|
Yoked posted:Can anyone explain the benefits of a FHA streamline refinance (sorry if this is the wrong thread for such a question)? I have tried reading HUD's explanation, but I guess I'm still a little confused. We bought a house in June 2014, so I think we are eligible. If I'm understanding HUD correctly, a lender has to guarantee at least 5% less in PIMI, but would we still need to pay refinancing fees? It doesn't seem worth it, if we have to pay any money towards it considering we haven't been in the house for very long. It reads like a tool for refinancing houses that are lovely deep underwater, to keep people from just walking away. No appraisal? No loan/value ratio limit? Jesus. Of course, you should crunch the numbers on any refi opportunity just to see what it would do for your specific situation.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Yoked posted:Can anyone explain the benefits of a FHA streamline refinance (sorry if this is the wrong thread for such a question)? I have tried reading HUD's explanation, but I guess I'm still a little confused. We bought a house in June 2014, so I think we are eligible. If I'm understanding HUD correctly, a lender has to guarantee at least 5% less in PIMI, but would we still need to pay refinancing fees? It doesn't seem worth it, if we have to pay any money towards it considering we haven't been in the house for very long. Why are you trying to refinance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
I am not actually trying to refinance. Our situation is fine, and we are definitely not underwater or having trouble making payments. I have just seen it advertised, but assumed it was not worth doing. The only reason to refinance would be to get out of the old FHA PMI rate, but like I said, it looks to me we shouldn't bother unless the HUD program was basically saying, "Here, save 0.5% on PMI for free since you bought a house right before we changed the rules."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
I have done an FHA streamline refinance. The purpose is to refinance to a lower interest rate, just like any refi. Streamline refi lets you do this without an appraisal. When I did it, though, FHA mortgage insurance was different - it's been changed at least twice in the last couple years. It used to be that you could discharge MIP once you got to 78% LTV. Now, current FHA rules are that if you are paying MIP, it's for the life of the loan - you can't escape it with an FHA refi. You can escape it by refinancing into a conventional loan... which we did the second time we refinanced, but in this case, we had to get an appraisal. For us, the first refi let us drop our original interest rate from 5.125 to 3.25, back in 2011. It cost us, because FHA insurance had changed from a higher up-front with low monthly to a lower up-front with higher monthly, but even after our MIP changed from around $120 a month to around $190 or something, our regular mortgage payment had gone enough down by the lower interest rate for it to still be a net savings. Our broker found us a bank that had enough cash incentives that it wound up being an essentially free refi - no appraisal, cash covered the fees, we skipped a month payment, and we were out of pocket $0. This refi would have been impossible if we'd had to re-assess value, because between december 2009 when we bought, and late 2011 when we did the streamline refi, our house's value dropped something like $80k. Last year, our house was now worth well over what we paid... enough to put us above 80% LTV, so we refi'd into a conventional loan. We accepted a marginally higher interest rate to do this, but getting rid of the MIP means this will have been worth it (net lower cost) if we sell within, if I remember right, 12 years. Which is the plan. We did have to pay for an appraisal, and the refi wound up costing us a couple grand in cash. The one lovely thing is that FHA does not refund the up-front premium if you refi out of an FHA loan, even though the up-front premium is "supposedly" pro-rated for the life of the loan. So that was like three thousand dollars they just loving kept, and I didn't know that was the case when we refinanced the second time. Aaaaanyway, the only point of an FHA streamline refi is to go to a lower interest rate even if you're underwater on your house. But you have to check what your old vs. the new current FHA MIP rates are, up-front premium, etc. and you have to be saving enough for it to be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
I paid 0 tax on my $20k house and lot that i put $20k in. GG paying taxes on $300k houses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:I paid 0 tax on my $20k house and lot that i put $20k in. GG paying taxes on $300k houses. I stalked through your old posts in this thread to see which corner of the world this was possible in. I'm glad to see you chose home ownership over Exxon stock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
