Move In Certified Question

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Almost none....

As far as business goes, I have noticed a peculiar increase coming from people finding me on the Internet. I was wondering what the deal was all of a sudden.

Cause they are calling the first two they see. You and I. I have done many difference keyword searching and you and I are norallly at the top of the list.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Anytime a reinspection is performed, who need to make sure the repairs are done correctly. A MIC reinspection has less liability because if the repairs are not done correctly and you do not spot it, hopefully the buyer hires his own inspector and that inspector spots it before the deal closes, and the buyer and seller can renegotiate if necessary. Even if the deal closes you are working for the seller, so you do not have to worry about the buyer going after you.

I guess I just don't understand it. To me MIC has a ton of liability. If a buyers inspector finds something you missed and the deal falls through your client the "seller" in my opinion would have grounds to come after you the inspector. To me MIC or pre inspections what ever you want to call it can be very dangerous especially for those new to the business.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

What is if an insurance agent finds a missing piece of flashing and won't give the buyer home insurance because of this and you did the buyer's inspection? Is this not the same thing?
It appears to me it would be harder for the seller to prove you killed his sell then the buyer claiming his house is insurable because of the missing piece of flashing.
It is always better to have something caught before it closes. Remember, the seller has to prove a loss, so what, you have to give him his money back and you learned a less costly lesson. This is better than a defect being found after it is closed, and you have to pay for the roof flashing and the years of damage it has caused.
Another thing, if a Realtor is involved she will do everything she can to make the deal goes through.

[Nick Gromicko]

Bill writes:

If a buyers inspector finds something you missed and the deal falls through your client the "seller" in my opinion would have grounds to come after you the inspector.

How do you figure that? How did you make the deal fall through, even if you did miss something? You didn't cause the defect. And the defect was caught in time, while the buyer could still walk without suffering damages. Pluck yourself out of that equation and the defect is still there, the buyer's inspector still finds it, and the deal still falls through. How did you cause additional damages?.... even if you made a mistake. Now if you made the same mistake for the buyer... you have big problems. See?

It is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you posted. Even in a worst-case scenario where you miss something MAJOR and the buyer's inspector catches it...he saved your butt! The defect was caught BEFORE the transaction took place.

Liability only comes when a defect is caught AFTER a transaction takes place (when it is too late to walk or ask the seller to repair/credit).

Read: http://www.moveincertified.com/inspectors

Compared to working for a buyer who is moving IN to a home you inspected, there is almost ZERO liability on inspecting a home for the seller who is moving OUT of the home you inspected.

It gets better... the liability on an MIC inspection is all shifted to the buyer's inspector and away from you. It is HIS job to find the defects for HIS client moving IN to the home. If something is wrong after the buyer moves in, the buyer can't sue you. The buyer isn't your client!!! You have no duty to be right for someone who isn't your client. The buyer sues his inspector.

If anyone can show me how I'm wrong about relative liability here, I'll send them $1,000 cash. It's not even a close call. MIC has nearly zero liability.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Bill writes: How do you figure that? How did you make the deal fall through, even if you did miss something? You didn't cause the defect. And the defect was caught in time, while the buyer could still walk without suffering damages. Pluck yourself out of that equation and the defect is still there, the buyer's inspector still finds it, and the deal still falls through. How did you cause additional damages?.... even if you made a mistake. Now if you made the same mistake for the buyer... you have big problems. See?

It is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you posted. Even in a worst-case scenario where you miss something MAJOR and the buyer's inspector catches it...he saved your butt! The defect was caught BEFORE the transaction took place.

Liability only comes when a defect is caught AFTER a transaction takes place (when it is too late to walk or ask the seller to repair/credit).

Read: http://www.moveincertified.com/inspectors

Compared to working for a buyer who is moving IN to a home you inspected, there is almost ZERO liability on inspecting a home for the seller who is moving OUT of the home you inspected.

It gets better... the liability on an MIC inspection is all shifted to the buyer's inspector and away from you. It is HIS job to find the defects for HIS client moving IN to the home. If something is wrong after the buyer moves in, the buyer can't sue you. The buyer isn't your client!!! You have no duty to be right for someone who isn't your client. The buyer sues his inspector.

If anyone can show me how I'm wrong about relative liability here, I'll send them $1,000 cash. It's not even a close call. MIC has nearly zero liability.

Nick you have way more experience in this field than I do however a fresh pair of eyes sometimes adds a extra spoke to the wheel for additional strength

Your absolutely right to a point IMO. The buyer does not have ground nor would they come after you. They have their own inspector and if he did his job all is good and well. Now if the buyer's inspector uncovered additional problems that I missed and it scares the ???? right out of his client the deal could fall through. It's that simple to me really. Now the deal falls through the seller is pissed at their initial inspector who's job it was to report issues so they could be fixed before the buyer's inspector got to the property. So now the seller files suit against the incompetent home inspector who was hired to look after his or her back so his or her sale would go smoothly. Trust me all this is playing out as I type in a thread upstairs. Joe F did the inspection and found all kinds of problems that the MIC inspector did not!

Just keep the grand for future NACHI membership payments. I like it here

[Billy Boerner]

Nick keep an eye on the thread "Inspecting Pre Inspected Homes" up in the secure area. Mike Gault's attorney even advised not to participate in the MIC program. Why would he do this? I already posted the answer to this question. Bottom line there really is no way to beat around this bush Nick IMPO.

