Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Can anyone tell me if Ky, Ohio, and Ind. require Realtors to disclose known defects. Not that they shouldn’t anyway.
Can anyone tell me if Ky, Ohio, and Ind. require Realtors to disclose known defects. Not that they shouldn’t anyway.
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I was a REALTOR for years and though the states might not have specific disclosure laws governing REALTORs, the National Association of REALTORs requires us to disclose any defect we are sure about.
Note: Less than 1/2 of all real estate agents are REALTORs.
--
Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
Originally Posted By: loconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick
What is the difference between a Realtor and a real estate agent.
Back in 94 when I was a realtor in Indiana, there was talk about changing the designation to a capital "Realtor". Not sure what the reason was for. I guess they didn't like the term "real estate agent"
how did this all come about?
--
Larry
Western Michigan NACHI Chapter
http://www.w-michigan-nachi.org
"We confide in our strength
without boasting of it.
We respect that of others
without fearing it"
Thomas Jefferson
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
A real estate agent is someone licensed to sell real estate.
A REALTOR (all caps) is a real estate agent (above) who is also a member of the National Association of REALTORs (NAR).
NAR is to real estate as NACHI is to home inspectors.
NACHI and NAR are parallel within their industries. They are both private professional associations. You need not be a member of either by law. People join NACHI or NAR out of choice.
Many incorrectly use the term real estate agent and REALTOR interchangeably.
--
Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
George:
The Consumer Fraud Act's "reasonable and diligent inquiry requirement" states that real estate licensees are protected from liability for punitive damages and attorney fees for providing false, misleading, or deceptive information if they either had no actual knowledge that it was false, misleading, or deceptive, or if they made a reasonable and diligent inquiry to ascertain if the information was false, deceptive, or misleading.
--
Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick
Thanks for the information. I am trying to tie this point into a presentation I am working on for local Realtors/Real Estate Agents in the hope of showing them the benefits of recommending a Professional Home Inspection to both Buyers and Sellers. I don’t want to sound like a lawyer, and I don’t want to say something that could come back and bite me in the a$$. I believe if every Realtor/Real Estate Agent would recommend Inspecting Pre-Listing and Buying it would seriously reduce their chances of being drug into a dispute as to whether they were previously aware or not of a problem. By recommending an Inspection, if the Buyer later says they were not informed of this or that, if they refused and the Agent documents it they can reasonably say that is why they recommend Inspections, it would have been found at that time. And if they agreed to an Inspection the responsibility of any missed problems would fall back on the inspector if not documented in the report. Would you agree with this assumption? Also I wasn’t aware of the difference between Realtor and Real Estate Agent, Thanks.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| gromicko wrote: |
| A REALTOR (all caps) is a real estate agent (above) who is also a member of the National Association of REALTORs (NAR). |
So is Realtor (r).
The word Realtor (r) was invented by them.
Main Entry: Re?al?tor
Pronunciation: 'rE(-&)l-t&r, -"tor, ?'rE-l&-t&r also rE-'al-t&r
Function: collective mark
-- used for a real estate agent who is a member of the National Association of Realtors
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
George:
I see what you are attempting. This used to work for me: http://www.nachi.org/prelisting.htm Cannibalize it as you wish.
--
Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.
I much prefer email to private messages.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
George,
I re-read this and am reading it differently than I first did. Is this how you meant it?
| George E Keller wrote: |
| I believe if every Realtor/Real Estate Agent would recommend Inspecting Pre-Listing |
All items found during the pre-listing inspection would either need to be corrected or disclosed. This would help in the disclosure. Not "instead of" a proper and truthful seller disclosure, but "in addition to".
| Quote: |
| and Buying it would seriously reduce their chances of being drug into a dispute as to whether they were previously aware or not of a problem. |
Only if the inspection results were disclosed.
| Quote: |
| By recommending an Inspection, if the Buyer later says they were not informed of this or that, if they refused and the Agent documents it they can reasonably say that is why they recommend Inspections, it would have been found at that time. And if they agreed to an Inspection the responsibility of any missed problems would fall back on the inspector if not documented in the report. |
This is the part which is confusing me. Are you suggesting that the real estate agent recommend the pre-listing inspection, that the pre-listing inspection be done, that the seller not disclose the results of the pre-listing inspection, but then, when the buyer does not have their inspection, the agent can use the undisclosed pre-listing inspection to say "Well, IF you had used an inspector, he 'would have found these things'."
