|
Kilted Yaksman posted:I'm supposed to close on my first house on March 12. I just found out yesterday that the seller wants to rent back the house for the first month or so, because the house they're moving into won't be vacant until then. Is there anything I should watch out for before agreeing to this? This seems bizarre and overly complicated. Why not just bilaterally agree to push the close back by a month or whatever?
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Whee, put down an offer! For inspections, we have the option of radon and lead and neither. The house was built in 1975, so it's before the 1978 lead paint cutoff point. Worth getting the extra few hundred for the lead paint inspection instead of the regular one? Worth it at all for the radon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
The real question with the lead paint is, do you really want to know? That is, if there is lead paint, will you walk, or demand that it be cleaned up (which involves more than just stripping the paint, if there's any in the soil)? If so, then I guess it's worth getting an inspection. When I bought my foreclosure, a sellers' contingency was that we cannot check for lead paint. This at first seems bizarre and possibly illegal, but the issue is, if an inspection finds lead paint, then the seller knows about it and must disclose it after you get scared and run away... and/or that there's almost certainly some amount of lead contamination and finding out for sure won't actually help the buyer or the seller's situations. I dunno if I really buy that, but the truth is, lead in the dirt around your house is only actually dangerous if you eat the dirt or let your baby eat the dirt or something. I was mostly shopping for houses old enough to have lead paint, so it'd be difficult for me to totally avoid it anyway. For radon, well, in theory it can build up in the soil under the house and be dangerous. In practice a properly ventilated crawlspace won't build up radon and won't be dangerous. You can put a radon detector down there if you're concerned. Personally I wouldn't bother unless you know that the area is prone to high radon levels. But my advice isn't worth much. I suggest you do some research and decide for yourself. I wouldn't want you to avoid an important inspection for toxic substances based on the opinion of a random stranger on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:For inspections, we have the option of radon and lead and neither. The house was built in 1975, so it's before the 1978 lead paint cutoff point. Worth getting the extra few hundred for the lead paint inspection instead of the regular one? Worth it at all for the radon? Leperflesh posted:For radon, well, in theory it can build up in the soil under the house and be dangerous. In practice a properly ventilated crawlspace won't build up radon and won't be dangerous. You can put a radon detector down there if you're concerned. Personally I wouldn't bother unless you know that the area is prone to high radon levels. I've been handling a house purchase for my retired dad recently. Everyone I talked to tried to convince me that radon testing is a waste of money because the neighborhood has low average radon levels. I ignored everyone and paid for the testing. The radon test showed levels were well above safe amounts and will require $1,500 of work to pipe the radon out of the basement. Best $175 ever spent. Seriously, radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer. Spend the $175 and give yourself some piece of mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
10-8 posted:Spend the $175 and give yourself some piece of mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Anyone from the Columbus, OH area? My friend moved there recently and was thinking of buying a home. I went through the typical warnings this thread gives out but then I saw how loving depressed that market is. He could buy a ranch home duplex with garages for like $60k - it's freaking nuts! He works from home and his GF works for OSU so I don't know what area they were looking at but looking around zillow modest single family homes were still well under $100k, 3000sq ft homes built in the 90s were about $120k. Crazy poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Kilted Yaksman posted:I'm supposed to close on my first house on March 12. I just found out yesterday that the seller wants to rent back the house for the first month or so, because the house they're moving into won't be vacant until then. Is there anything I should watch out for before agreeing to this? It depends upon your area, but the standard is to charge by the day, usually an obscene amount like $200. It should have been in your purchase agreement. Anything less is you being nice. Obviously if this is a more expensive house that amount needs to go up. It is not your fault the sellers are bad planners. Do they expect you to live in the streets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:It depends upon your area, but the standard is to charge by the day, usually an obscene amount like $200. It should have been in your purchase agreement. Anything less is you being nice. Obviously if this is a more expensive house that amount needs to go up. It is not your fault the sellers are bad planners. Do they expect you to live in the streets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
