|
QuarkJets posted:I think I told this story in the thread back when it was actually happening, across several posts, so here's the full thing: Would trenchless/pipebursting have been an option in this case? Edit, I am considering buying a home in Alameda county where a home has to have the old sewer line replaced when it is sold. It costs 8-10k from what I have seen. The market is pretty hot so the buyer is generally required to pay for this complicating VA loans. lampey fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 5, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
lampey posted:Edit, I am considering buying a home in Alameda county where a home has to have the old sewer line replaced when it is sold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
lampey posted:Would trenchless/pipebursting have been an option in this case? No chance; that was 30 feet of pipe where the pipe was completely full of water. Trenchless repair follows the path of the old sewer line, so in a situation that bad you'd just be replacing the old sagging pipe with a new sagging pipe. Trenchless is fine if you have a tiny belly, but not a complete collapse like this case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
My husband and I just met with a Realtor that was recommended to us by friends, we're looking to buy our first house. We like her but she charges "additional compensation" of $295, I think it might be a brokerage fee. Is this a common thing for Realtors to charge or is it just because we're newbies and she thinks we'll be more work? We're going to meet with another Realtor anyway and see what they do, but any further tips to minimize weird fees would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Is that what it's listed as? I *think* our last buyers agent took like another 100 bucks or something as a fee, but we told them we weren't going to pay that since they were going to be making commission and they were okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Dead Pikachu posted:My husband and I just met with a Realtor that was recommended to us by friends, we're looking to buy our first house. We like her but she charges "additional compensation" of $295, I think it might be a brokerage fee. Is this a common thing for Realtors to charge or is it just because we're newbies and she thinks we'll be more work? I'm not being charged anything by my agent. $300 kind of sounds like a lot, on top of the commission that they make on the home
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
It's unusual. I could see it if you're looking at low priced homes and the agent typically works on a higher scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
I just found out about this site: http://www.hungryagents.com/ You say what range home you are looking to buy and when, realtors will then bid on you by offering buyers rebates and you can select 2 bids to send your contact info to. I got 6 bids offering between 10 and 35% back. The guy I like the most is offering me a 30% buyers rebate. Easy way to save $2k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
My realtor gave me a $200 gift card to target after last closing. Don't pay some silly $300 fee, the commission is plenty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Hashtag Banterzone posted:I just found out about this site: Nice. I went with Redfin a while back, and though they did no practical work other than letting me in doors and filling out the standard contract with exactly what I told them to put in it, they still ran away with 85% of the commission.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
An old airbnb guest of mine used Redfin to sell her home. Sounds like a stupid way to try and offload a huge asset, but I can imagine it wouldn't be awful to purchase a home through such a service as long as you know how to run the show. Certainly not for a first time home buyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:An old airbnb guest of mine used Redfin to sell her home. Sounds like a stupid way to try and offload a huge asset, but I can imagine it wouldn't be awful to purchase a home through such a service as long as you know how to run the show. Certainly not for a first time home buyer. In my state, which requires real estate lawyers, agents are perhaps much less useful then elsewhere. If you can get on MLS, take good pictures, and aren't a terrible negotiator, you're doing 90% of the job of the selling agent already. I would happily recommend Redfin for a first time home buyer too, assuming the buyer is willing to put in some time learning about the process (there are many detailed guides of the process these days), because as soon as you hit mutual acceptance, the lawyers come out anyways. If I could have gotten more of a discount not going through Redfin, I would though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Hashtag Banterzone posted:I just found out about this site: As long as other agents don't avoid working with your cut-rate agent. That's a big problem with fee discounts here, but ymmv. I'd still be tempted to try it anyway because gently caress realtors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
A week and a half of homeownership and I'm already $15000 into various renovations and repairs. Do never buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