House I'm buying just got inspected. I'm 600 miles away of course, so my realtor walked me through the preliminary report. Minor termite presence in the garage wall. Inspector seems to think it's nothing serious since there it looks like there wasn't much done. They say just spraying it should take care of it. Is that right? I don't want to request that the sellers rip out the sheet rock to inspect for damage if it's unnecessary, but is it unnecessary? I know I can't get a termite bond without them inspecting the area, but I don't know how much the cost is. The realtor seems to think the spray is fine too, but his interest is most likely in just closing and getting his check. The other issues aren't a biggie, just need radon remediation and a new ridgeline on the roof. I hate home buying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:House I'm buying just got inspected. I'm 600 miles away of course, so my realtor walked me through the preliminary report. I would insist on the drywall being removed to check for structural damage. It's not a big or expensive job and you can't just take their word for it. You are also going to probably pay for termite control forever from now on so I'd price that into your negotiation going forward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Awhile back I wrote about my horrible house purchase, and how we were going to contact our mortgage company (Penny Mac) about the process of doing a short sell or deed-in-lieu. We did so, and ultimately decided to go DYI and fix the house up ourselves as opposed to making a bad decision and not having a house. During that process, shortly after I contacted Penny Mac, I started receiving TONS of spam to my email, all mortgage related, and lots of "you're already eligible!" type poo poo via normal mail. I vaguely remember making a tweet about it, but not specifically what I said (and I'm too lazy to look it up). Something to the effect of 'guess penny mac is selling my information' or what-not. I'm 100% confident I didn't bother tweeting at them, just used the words "Penny Mac". That was 2-28. Today, I receive a totally lovely letter in the mail, from Penny Mac, which stated that they had "received" the tweet, and wanted to send me a copy of their privacy policy. They also said we hadn't turned our paperwork yet, which is hilarious because I have confirmation that we have from them. We just hadn't followed up on it because we decided to keep the place. What fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
It's been almost a year since I purchased the condo/townhouse and I don't regret it at all. The HOA does a pretty good job for what I pay them and we managed to make the limited space work for us. The neighborhood is extremely quiet and I never hear my neighbor through the wall and she apparently doesn't hear us either. The mortgage is low as hell, taxes are nothing and I'm in one of the best school district in the state. It's surreal. I really don't have any complaints. 
Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:I stalked through your old posts in this thread to see which corner of the world this was possible in. I'm glad to see you chose home ownership over Exxon stock. $96 a share price sold and saved $1000 a month renting since January 2014. Would have lost 12% on the stock otherwise. Freed up income has accelerated 401k contributions. I can say 0 regrets and need another hurricane free season or two to come out very ahead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
I'm gonna ride this feel good vibe in the thread and give an update on my house. I scrambled over the weekend doing some research and sending emails to various city officials in the hopes that I could get s response early enough to either cancel or get it the appraiser out soon enough that it didn't push back closing. I did get an email back from the building planning office and it turns out they had the LOMA that states my house, as well as the rest in my little section are above the flood zone, and thus don't require outrageous flood insurance. I'm still going to pick some up though, but I can rest easy on that front at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
A good friend of mine is an attorney with a firm representing HOAs and she was adamant that I not consider purchasing a townhouse. I guess people get litigation crazy in smaller townhouse communities because there's some ambiguity over who is responsible for what and enforcement is often lax until it's too late, but condos don't have the same problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
I received a letter soon after I moved from the HOA saying that the board members were being sued by people in one of the communities because they weren't happy with the condition of a pond near their home. They mentioned that they were told by a couple professionals that the pond was fine but if they were to make changes everyone in the community would have to drop like $200 bucks to make a handful of people happy. There was no mention of it ever again. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I've gotten myself a mortgage and a flat to buy with it. The monthly payments are reasonable and I have the option to make overpayments if I'm able to save any more funds. However, people are telling me it's better to just save that money on my own and not bother overpaying since the interest rates (in the UK) are so low at the moment. Not sure I really understand this rationale, wouldn't it be better to make off as much payments as I can so I pay less on the mortgage in the long run? I'm on a 2.3% rate at the moment which will go up to the standard variable rate of 3.99% in 2 years. Wouldn't it be better to get as much of the mortgage paid off as I can before the interest rates increase?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
I think that the idea is that you'd be better off investing that money than paying off very low interest debt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Even if it's low interest on a large amount?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I think that the idea is that you'd be better off investing that money than paying off very low interest debt. I think you're missing that the interest rate on the mortgage is adjustable since he's in the UK. So while its lower now, it stands a decent chance to rise in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
From a pure theory standpoint, you should only make the minimum payment on your mortgage if you can get a better return on investment than your current mortgage rate. Say you have an extra $1000 bucks to throw at your mortgage at the beginning of the year, and your rate is 2.3%. You can pay your mortgage and knock off $23 from your interest payment over the course of the year (assuming yearly compounding to make the math easier, but the idea still works), which leaves a total "savings" of $1023 ($1000 payment at the beginning of the year + $23 interest that you don't have to pay). Or if you could invest that $1000 with a 5% return, you'd have a total "savings" of $1050 at the end of the year, $27 more than if you just threw it at the mortgage. If you are an emotional robot or completely secure with your finances, the second option is mathematically better. But the emotional value of seeing the mortgage total dropping is often a very reasonable and preferable option than to pocket an extra $27 (or whatever the difference is, often it's not a very large number). It really just depends what will make you happier. Edit: from a theory standpoint, it doesn't matter if the mortgage rate goes higher, so long as the mortgage rate is lower than the rate of return you can get from investments you should still just make the minimum payments on the mortgage. The minute the mortgage rate is higher than the investment rates, you should move everything from investments to paying the mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
sharktamer posted:Even if it's low interest on a large amount? That's the idea, but I think they're wrong. If you had an American-style fixed interest loan for 2.3% or even 3.99% for the life of the loan, then perhaps it would make more sense to invest. That's because even a pretty conservative estimate of investment returns over a similar period of time is likely to be well above the interest rate you're paying on your loan. However. There are two problems with this theory. The first is your variable rate. Interest rates right now are at historical lows, but there's no guarantee they'll stay there. Once your loan switches to a variable rate, it can and very likely will go up. And the larger your outstanding balance, the more that higher rate affects you. I think if you are planning on still owning your property in ten years, we have no idea what rates will be like in 10 years... better to pay down that loan now, while you have a job that you know lets you do that. Of course, you should not neglect other (especially tax-advantaged) retirement savings while doing so... but if you are adequately saving for retirement, have a decent emergency budget, and have money left over, by all means pay down your mortgage against the possibility of future higher interest rates. The second problem is that property values can fall, and if they do, the more equity you have in your property, the more insulated you are against falling rates. Of course, you "lose" the same amount of money regardless, but... someday you might want to sell that flat. Maybe to move for a new job, or because you got married, or had a child, or who knows. If you're upside-down on the flat (owe more than it's worth), you're screwed. So, the amount of equity you have in the flat is important, because it provides a buffer against a falling value. Now, you didn't mention how much equity you have now, so this is something you'll have to figure out for yourself. If you paid a 20% down payment, then you already have a decent buffer, and paying down the balance isn't as high a priority. But in the US during the housing market crash of 2008-2010, some houses lost half or more of their value. It could happen to you! The more equity you have, the less likely you are to be put into that situation. With both of these factors in mind, though... yeah, you have a really low interest rate, and if you put money into a well-diversified basket of index-based low-cost no-load mutual funds, (especially using whatever UK options there are for tax-advantaged retirement investing), you're likely to earn more per year over the next (say) 20 or 30 years, than the 2.3. or 3.99 percent you're paying on your loan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Edit: from a theory standpoint, it doesn't matter if the mortgage rate goes higher, so long as the mortgage rate is lower than the rate of return you can get from investments you should still just make the minimum payments on the mortgage. The minute the mortgage rate is higher than the investment rates, you should move everything from investments to paying the mortgage. This is a good point, although I think I still disagree. Rising mortgage interest rates can imply an inflationary market, where it should be fairly easy to out-earn that amount in investments. But they can also imply a tight lending market, where rates rise simply because credit has dried up for some reason or another. In this case, investments may not keep up. Paying down the mortgage is a guaranteed return on investment, of 2.3% and then at least 3.99%. Investing money in anything else is a hypothetical return, which historical returns suggests is likely to be higher... but as we all know, past returns are not a guarantee of future performance. Sharktamer, it's not a clear, 100% no-brainer either way. I suggest you look at how much equity you have, how disciplined you think you can be with investing money, (especially) whether other tax-advantaged investment options are available to you, and then balance your money between paying down debt and investing for the future according to your own, well-informed assessment of your current and future financial state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Also can you take a deduction on your taxes for mortgage interest? I'm not in the UK (or even a homeowner) but I hear people talk about this as a reason to invest instead of paying off the mortgage as well. I personally would pay off the mortgage on an interest rate over 3-4%. If it were down in the 2% range... I'd get a nice chunk of equity (like 20-40%, totally arbitrary numbers there) then switch to paying the minimum and investing the rest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