Were you suggesting that the pre-listing inspection be disclosed, or not disclosed? If not disclosed, it not only cannot be used to hide behind, it in fact becomes the knife that cuts deeply into them. Non-disclosure. It is a big deal.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry,
I am suggesting that it is in the best interest of any Realtor/Agent to recommend both Pre-Listing and Pre Purchasing Inspections by a Professional Home Inspector. If the seller has an Inspection and makes the report available to Prospective buyers he is giving them a written notice of disclosure. Any defects should be found by the Inspector. Also by knowing about any known defects before listing it gives them the opportunity to fix them or justify to the buyer why they didn’t fix them. If an Agent recommends a Home Inspection to a Prospective Buyer and the Buyer declines, a signed refusal letter by the buyer stating this declined recommendation, covers the Agent for any unknown defects, as they can contend that the defect would have been found at the time of the recommended inspection. Obviously the Realtor/Agent must and should, even if it isn’t required, disclose any known defects. Thanks for the rewording of what I’m trying to convey to the Agents. I just don’t want to make any improper statements during my presentation or if asked directly. I just want to give them my Professional opinion.
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
Thank you for your help. You said you tried this approach. Being new to the industry I’m always looking for marketing tools or a new approach. Would you, or anyone else reading this, have any suggestions. Are there any clear no no’s as far as making assurances. I don’t want to sound like a lawyer, because I’m not. But everything I’ve been able to read in articles or on line basically tells Realtors/Agents if you don’t want to get sued, recommend a Professional Home Inspection to buyers, document, document, document.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Again, you are confusing me with the double talk (and I realize the double talk is not intentional).
A) You are recommending a pre-listing inspection by the seller. "I am suggesting that it is in the best interest of any Realtor/Agent to recommend both Pre-Listing and Pre Purchasing Inspections by a Professional Home Inspector. "
B) You are saying that the pre-listing inspection be given as a Seller Disclosure. "If the seller has an Inspection and makes the report available to Prospective buyers he is giving them a written notice of disclosure."
Here is where I am having my problems.
C) IF the report is given as the seller disclosure, what defects should be found by the buyers inspector? They have already been disclosed. The buyers inspector need only to confirm those items still exist or confirm that they have been repaired. They go find their own items. "Any defects should be found by the Inspector." And this "Also by knowing about any known defects before listing it gives them the opportunity to fix them or justify to the buyer why they didn't fix them."
D) There should not be any unknown defects, not with a good first inspector. In real life, and because all inspectors inspect differently for different things, there will ALWAYS be unknown defects. I am referring to this "If an Agent recommends a Home Inspection to a Prospective Buyer and the Buyer declines, a signed refusal letter by the buyer stating this declined recommendation, covers the Agent for any unknown defects,"
E) Now, this is implying that the report WAS NOT given as a seller disclosure. Which is it? Given as a seller disclosure or not? "as they can contend that the defect would have been found at the time of the recommended inspection."
F) This gets back to D) and how good the first inspector was, how good the second inspector could have been, and if they inspect the same way and call things the same way. "Obviously the Realtor/Agent must and should, even if it isn't required, disclose any known defects. Thanks for the rewording of what I'm trying to convey to the Agents."
G) I think you need to think this through better so you can eliminate the conflicts and inconsistencies you are raising. "I just don't want to make any improper statements during my presentation or if asked directly."
"I just want to give them my Professional opinion."
Don't we all just want to do that.
I think it has potential, but not until you have a few basic things figured out.
1) That anything found during the first inspection is not a known defect, not subject to being dismissed (because the seller's own inspector found it).
2) That all known defects must now be repaired or disclosed. Is this really better for the seller than not knowing?
3) Is the first inspection report going to be given as a seller disclosure? It sure better be, unless everything is repaired and corrected in accordance with the code and all local permitting requirements, and even then it needs to be disclosed that the inspection was done and these things were repaired. See where the seller is being backed into?
4) Once this first inspection is given as a seller disclosure, none of the 'buyers inspector could or should have found' thinking applies. EVERYTHING the first inspector found was disclosed. Now, the second inspector (for the buyer) is starting on a new playing field, and can easily make the first inspector 'look bad' by finding more stuff. There is no need to 'find the same stuff', it was disclosed.
5) In you first post, you said something about " And if they agreed to an Inspection the responsibility of any missed problems would fall back on the inspector if not documented in the report." I know you were referring to the 'second inspector', but this really now applies to the 'first inspector'. Whatever the second inspector finds, you are stating that the first inspector should have found. Never has and never will work that way.