psydude posted:A week and a half of homeownership and I'm already $15000 into various renovations and repairs. Do never buy. my house is 115 years old so other people already did all that for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:my house is 115 years old so other people already did all that for me. Well yeah I'm sure he hired people too, nbd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Any opinions or thoughts on the two following things that my closing attorney recommended I get: 1. The enhanced ('Eagle') owner's title insurance over the standard owner's title insurance (see here for a comparison). This is about 20% more expensive than the stanrad policy. 2. A physical survey of the property. Neither of these have been brought up by either the real estate agent or the mortgage lender (they mentioned obtaining owner's title insurance, but did not make a distinction between standard and enhanced). Anyone obtained or declined the above, and if so what were your reasons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Jose Cuervo posted:Any opinions or thoughts on the two following things that my closing attorney recommended I get: The 'Eagle' policy (I assume from First American?) that you're talking about is basically a full Owner's policy. You should get it. The basic package that they offer doesn't cover much, IIRC. The necessity of a survey kind of depends on the property. On one hand, you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) for a piece of land, and it would be good to know exactly what that entails. For instance, if a neighbor 50 years ago moved a fence 10 feet over, thereby reducing your effective lot size, it would be good to know about that. If the property you're buying has a shed that is technically on land owned by a neighbor, then they could legally require you to move it. poo poo like this is actually kind of important. Perhaps most importantly, a survey should tell you about any easements or right of ways. This can be really important sometimes, too. There was a great reddit thread linked earlier where the poster had a neighbor who was expecting to use the poster's lot as a means of reaching the nearby road. The neighbor had sold the part of his lot that connected his house to the street, so his vehicles were essentially trapped unless they could access the poster's road. Per the survey, there was no right of way, so the neighbor was basically at the mercy of the poster, in a legal sense. But the situation easily could have been reversed; it would suck to later learn that a neighbor can just drive across your yard whenever they feel like it. We're in the process of buying a house right now, and we're getting the 'Eagle' policy, and the seller is paying for a survey (an item that we put in our purchase agreement)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The 'Eagle' policy (I assume from First American?) that you're talking about is basically a full Owner's policy. You should get it. The basic package that they offer doesn't cover much, IIRC. I only called it Eagle because that's an alternative name I saw online for the enhanced policy. I don't really understand what the enhanced covers that the standard doesn't. I mean, I can read the comparison I linked, but I am having trouble translating that into concrete examples of things that could happen that the enhanced would protect against that the standard would not. I am planning on calling around tomorrow to get some quotes for the survey. It is just another cost that I didn't realize I would have when buying a house. Do never buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Jose Cuervo posted:I only called it Eagle because that's an alternative name I saw online for the enhanced policy. I don't really understand what the enhanced covers that the standard doesn't. I mean, I can read the comparison I linked, but I am having trouble translating that into concrete examples of things that could happen that the enhanced would protect against that the standard would not. Basically, the title company does a search and tries to find out if there's anything hosed up in the title trail. If they find anything, then odds are they'll still offer you title insurance but they'll list all of the bad stuff as exceptions on your preliminary title report. Usually title insurance won't cover a laundry list of basic items, such as CC&Rs and easements for the gas company to come and check your meter. Either way, If you're not 100% certain on any of the items, then hire a loving real estate attorney, it won't cost that much and you'll either dodge a huge bullet or be buying peace of mind; both of these outcomes are priceless. Title insurance is for the things that the title company failed to discover. Standard policies typically cover a small number of things that could have happened in the past; maybe some foreclosure paperwork got misfiled, or a land dispute in the 1800s means that someone received the property who wasn't legally entitled to it, or maybe some fuckwit a long time ago managed to forge something and it's later discovered that your land is actually owned by the Dutch, etc. These polices are extremely limited in both scope and time. Expanded title coverage usually covers a lot more, often including defects that aren't recorded in public records such as boundary encroachments. Closing is loving expensive in general, yes. The cost of a survey is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of your closing costs. Surely your purchase contract at least describes a survey as a possible thing that a home buyer might want to do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
My most recent loan didn't require a survey, which I thought was odd. I ordered one for myself anyway, but I found it very odd that the title company didn't want it. I mean, the plat was publicly available, so maybe that was good enough?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
My loan was completed using a survey from the 90s that had been used in the previous two sales of the home, and it wasn't automatically approved by the lender and title company but they eventually said it was OK. Basically, if nothing has changed recently there's no reason to resurvey. My home's previous owner built a new fence so I'm legit surprised that I didn't need a new one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
I've had two realtor's recommended by friends. One was downright horrible and the other was eh. The young girl I found on Zillow however was actually alright. I think she was new and didn't mind doing actual work to get ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I went with a Dave Ramsey elp twice [same guy to buy and then sell our home a year later] and an old high school friend. Both were pimp as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Bozart posted:Well yeah I'm sure he hired people too, nbd. Doing a fair bit myself. Had to hire an electrician to repair the aluminum wiring (that accounts for almost half of the total cost) and a general contractor to safely remove a load bearing wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The 'Eagle' policy (I assume from First American?) that you're talking about is basically a full Owner's policy. You should get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
swenblack posted:No, you shouldn't. Title defects are a huge scare factor for new home buyers, but actual successful claims against title insurance are absurdly rare. My dad (a retired real estate lawyer) hasn't heard of a successful claim in 35 years of practice. If there is a title defect, the title search you pay for will discover it. In the unlikely case it doesn't, the lender's title insurance you are forced to buy will cover the lawyering required to fix the defect. Most owner's title insurance policy have a >50% commission paid to the closing agent, so if you actually think you need it, shop around, don't just take the quote your closing agent is giving you. We already had this exact conversation something like 6 months ago, and the anecdotal "my lawyer dad says" is just as inconsequential now as it was then. There are many examples of people successfully making claims on title insurance for major poo poo that they would have had to pay out of pocket for otherwise. Standard coverage is often limited to the purchase value, whereas extended coverage can be for the current value. Extended coverage often covers things like removal of unpermitted structures, unrecorded easements, and easements that occur after the purchase date, whereas standard coverage would not cover any of these. Extended coverage will also cover you if there's an unrecorded lien on the home, potentially a very big deal if the former owner hired a contractor and then never paid them. Obviously most people will never encounter any of these issues, but that's the entire point of insurance: it's a bet that you hope you'll never win. There are plenty of arguments against buying insurance in general, but "my dad has never personally dealt with someone who made a title insurance claim" is not one of them
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
This is a bit of a late update, but our house is sold! I am so relieved. Now, buying a new house... not quite as easy. The last house we looked at was listed for $529k. We offered $589k and didn't get it. Didn't even get a counter. Apparently the person who got their offer accepted waived the appraisal and most of the other contingencies up front. I hope the roof falls in on their goddamn head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
moana posted:This is a bit of a late update, but our house is sold! I am so relieved. That's puts my $8k overbid into a bit of perspective. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
I lust for the collapse of this housing bubble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
My kingdom for a fed interest rate hike! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
So that you can pay less for a house as prices react, but then pay more for the interest? ...or are you making an all-cash offer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We already had this exact conversation something like 6 months ago Are you a title insurance salesman, by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
swenblack posted:And yet you're still giving the same really, really bad advice. I bet you tell people it's stupid not to buy extended warranties on their new cars too. The point of my anecdote is that people should ask a real estate attorney they trust if title insurance is right for them before paying a 100% mark-up on something they probably don't need. *shrug* You say that my advice is bad, I say that your advice is bad. At least you admit that your entire opinion is based on nothing but an anecdote. Of the quotes that I received for extended title coverage, none of them were even close to costing double that of the minimum, mandatory coverage required by the bank. It was closer to 20%, the net additional cost being a tiny fraction of the closing costs. Are you just anti-insurance in general? It's okay if you are. I'll also say that home warranties are garbage because they really don't ever pay out for anything, unlike title insurance where there are many, actual, real, documented cases where people successfully filed title insurance complains. But whatever dude, it's cool if you think it's a bad deal or whatever quote:Are you a title insurance salesman, by any chance? No, I have no involvement in any insurance or real estate industries. But I do a lot of statistics, professionally, so I understand that there's a difference between "my dad said that he has never personally dealt with a case where title insurance was useful" and "title insurance is never useful, ever, despite documented cases showing otherwise". That seems to be where we disagree, and I'm fine with leaving it there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So that you can pay less for a house as prices react, but then pay more for the interest?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:*shrug* You say that my advice is bad, I say that your advice is bad. At least you admit that your entire opinion is based on nothing but an anecdote. Please don't construe me as anti-insurance. I have a high opinion of lender's title insurance. It's actually quite comparable to auto liability or medical insurance. Buying an additional policy as an owner is usually completely redundant. The overwhelming majority of title defects are discovered and fixed via lender's title work. If the title work isn't spot on, the bank that writes the mortgage can't resell it at full value on the secondary market (that's a big deal). I'd challenge you to find an example of an owner's policy preventing someone from losing their home that isn't sponsored by a title insurance company. Also, I never said title insurance is never useful, ever. I simply encourage people to talk to people