In the context of the super-rich (or maybe just really-rich), keeping a mortgage is a great thing when rates are this low. In the US you get a tax break on that interest you pay, and because you're really rich you have access to really great investment vehicles that can almost certainly outperform your super-low rate. Between the tax breaks and the low interest, your mortgage is more or less 'free' when compared to inflation. If something happens and values fall or you need to sell, you likely have the means to pay off the rest of the mortgage whenever you want. I'm guessing this isn't your situation. Paying down your mortgage gives you equity in your primary residence. Whenever you sell, the more equity you have the better position you're in. And, of course, paying the principal down early means you get the maximum benefit form the interest savings, especially since you know you have that interest rate jump coming up. Just remember that while you're technically 'making' money by paying your mortgage principal, you don't get to have that money back until you sell, and it is possible for home values to drop. I suppose what I'm saying is do what you want, just don't go crazy and sink extra money into your mortgage that should be keeping up an emergency fund and retirement accounts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The second problem is that property values can fall, and if they do, the more equity you have in your property, the more insulated you are against falling rates. Of course, you "lose" the same amount of money regardless, but... someday you might want to sell that flat. Maybe to move for a new job, or because you got married, or had a child, or who knows. If you're upside-down on the flat (owe more than it's worth), you're screwed. So, the amount of equity you have in the flat is important, because it provides a buffer against a falling value. Now, you didn't mention how much equity you have now, so this is something you'll have to figure out for yourself. If you paid a 20% down payment, then you already have a decent buffer, and paying down the balance isn't as high a priority. But in the US during the housing market crash of 2008-2010, some houses lost half or more of their value. It could happen to you! The more equity you have, the less likely you are to be put into that situation. But the idea isn't to just spend the extra money, it's to invest it somewhere else. So if property values do fall the money is available to buy out the deficiency. Additionally, there's diversification issues. If all you own is a home with low equity, you're highly leveraged into a single asset. In the context of a mortgage, I think it's better to work on diversification with the extra money than lower your leverage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:But the idea isn't to just spend the extra money, it's to invest it somewhere else. So if property values do fall the money is available to buy out the deficiency. You're assuming the investments don't lose money at the same time the property loses money. If you had done this prior to 2008 in the US, you'd find your investments had very probably dropped simultaneously with your property value. quote:Additionally, there's diversification issues. If all you own is a home with low equity, you're highly leveraged into a single asset. In the context of a mortgage, I think it's better to work on diversification with the extra money than lower your leverage. Yes, but I don't think there's a way around this. If you bought a house, you are fully responsible for the losses (and get full credit for the gains) in its value, irrespective of your other investments. The more you put money somewhere else for diversification, the less equity you have in your house to deal with fluctuations in its value... or to put it another way, the more leveraged you are in your big single asset. When you buy a really big expensive single asset like a house, you can only hedge by investing in something that is negatively correlated with its value. The stock and bond markets aren't. e. You could hedge with REITs!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Tricky Ed posted:Just remember that while you're technically 'making' money by paying your mortgage principal, you don't get to have that money back until you sell, You can make temporary withdrawals from that equity using a second mortgage or HELOC. Leperflesh posted:If you bought a house, you are fully responsible for the losses (and get full credit for the gains) in its value, irrespective of your other investments. Unless you live in a non-recourse state, in which case you can potentially abandon the mortgage and be forgiven any difference in the outstanding balance. Zhentar fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
A house is not an investment. Any paying just payment when you save the rest can be good. If you get laid off and have 12 months of payments ready is a lot nicer than paying max and being broke after a couple. Don't pay minimum then invest in risky startup companies. When rates go up your payment will and risky companies losing access to bond market can blow them up too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You're assuming the investments don't lose money at the same time the property loses money. If you had done this prior to 2008 in the US, you'd find your investments had very probably dropped simultaneously with your property value. In an event like that, the most important thing is going to be having liquid cash. If you have a large e-fund, you're fine. You can avoid selling anything at the bottom and service the mortgage. If you don't, having stocks that can easily be sold (at the bottom) is better than having equity that can't be used. A lower mortgage still has payments to be made, and you have other expenses as well. The leverage ratio is mortgage / (investments + house), because the house and mortgage aren't a single portfolio. The mortgage is secured against the house, but if you go underwater nothing happens. As long as you can pay the mortgage and don't need to sell, being underwater isn't a problem, much unlike other leveraged situations (like margin).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
We have our inspection tomorrow for the home we're buying in southern Maryland. It's a new(er) home (2002) and seems to be in pretty good shape. The owners chose not to disclose anything on the Maryland Residential and Property Disclosure Statement and actually just one lined each page. My agent said that this isn't uncommon and that the current owners probably wanted to limit their liability though they would still be responsible for any big (latent?) defects that they knew about. Does this sound right? I guess I'm getting paranoid the closer we get to the end of this process. There has also been work done in the kitchen. I don't want to ask to see the permits or anything like that, but how can you find out ahead of time to make sure any work done is up to code? Would the inspector be looking at that? Outside I also noticed that the fence has a pole propping up part of it. Is that something that the inspector will check out and if there is something wrong, getting that fixed is something we could potentially put in the contract? I just want to be done with the process, but we don't even close until 23June. I wonder if it's too late to try to get an earlier closing date and just get them to pay me rent until everyones kids (theirs and ours) finish school. Othin fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Othin posted:We have our inspection tomorrow for the home we're buying in southern Maryland. It's a new(er) home (2002) and seems to be in pretty good shape. The owners chose not to disclose anything on the Maryland Residential and Property Disclosure Statement and actually just one lined each page. My agent said that this isn't uncommon and that the current owners probably wanted to limit their liability though they would still be responsible for any big (latent?) defects that they knew about. Does this sound right? I guess I'm getting paranoid the closer we get to the end of this process. Go to the town/county building/planning dept/clerk and ask for everything they have on the property. This should get you permits pulled (or lack thereof). Don't just ask for permits, just ask for everything on the property. They should be able to photocopy stuff for you as well. I walked away with like 40 pages of super useful stuff when I did this. Not sure on your local situation but it's theoretically against the law to not disclose known defects here. I'm not sure how enforceable it is, however. That fence is falling over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Othin posted:The owners chose not to disclose anything on the Maryland Residential and Property Disclosure Statement and actually just one lined each page. My agent said that this isn't uncommon and that the current owners probably wanted to limit their liability though they would still be responsible for any big (latent?) defects that they knew about. Does this sound right? I guess I'm getting paranoid the closer we get to the end of this process. My buyer's agent advised me "Anyone who leaves their disclosure statement blank is lying". I don't think it's particularly uncommon though, and the current owners are doing it in hopes of making their property more appealing. The reasoning of limiting their liability is complete bullshit - they're only liable for defects they didn't disclose. Leaving it blank increases their liability. They are indeed responsible for non disclosed defects, but YMMV as far as what you can demonstrate in court as a known defect and win a judgement for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:It's been almost a year since I purchased the condo/townhouse and I don't regret it at all. The HOA does a pretty good job for what I pay them and we managed to make the limited space work for us. The neighborhood is extremely quiet and I never hear my neighbor through the wall and she apparently doesn't hear us either. The mortgage is low as hell, taxes are nothing and I'm in one of the best school district in the state. It's surreal. 9 years in for me and I'm the same way. No yardwork, no painting, no plowing or shoveling, zero noise and super low bills. If I could change anything I'd add a toilet, a third garage space, and some storage, my place is tiny. I like it a lot though, 2 car garage on an 825 sq foot unit. Perfect for a car guy, except I have 3 cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
uwaeve posted:Go to the town/county building/planning dept/clerk and ask for everything they have on the property. This should get you permits pulled (or lack thereof). Don't just ask for permits, just ask for everything on the property. They should be able to photocopy stuff for you as well. I walked away with like 40 pages of super useful stuff when I did this. Thanks, that's good advice. I found where that office is in the county so I'll head over there right after the inspection. Yeah, I'm not wild about that fence and that pole is pretty sketchey. There is also a gate on it that's broken..