I can go back on a house and find stuff I missed, I can go behind you and find stuff you missed, you can go behind yourself and find stuff you missed, you can even go behind me and find stuff I missed. DO YOU REALLY want to tell anyone that the inspector who finds the least is liable for what the other inspector found? Especially knowing that the second inspector starts out at a better advantage than the first inspector?
I like that. I'll go behind you, with your inspection report as a starting point.
But you can't come back behind me. You are out of the picture now.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry,
I’m not recommending that a Realtor/Agent recommend to both the Seller and the Buyer of the same piece of property. I’m just trying to show the Agent why they should recommend to both only if the seller declines or doesn’t make the report available. And that if the Buyer should decline, and the Agent documents this, they are covering themselves for defects the buyer may feel they should have known about. I’m saying that if the buyer had agreed to have a Home Inspection done, any reasonable defect would have been found. I don’t know why any buyer wouldn’t make their report available unless they were trying to hide a major defect, in which case a smart Agent would suggest to the Buyer to have their own Inspection done. Again I’m assuming that the Agent is disclosing any known defects, and if they suspect something they are smart enough to act on it before selling instead of being pulled into the middle of a dispute.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Most listing agents in my area of the country steer clear of Seller’s inspections. The reason? Once a defect is known, it folls the house until it is sold. An inspection will expost defects, which the agent is then obligated, by law, to disclose.
Many are uncomfortable with this. They figure: Let the Buyer's HI discover what they can, and deal with it then...
--
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
George,
I think you are missing what I am saying.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe,
I believe thats probably the way most Reators across the country feel. I’m trying to point out the advantages, reducing their liability, quicker sales, public perseption and building their reputation. I know there are many percieved disadvantages by the Agents when it comes to both Pre-Listing and Pre-Sale. But if an Agent is going to recommend Home Inspections to their Buyers, then why not to the sellers. There are many advantages to Pre-Listing inspections. I’m trying to find the best way to convince this to the Agents and change their minds.
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry,
I think I know what your saying, unfortunately I didn’t print my replies as clearly as I should have. I am trying to convince area Realtors/Agents that there are many advantages to recommending Pre-Listing Home Inspections. My original question was whether or not it was required by Ky,Oh, & Ind. for Realtor/Agents to disclose known defects. They should even if its not, but I didn’t know.
If I didn’t get anything else out of this question, I know now to thouroughly proof read my statements. Thanks
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
George,
Maybe it was me, shorter posts I can deal with.
| George E Keller wrote: |
| Jerry,
I think I know what your saying, unfortunately I didn't print my replies as clearly as I should have. I am trying to convince area Realtors/Agents that there are many advantages to recommending Pre-Listing Home Inspections. |
That is what Joe and I are saying, there aren't many. There are more dis-advantages than advantages. There really are no distinct advantages which does not come without an offsetting dis-advantage.
Start by listing one. We can go through them one at a time.
If you come up with an advantage which makes it worthwhile, and it does not have a direct offsetting dis-advantage, then you will have your list and your spiel ready.
If you can get past us without an offsetting dis-advantage, you are probably home free. But better here than when talking to a real estate agent.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: George E Keller
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry and Joe,
Thanks for all your help. It seems to me that most of the more obvious reason without getting into liability are touched on in the attachment Nick Gromicko sent me. I guess being new to the industry I haven’t heard enough, you got to be kidding me responses from Realtors/Agents. Have you done any Pre-Listings, and if so what were the reasons for the seller agreeing or wanting one.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’ve done a couple, the rest of the time I talked myself out of the job (because then they would have to disclose what I found. Haven’t done one in over 10 years.
Listing agent insisted that I do one for her friend. One I did, the house was eaten up with termites, literally getting ready to fall down.
I told my client, the seller, that they DID NOT WANT to know what was in the report. That they really want me to seal this up in an envelope (which I did as we were talking) and OFFER TO SELL the report to their buyer for the cost of the inspection, disclosing that they had the inspection, but knew nothing of the contents of the report.
Later, I heard that the buyer did not take the seller up on that offer, and chose to have their own inspector come in. Their inspector found very little wrong. The seller kept my report for several years, just in case.
That house is no longer there, it has been knocked down and rebuilt. Just what the circumstances of it were, I do not know (or maybe I do?).
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida