adopts an amendment to §535.223, concerning standard inspection report forms. The amendment deletes a provision that exempts home inspectors from the requirement to use the promulgated Inspection Report Form for inspections for which a relocation company or a seller's employers requires use of a different form. Thus licensed home inspectors will be required to use the Inspection Report for such inspections.

The amendment was recommended by the Texas Real Estate Inspector Committee, an advisory committee of nine professional inspectors appointed by TREC.

Effective Date: 03/19/2007

http://www.trec.state.tx.us/formslaw...s.asp#proposed

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

FROM THE TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION:

Adopts an amendment to §535.223, concerning standard inspection report forms. The amendment deletes a provision that exempts home inspectors from the requirement to use the promulgated Inspection Report Form for inspections for which a relocation company or a seller's employers requires use of a different form. Thus licensed home inspectors will be required to use the Inspection Report for such inspections.

The amendment was recommended by the Texas Real Estate Inspector Committee, an advisory committee of nine professional inspectors appointed by TREC.

Effective Date: 03/19/2007

http://www.trec.state.tx.us/formslaw...s.asp#proposed

John,

Thanks for the heads up! Not to be a rebel but I certainly wonder if TREC has also made these known to the relocation companies or seller's employers? Of course I am being facetious!! As a result now the Inspector will more than likely be required to complete both report forms to make the relocation company happy and be within the legal requirements by TREC.

Will you be attending the next NACHI NT meeting? The work performed by John Cahill, and other Inspector Committee members, with regards to the SOP rewrite has been changed by new Inspector Committee members. The new members are rallying for a very prescriptive SOP. John Cahill will be at the meeting to discuss the new initiatives and changes occurring.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Who is the Texas Real Estate Inspectors Commission at this time???

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by dbowers

Who is the Texas Real Estate Inspectors Commission at this time???

A list of the current committee members can be found at:

http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/admi...on/InspCom.pdf

[rstrahan]

Originally Posted by dbowers

Who is the Texas Real Estate Inspectors Commission at this time???

Brian Murphy, Dallas
Curtis Carr, Beaumont
Vernon Davis, Waco
Billy Meyerdirk, Austin
Phil Stojanik, Houston
Larry Foster, Austin
Fred Wilcox, Houston
Brad Phillips, Temple
Me, Round Rock

FORWARD INTO THE PAST!!!

[Michael R. Boyett]

Russell....who's gonna be the new chairman? How do you guys pick the chairman? Whoever draws short straw? I think it needs to be either you or Phil.

[rstrahan]

Chair is elected by majority vote.

Thanks for your endorsement, but I don't want the job. I'm burned-out on politics and the new SoP is doomed to be a professional embarrassment.

Curtis or Phil would both be good choices. Heck, I even like Billy or Vernon.

I will bet you ANYTHING Larry winds up there eventually.

[rdawes]

Is there a draft of the SOP available for comment? I could not make the NT NACHI meeting last night.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Ron, with TREC not accepting the proposed SOP last August and 'sending it back to committee' then there doesn't appear to be a proposed SOP draft any longer. See www.betterstandards.com for a succinct status of that draft SOP . My guess is that the Inspectors Committee will table any proposed changes for an extended period of time and either do nothing or completely re-write the proposed SOP changes.

Russell, I doubted that you would have desired the chair. Curtis would be a fine choice, I don't know Vernon well enough to have an opinion on him. I couldn't support Billy because of his adamant belief that all inspectors should be required to have E&O. I will not take that bet regarding Larry...I agree, he'll be the chairman.

[rdawes]

Thanks Michael. It sounded like from Russell's comment that there was something specific that he was referring to. I guess he was just foretelling the future.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Yeah, also Russel's comment re: "Forward into the past" is a reference to fact that Larry served on the committee during the early formative years and the current Ethics & SOP were developed during his prior tenure I think. Also, if I'm not mistaken the three new committee members, Larry, Brad and Fred come as a matched set, if you know what I mean.

[rdawes]

I see. Thanks.

[Michael R. Boyett]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but wanted to keep it focused on Texas HI issues. Here's a blurb from the latest issue of Texas Realtor Focus magazine:

Prior inspection reports
Q: Is the seller or the seller's broker prohibited from providing a copy of an inspection report to a subsequent purchaser? An inspector that we sometimes use says that neither the seller nor the seller's broker can provide a copy of an inspection report to a buyer who has not paid for the inspection report.
A: An inspector is obliged to answer only to the inspector's client and is under no obligation to speak with any other person about the content of the inspector's report. But the inspector's opinion as to the condition of the property as of the date specified in a report does not change based upon who reads the report. The inspector's report should stand on its own. Most inspectors know that a client will use the inspection report to negotiate repairs in a transaction and that the client may need to provide a copy of the report to the other party. This is the nature of the industry that gives rise to the demand for the inspector's business. Most inspectors do not require that their clients sign confidentiality agreements prohibiting the client from sharing the report with others. Even if an inspector has a client sign a confidentiality agreement that limits the client's right to copy and distribute the report, that agreement is binding only upon the client and not upon any other person who may receive a copy of the report. Therefore, a seller is only prohibited from sharing a copy of an inspection report with a buyer if the seller is the client of the inspector (i.e., the seller ordered the inspection) and the seller signed an agreement prohibiting the seller from sharing the report.
A broker or seller who receives an inspection report is charged with knowledge of the information in the report. If an inspection report reveals material defects, the seller and the broker are obliged to disclose those defects. Therefore, the question is not whether the seller and broker must disclose the defects, but rather how the seller and broker will disclose the defects. The seller and broker may choose to disclose the defects orally, but that may be imprudent since no record of the disclosure would exist; summarize the defects in some written communication to the subsequent purchaser, but that may create a risk that some important information may be edited out; or provide a copy of the report to the subsequent purchaser along with the seller's disclosure notice, thereby providing all of the information the seller and broker have with regard to any know defects.
The TAR Seller's Disclosure Notice (TAR 1406) asks the seller to identify and attach copies of previous inspection reports. This notice cautions the buyer against relying on previous reports as a reflection of the current condition of property and suggests that the buyer employ an inspector of the buyer's choice.

[rstrahan]

OK SoP in a nutshell:

Texas has attempted a uniquely prescriptive (how to) SoP. It's ridiculously detailed on some items (dishwasher, air conditioning) and bizarrely general on others (roofing, stairs, foundation). It is a study in inconsistency and poor technical writing. It is also 7800 words, whereas every other SoP is 2500 or less.

Once you know the document, you can hang ANY inspector (including me) with it while simultaneously flying a 747 through the most important requirements. In expert work you can dissemble it so quickly a judge will laugh it off.

Faced with revision, we determined that it was decidedly less insane to simply define "inspect" and "deficiency" very carefully, then list required items for inspection, pretty much like every other extant SoP does. This took two years of research and politickin. The result was a really nice document. The commissioners were slapping us on the back and promising quick adoption.

A month later it was blown out of the water by objections raised through the General Counsel privately to the commission. (If you believe they obey the open meetings law I have coastal property in Amarillo for you.)

Anyway, the project was severely derailed with a last-minute commission motion that we adopt a commentary, address code and include safety. None of which will ever actually happen. Eventually there will be a longer version of the document we currently have, hopefully with less stupid errors but doomed to inconsistent requirements and inadequate maintenance.

If you can't spot the mark at this card game -- YOU ARE IT!

(Personally, I can't wait to get out of this sham)

Russell

[Michael R. Boyett]

Russell, first of all I'd like to sincerely thank you, John and the rest of the committee members for all of the hard work you guys put into the proposed SOP revision. It was obviously a huge undertaking. That said, please don't take any of the following as anything other than just trying to fully understand the big picture. One, the committee was well aware of the need for a commentary almost from day one of the re-write of the SOP. The committee clearly knew that document or a good start on that document was needed to sway several of the committee members to support the proposed SOP and to also take to TREC along with the proposed SOP. It was almost a year ago, right here on the NACHI board, that some even volunteered to begin drafting that commentary document. I'm sure politics played a part in nothing occurring along those lines. Second, the concern that the proposed SOP removed all 'safety' related items was also well known before taking the proposed SOP to TREC. I'm of the opinion that if the committee had seen clear to re-insert a couple of those safety items, i.e. GFCI, that the GC concern would have not been as strong. Why did the GC even become concerned in the first place? Wait, I think I know the answer to that one.