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:My buyer's agent advised me "Anyone who leaves their disclosure statement blank is lying". I don't think it's particularly uncommon though, and the current owners are doing it in hopes of making their property more appealing. The reasoning of limiting their liability is complete bullshit - they're only liable for defects they didn't disclose. Leaving it blank increases their liability. These disclosures are pretty toothless and the general standard of diligence is to perform your own inspections. There is no expectation that the seller do any sort of inspection or investigation and there's no standard of "should have known" even with respect to obvious problems. In the states where I have purchased homes, there is an option to just state "no representation" to every item and that was pretty much what was done except when there were obvious positive selling points such as a brand new roof or siding. Also agents are washed clean of this entire process by statute so they have no interest in making their potential sale look bad with a bunch of maintenance disclosures if it's not going to be their problem in court later. Unless seller did some sort of pre-listing inspection that you happen to know about and can subpoena in a lawsuit you're going to have a hard time proving the seller knew about something they didn't disclose and because your ultimate recourse is to sue, it will be time consuming and expensive to pursue a claim even if you are successful, i.e. not worth your time except for serious, expensive issues that you should have inspected for prior to closing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Othin posted:Thanks, that's good advice. I found where that office is in the county so I'll head over there right after the inspection. The permits are online too. http://permittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gov/dps/online/esearch.aspx
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Othin posted:Yeah, I'm not wild about that fence and that pole is pretty sketchey. There is also a gate on it that's broken.. That's a $5,000 fence I bet. Depending how far it goes offscreen, but I count 18 panels. If it wasn't installed right with a gate that is broken and/or leaning and therefore stuck shut/open it's going to cost a lot of money to fix, and then you'll have different colored fence because some panels will be old and some will be new. Those posts should be set down 2 feet into concrete and shouldn't be leaning like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
That inspection is going to come back with the fence being a major defect and then you ask for someone to give you a bid for a new fence and ask for a credit or ask the owners to repair. You have to b. Power. Once that inspection is delivered the owners will know what any potential buyer will see. You made the offer under the impression that there were no defects, that's the price you want to pay for a home with no defects. If they won't remedy or credit for all the major defects then move on. This is what I'm telling myself as I wait for the sellers to respond onto my requests to fix the major defects in my new house. Don't just accept the defects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
That's a really new house. I wonder what it could possibly have wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:That's a really new house. I wonder what it could possibly have wrong with it. At least the fence. Probably something in the kitchen. Maybe I'm projecting, since the house I'm looking St isn't much older and the roof cap line is all defective, and they have some termites in the garage which my realtor acted like were no big deal. He didn't seem to think that tearing out the sheet rock was necessary, but they need to do it anyway. As much as I don't want to walk away, if they won't fix the major defects and a couple of the minor ones, I will have to. Tl:dr termites are currently in my brain and I assume every seller is a scumbag attempting to hide any defects if possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:That's a really new house. I wonder what it could possibly have wrong with it. Latent microscopic foundation cracks, obviously. To the person getting the inspection today, hopefully I'm not too late but in your post you mentioned you "don't want to ask for permits or anything," implying that you don't want to inconvenience someone or seem rude. This is absolutely the time to do your due diligence because I bet a lot of people that got stuck with problems in their houses didn't do enough homework/ask the hard questions, etc. Picture yourself in twelve months facing a $25k bill for something you NEED TO DO that you could have discovered had you asked the right questions/pushed the right issues during the inspection phase. It's not like every (or even almost ANY) house has this but if yours does, when do you want to find out about it? I'm not saying be a dick about the whole thing, but just assume there are issues and it's your job/the inspector's job/your realtor's job to uncover them prior to closing on the house. If you do some work and figure them out, great, you've figured them out. If you don't figure them out, either they don't exist (great!), or you weren't good enough to catch them (you did everything you could). Your realtor has a conflict of interest and is trying to make the deal go through. Your inspector may or may not be impartial, and can only see what he can see, like I don't think they're allowed to even lift a rug or move furniture nevermind go walking around the roof or remove drywall. That leaves you, the least informed, to make judgments about the condition of things that are super important. Basically I'm saying this is a huge purchase and your financial future could depend partly (or entirely) on how well you evaluate the house. Furthermore everything could be wrong with a new house, new construction isn't somehow magical and has its own drawbacks. Good luck. ^^^ This is the right approach. Assume everyone is out to get you, large sums of money are on the line. uwaeve fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:12
|
|