10-8 posted:I've been handling a house purchase for my retired dad recently. Everyone I talked to tried to convince me that radon testing is a waste of money because the neighborhood has low average radon levels. I ignored everyone and paid for the testing. The radon test showed levels were well above safe amounts and will require $1,500 of work to pipe the radon out of the basement. Best $175 ever spent. Seriously, radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer. Spend the $175 and give yourself some piece of mind. Same thing here. Everyone I talked to at work said I was wasting my money, but I did enough research to know that my area was known to have higher than average amounts of Radon. The test only cost another $125 on top of the inspection, and luckily it came back with my house being well below the safe levels of Radon. The $125 I spent was well worth the peace of mind to know that my house wasn't slowly poisoning me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Also note that if anyone who's going to live in that house smokes (or did), you should definitely get the test done, as radon + smoking has a cancer factor like 9x that of radon without being a smoker. But yeah in general, you should just get the test done anyway. It's a drop in the bucket that is a housing purchase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
I suppose it makes a big difference if your house has a basement, or (typical in my area) just a vented crawlspace.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:We made this clear before even accepting offers and it was part of the contingencies but it shouldn't be anything that your agent hasn't dealt with before. If this wasn't in the initial contingencies then you have the right to say no, but it's your call. japlanet posted:This seems bizarre and overly complicated. Why not just bilaterally agree to push the close back by a month or whatever? Elephanthead posted:It depends upon your area, but the standard is to charge by the day, usually an obscene amount like $200. It should have been in your purchase agreement. Anything less is you being nice. Obviously if this is a more expensive house that amount needs to go up. It is not your fault the sellers are bad planners. Do they expect you to live in the streets? gvibes posted:Yeah, there is probably something in the purchase agreement. The buyer in mine set it to 150, which seemed kind of cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Anyone from the Columbus, OH area? My friend moved there recently and was thinking of buying a home. I went through the typical warnings this thread gives out but then I saw how loving depressed that market is. He could buy a ranch home duplex with garages for like $60k - it's freaking nuts! Do no buy in Columbus for 60k. That is not going to be in a fun part of town. I haven't lived there in years but pretty much the North end of the city Dublin etc. is where he wants to look.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Kilted Yaksman posted:My agent says this is fairly common (about 25% of sales she's involved in). It wasn't in our purchase agreement, so I can always say no, but the extra time isn't a huge deal for me. It looks like you can go an extra months where you are at so I would charge them the cost of your monthly mortgage payment, plus your month to month rent for the first month. That should encourage them to get moved out. I would make it day to day after that high enough to make sure they are moved out in 30 days or they might stay forever. Whatever you do it should be cost prohibitive for them to stay too long. They should have negotiated possession 30 days after closing if they needed that. You need to make sure you are happy with what they are going to pay you. Your Realtor will probably steal 15 % of it also. Ha
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Had an offer accepted Tuesday, in the process of getting the inspection worked out and I've got my mortgage locked in. Does this get less stressful at some point? Or is this pretty much my standard operating level of stress for the next 30 years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Anyone from the Columbus, OH area? My friend moved there recently and was thinking of buying a home. I went through the typical warnings this thread gives out but then I saw how loving depressed that market is. He could buy a ranch home duplex with garages for like $60k - it's freaking nuts!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Had an offer accepted Tuesday, in the process of getting the inspection worked out and I've got my mortgage locked in. For me it got a lot less stressful after close, but it's not as stress-free as renting even four years later 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Getting a inspection is something every homebuyer needs to do. No exceptions. Always. Every time. Spend the few hundred dollars every time. If you cant afford that, then you cant afford the house.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
What happens if an 80 year old person wants a 30-year mortgage? I'm guessing they can't be discriminated based on age legally, but it sure seems like there should be some sort of rule that you can't take out a loan with a plan to live longer than every human has previously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
three posted:What happens if an 80 year old person wants a 30-year mortgage? I'm guessing they can't be discriminated based on age legally, but it sure seems like there should be some sort of rule that you can't take out a loan with a plan to live longer than every human has previously. 110 doesn't even put someone in the top 100 oldest people ever. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgages/never-old-mortgage-1.aspx says there is nothing stopping an old person who qualifies from getting a mortgage
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:110 doesn't even put someone in the top 100 oldest people ever. Okay, so 110 isn't the oldest but it's far past a reasonable life expectancy and there is no cutoff age so a 110 year old couldn't be declined for a 30 year mortgage either. What is in place for lender "protection" for situations like that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Do no buy in Columbus for 60k. That is not going to be in a fun part of town. I haven't lived there in years but pretty much the North end of the city Dublin etc. is where he wants to look. Yea I have no ideas what would be nice. He said he wouldn't mind a duplex so a rental-friendly area would be good. His GF has lived there for a while I think so between the two of them they should have an ok idea of where to look given their goals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
three posted:Okay, so 110 isn't the oldest but it's far past a reasonable life expectancy and there is no cutoff age so a 110 year old couldn't be declined for a 30 year mortgage either. Probably just the fact it is extremely rare
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
three posted:What is in place for lender "protection" for situations like that? Nothing, we can't discriminate on the basis of age with a few exceptions that aren't related to this specific question. Ideally whoever inherits the property steps up and makes the payments until they refinance/sell the home. If they don't then it goes into default and we eventually foreclose on the property. Foreclosures also basically are an automatic trigger for an audit of the loan by the investor to find any possible reason to make the original bank repurchase the loan. I have a co-worker who had to fight a repurchase a while back because he hadn't sourced a large deposit. I'm pretty sure that death certificate that the auditor added to the file had a whole lot more to do with that loan going into default than that $1200 deposit 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Had an offer accepted Tuesday, in the process of getting the inspection worked out and I've got my mortgage locked in. Woo congrats, also it gets better! But only a little because now you have this big huge house filled with confusing breakable parts to worry about! Hurray!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
three posted:Okay, so 110 isn't the oldest but it's far past a reasonable life expectancy and there is no cutoff age so a 110 year old couldn't be declined for a 30 year mortgage either. When that person dies the debt doesn't just disappear, either an inheritor picks it up or the lender forecloses on the house. The ability to foreclose is lender "protection"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:When that person dies the debt doesn't just disappear, either an inheritor picks it up or the lender forecloses on the house. The ability to foreclose is lender "protection" Isn't foreclosing pretty expensive? Can people be discriminated against for their health? What if someone with a terminal illness wants a mortgage? I guess it's cool that these people aren't discriminated against, but it seems weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
So is there any paperwork you actually need to have ready to put an offer in on a house other than a preapproval letter?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Nothing...though I would have your W2's readily available for filling out a proper loan approval after you put the offer in...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The real question with the lead paint is, do you really want to know? That is, if there is lead paint, will you walk, or demand that it be cleaned up (which involves more than just stripping the paint, if there's any in the soil)? If so, then I guess it's worth getting an inspection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Well, I don't want to tell other people not to test for toxic substances. I guess I should be clear as possible about that. But in my case, my house (and every other house in the neighborhood, and probably 50% of the houses in my entire city) was built in the late 1950s. It almost certainly was painted with lead paint. Which means there's almost certainly lead in the soil around the edges of my house. I haven't done the tests, but it's almost certainly there. So when I go to sell the house, since I haven't done a test, I don't have to disclose. I have a choice: I can prohibit the buyer from testing for lead as a condition of sale (which is apparently done, although again I'm skeptical that that's actually a legally-enforcible condition); or, I can allow a buyer to test, but refuse to do any mitigation (in which case they might walk). Or choice 3 is to pay for mitigation, either before or after putting the house up for sale. Honestly I think my decision would be to refuse to do any mitigation. It's costly and in my opinion unnecessary. If you want to grow a vegetable garden, buy some soil for it, it's not very expensive (the dirt in my yard is pretty depleted and poor anyway, and we're thinking about building some raised beds for gardening too). Don't let your infant eat pounds of dirt from around the house. The benefit of spending many many thousands of dollars to treat or replace all the soil around the house just isn't there. Again, in my opinion. And given that easily 80%+ of the houses in my town and also in the same price range will have exactly the same issue, I don't feel I'll be at a competitive disadvantage for refusing to do lead mitigation. Maybe I'm wrong. If I put up the house for sale, allow a highest bidder to do a lead test, and then refuse to do mitigation, and they insist on getting a big break on price or walking, and I let them walk, and then it happens again, maybe I'll change my mind. But I think the odds are remote and I'd rather keep the many thousands of dollars in my pocket and just assume there's a small amount of lead in the soil and act accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:So is there any paperwork you actually need to have ready to put an offer in on a house other than a preapproval letter? All I was told to bring was a check for the earnest money and my preapproval letter. However during the process I needed info on how much money I had in my checking accounts and my employers address and stuff like that, so don't get caught off guard if that is the case for you as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
On attorneys: one for the seller, one for the buyer, and one for the bank/mortgage broker. Optionally the latter two can be the same person, say for example the lawyer for the mortgage broker. Is it a good idea to do so? Is it a bad idea to do so? Obviously costs more to pay for two lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
three posted:Isn't foreclosing pretty expensive? Can people be discriminated against for their health? What if someone with a terminal illness wants a mortgage? In order - can be, no, if they qualify we'll give them the loan. FACTA regulations regarding medical status are somewhat complex, but the extremely condensed version is basically we won't ask, you should't tell, and even if you do tell we can't render a credit decision based on that information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
three posted:Isn't foreclosing pretty expensive? Can people be discriminated against for their health? What if someone with a terminal illness wants a mortgage? Foreclosing costs money, but the bank gains whatever additional value the house accumulated + whatever interest the homeowner paid before dying, so foreclosing on a dead person is generally going to be a profitable venture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Lead Paint
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:With all due respect, if my options were between buying a house almost certainly contaminated with an unknown level of a toxic substance and not buying a house, I would not buy a house. You would be well advised not to shop for houses built in California between 1910 or so, and the early 1960s, which eliminates probably half of the housing in the San Francisco Bay Area (the post-war boom in particular was the largest period of expansion here since the Gold Rush). During that period, lead paint was not only available but recommended as "best choice" for interior and exterior uses. Obviously many such houses don't have lead paint, and probably there's a very few which have had testing and then "mitigation" done; but why mess with that, when you could just buy a house built in the 80s or newer? As that link shows, mitigation often involves basically covering up the problem rather than removing it, and these methods are admittedly temporary (sealing lead paint behind other paint is quoted as having a 20-year effective lifespan; lead contaminated soil is often simply covered up with ground cover or a thin layer of clean soil, etc.) The University of Minnesota says: quote:Lead in Garden Soils and Plants So, my personal assessment is that lead levels in the soil are not of particular concern. My house has been repainted inside and out many times, including several times in the last few decades, so I am also not concerned about contacting lead paint chips inside or outside, nor am I worried about lead dust from sanding lead-painted surfaces. If a prospective buyer expressed concern, I would point out these facts and then encourage them to do their own research. I would have to discuss this with my wife, and who knows, maybe I'd change my mind, but... I think a report indicating lead in the soil was found would be more of a scary thing to push people away, even after mitigation, than simply having no such report. I hope that buyers will be better informed about the real dangers and risks, and recognize that while there almost certainly is small amounts of lead in the soil around the outside of the house, there's unlikely to be any significant danger of exposure unless they allow an infant to directly chew on or eat that soil. But I'd encourage anyone reading this to get an evaluation for lead if you are concerned, either as a buyer or as a seller. Just do it using good detailed information about the risks (which do exist, I'm not denying them), rather than just an emotional reaction to the scary topic of contamination in my house? OH MY GOD. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
There are often very different approaches to (older) toxic building materials between residential and commercial/institutional. For commercial/institutional, removal and remediation is often the only option due to codes and liability concerns. For residential, encapsulation or "just don't mess with it" is often the most logical and reasonable approach. Have asbestos tiles in a basement? No problem, just don't pull them up. Have lead paint under several layers of modern paint? Don't strip to the wood and make sure your kids don't chew on window sills. People often have only basic, second/third-hand knowledge that lead paint/asbestos removal is time-consuming, expensive (both true), and must be done (rarely true).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:17
|
|
new home, old colors, same Arsenal
|
Going out this afternoon to look at houses for the first time. Woo hoo! I have a question about lenders. I got two pre-approval letters, one from Wells Fargo, who I bank with, and one from a Loan Officer that my realtor suggested that resells your loan after a month, or something. They're both for about the same amount (we qualify way higher, but are limiting ourselves to about $200k). They both call the letters "pre-approval letters." What confuses me is that the loan officer didn't give me a rate. When I asked about a rate, he said it depends on origination fee, and "this morning for example rates were either 3.375 or 3.625 depending on origination fee". Wells Fargo said 3.625 without any points, and points will be an option when there is an actual offer made. So, how am I supposed to compare these lenders? Wells Fargo seems more straight-forward to me. I understand everything in their letter. I don't quite understand how the loan officer's business works, or why he wasn't able to give me a more firm rate like WF did. Are "points" and "origination fee" synonyms? WF gave me a list of approximate closing costs (he stopped short of calling it a GFE; said that'd come with the actual offer), while the loan officer's letter included nothing of the sort. So I'm leaning strongly Wells Fargo, because the terms seem identical and I understand them better. Should I be digging deeper with the loan officer, or just drop him? Is it too early to tell? When it comes time to make an offer on a house, should I shop the offer amount to both lenders, or just WF?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
ColdPie posted:So, how am I supposed to compare these lenders? Wells Fargo seems more straight-forward to me. I understand everything in their letter. I don't quite understand how the loan officer's business works, or why he wasn't able to give me a more firm rate like WF did. Are "points" and "origination fee" synonyms? WF gave me a list of approximate closing costs (he stopped short of calling it a GFE; said that'd come with the actual offer), while the loan officer's letter included nothing of the sort. Origination is the actual amount they are charging you to do the loan, points are a fee that you are paying to get a lower interest rate than you would normally receive otherwise. The basic business model for the mortgage industry is getting paid through origination fees charged to the borrower and the markup on the premium between what they pay to the LO/broker and what that company is able to sell it for to either another bank or to Fannie/Freddie for conventional or Ginnie for government. Interest rates available from the banks change every day, sometimes multiple times per day. This is in response to movement in the markets and what the investors are willing to offer for a given rate. Different interest rates pay or cost different amounts, higher rates get more premium. As an example, let's say 3.0% costs 1 point, 3.25% is par, and 3.5% pays 1 point. If you choose 3.0% you'd pay 1 point (1% of the loan amount) to the bank out of your own funds and get the lower interest rate. If you get 3.5% you wouldn't pay any points and, depending on the specific business channel they're using, you may be able to use the 1 point paid by the bank to cover your origination fee, or they may not charge an origination fee at all and just keep that premium. You're basically taking a higher interest rate over the life of the loan to not have to pay anything right now. As to which offer is better, without getting them to actually give concrete rates available/fees/etc it's hard to say. Once you've got an offer get GFEs from both which will at least lock in the origination they can charge. The third page of the GFE has a little form that you can fill out with different offers you've received to help you do a comparison, though basically it boils down to a consideration of "Am I willing to pay $X more upfront to have my monthly payment be $Y lower?" and vice versa. Generally speaking, brokers (the LO who would sell your loan within a month) are going to have more competitive interest rates as they can take it to any bank they want so those banks will have more aggressive rates offered to entice them to bring the loan to them. Retail shops (the Wells Fargo guy) are usually going to have less competitive rates as their LOs can't shop the loan around as much if at all so there is little incentive for the bank to cut into their own margins by offering low rates with high pricing. This isn't always true of course, but it's something to keep in mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:11
|
|