[John Harrison]

I dont know if this would ease any anxiety about the MIC program.
In looking around at different information about it and seeing what others do I remember comming across something similar to what I have put together.

Here is what I see as the process of a Move in certified / Preinspected program.

1. HI performs sellers inspection offering the MIC program.
2. Seller is given the report for correction of defects. and a agreement to sign.
(I _________ certify on this ______ day of _____,20__, the property located at:__________________ has no known major system or safety concerns. Under the Move-In Certified/Pre-Listing program, client agrees to have the inspection report available for potential buyers or real estate agents to view, said persons are not specifically intended beneficiaries of the agreement or the inspeciton report both directly and indirectly. Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold Insepction company and associates harmless from any third party claims arising from misrepresentation of the sellers inspection report.
3. Once the above agreement is signed, reinspection perfomed. Then the seller gets the front yard sign and copies of the sellers report to pass out to potential buyers and agents.

A example of the above agreement can be found in the HIP software located in the Russ Template tpz. under general notes.

[Nick Gromicko]

Nonsense. You need 4 things to sue an inspector. Duty, breach, causation, and damages.

In your scenario, explain where the causation is? The buyer didn't walk because of your inspection! The buyer walked because of the bad roof that you missed. Did you cause the bad roof? Of course not. And the seller is in no worse position now that the bad roof has been discovered. His roof was bad when you inspected it and it is still bad now. The roof isn't any worse because you once incorrectly said it was fine.

I'll pay any attorney his hourly fee to show me where I'm wrong, and if he succeeds at showing me how a seller inspection has more liability than a regular inspection I'll pay him a $1,000 bonus on top of it.

You won't find a single attorney to come on this message board and try. They all know I'm right.

If you can find an attorney who tells you that working for a buyer has less liability than working for a seller, give me his/her name and number. I'll call him/her and convince him/her to correct his/her dumb thinking.

[Nick Gromicko]

For fun, lets look at a worst-case scenario. You tell the seller his roof is fine. The roof is shot. A second inspector catches it. The buyer walks.

In this scenario, there are no damages that you caused. Had you missed the exact same roof problem for the buyer, and the buyer buys the home, you'd have a problem, wouldn't you?

[Nick Gromicko]

We'll call this Day 1, no attorney can prove Nick wrong.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

For fun, lets look at a worst-case scenario. You tell the seller his roof is fine. The roof is shot. A second inspector catches it. The buyer walks.

In this scenario, there are no damages that you caused. Had you missed the exact same roof problem for the buyer, and the buyer buys the home, you'd have a problem, wouldn't you?

Nick your only seeing one side of the road in my eyes. Your not looking in both directions or I'm not completely understanding the direction your going in.

Yes you would have a problem your right. However the MIC home inspector is going to have the same problem if the buyer walks because of his or her inspector found the problem you didn't and was hired to find in the first place.

Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result." That is to say that causation provides a means of connecting conduct, complete with actus reus, with the resulting harm or result element.

Actus Reus

Latin for a "guilty act." The actus reus is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime. For example, the crime of theft requires physically taking something (the actus reus) coupled with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object (the mental state, or mens rea).

-- You conduct yourself in a manner that is suppose to be professional during a inspection and you should be knowledgeable enough to not miss a shot roof. By missing a shot roof your being reckless because obviously one was asleep at the wheel. As a result the buyer's home inspector found the bad roof now the buyer is worried about buying a crappy house and decides to walk. The seller looks at you and says I would of replaced that roof if I of known about it from your report before the buyer and his or her realtor was scheduled to visit. If I'm understanding this correctly that constitues a causation.

In this scenerio I can connect conduct, actus reus, and the resulting harm I caused for being asleep at the wheel.

Again I'm sure I might be way off I'm no lawyer however I don't think you will ever sway me into believing a MIC inspection is totally harmless to your reputation and your checkbook.

[Nick Gromicko]

You are wrong, and won't be able to find a single attorney in the world to back you up and take my $1,000.00. In your scenario the buyer didn't walk because of your inspection report. Don't believe me? Imagine asking the buyer why he/she walked in your scenario. The buyer is not going to claim that he/she walked because you said the roof was fine.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

You are wrong, and won't be able to find a single attorney in the world to back you up and take my $1,000.00. In your scenario the buyer didn't walk because of your inspection report. Don't believe me? Imagine asking the buyer why he/she walked in your scenario. The buyer is not going to claim that he/she walked because you said the roof was fine.

True Nick however your fixated on the buyer. I'm talking about the Seller. I agree about everything your saying when it comes to the buyer. The buyer won't have the problem with me it's going to be the seller once I caused her or him financial loss.

[Nick Gromicko]

True Nick however your fixated on the buyer. I'm talking about the Seller. I agree about everything your saying when it comes to the buyer. The buyer won't have the problem with me it's going to be the seller once I caused her or him financial loss.

Show us how you caused the seller financial loss in your scenario. Had you never been born and the buyer did the exact same inspection with the exact same inspector and found the exact same bad roof, the buyer would have walked. The seller would still have a bad roof and no buyer. How has the seller been additionally damaged by anyone, let alone you?

[Nick Gromicko]

A fake diamond ring is worth no less because someone once said it was real. The diamond ring is still as fake as it always was.