they trust, do their own research, and make their own decision, instead of blindly buying the most expensive owner's title insurance possible, like you advocate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Admittedly, low interest rates actually made me hesitant to buy. But there's no point in waiting forever for a rate hike and then for home prices to adjust. Which situation would you rather be in: 1) Very high interest rates and low home values, with interest rates likely to fall in the future, bringing up home values and allowing you to potentially refinance at a lower rate later or 2) Very low interest rates and high home values, with interest rates likely to rise in the future, bringing down home values... leaving you with the same payment as before, but less equity I would definitely rather be in situation 1. Generally I think that home prices are worth whatever people are able to pay, so if interest rates are high then overall values are going to be relatively low, in order to keep monthly payments roughly the same. Even if interest rates were guaranteed to never change, I would still rather have higher interest rates; this corresponds to a smaller down payment to scrounge up, and a larger fraction of your monthly payment is deductible that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
swenblack posted:You come across as extremely hostile and condescending. I don't know how that's happening. I definitely don't mean to come across as hostile or condescending. I feel pretty relaxed right now, we're just two people with different opinions on the value of title insurance, no big deal. I hope that you feel the same. quote:Also, if you do statistics professionally, what would value would assign to an insurance product that pays out 4% of it's value in claims? You know, like owner's title insurance. I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but according to the NAIC it looks like typical loss ratios are closer to 8-11%. That's pretty low, which isn't surprising for a form of insurance where most claims are prevented with careful research, making it a bit unlike most forms of insurance. This is confirmed by looking at expense ratios, which have been 102-110% every quarter in the report; no surprise there, title companies spend more money investigating and preventing title issues than they do in paying out claims, which is arguably a very good thing. In the end, we're still talking about $400 million / year in paid out claims; that's a lot of money helping people who may have been screwed otherwise. AKA, it's like any other form of insurance; you buy it hoping that you don't need it, but if you do need it then it's great. quote:Please don't construe me as anti-insurance. I have a high opinion of lender's title insurance. It's actually quite comparable to auto liability or medical insurance. Buying an additional policy as an owner is usually completely redundant. The overwhelming majority of title defects are discovered and fixed via lender's title work. If the title work isn't spot on, the bank that writes the mortgage can't resell it at full value on the secondary market (that's a big deal). I'd challenge you to find an example of an owner's policy preventing someone from losing their home that isn't sponsored by a title insurance company. I don't think that title insurance is often necessary to prevent someone from losing their home outright. The kinds of situations that I'm talking about, and the kinds of situations for which extended policies are often useful, require minor things like fixing an encroachment. I'm talking about expenditures requiring thousands of dollars, rather than hundreds of thousands. quote:Also, I never said title insurance is never useful, ever. I simply encourage people to talk to people they trust, do their own research, and make their own decision, instead of blindly buying the most expensive owner's title insurance possible, like you advocate. If you want to argue with me the least you can do is not strawman like this. I'm in full support of people shopping around, doing research, and arriving at their own decision. This is completely compatible with me giving my opinion on whether someone should buy an extended policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:There are many examples of people successfully making claims on title insurance for major poo poo that they would have had to pay out of pocket for otherwise. QuarkJets posted:*shrug* You say that my advice is bad, I say that your advice is bad. At least you admit that your entire opinion is based on nothing but an anecdote. QuarkJets posted:If you want to argue with me the least you can do is not strawman like this. I think at the end of the day, real estate markets vary greatly in different places and so do titles. Your real estate agent does not represent your best interests, and you should shop around for pretty much everything associated with home buying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but according to the NAIC it looks like typical loss ratios are closer to 8-11%. That's pretty low, which isn't surprising for a form of insurance where most claims are prevented with careful research, making it a bit unlike most forms of insurance. This is confirmed by looking at expense ratios, which have been 102-110% every quarter in the report; no surprise there, title companies spend more money investigating and preventing title issues than they do in paying out claims, which is arguably a very good thing. QuarkJets posted:If you want to argue with me the least you can do is not strawman like this. I'm in full support of people shopping around, doing research, and arriving at their own decision. This is completely compatible with me giving my opinion on whether someone should buy an extended policy. QuarkJets posted:The 'Eagle' policy (I assume from First American?) that you're talking about is basically a full Owner's policy. You should get it. Speaking of strawmen though: QuarkJets posted:there's a difference between "my dad said that he has never personally dealt with a case where title insurance was useful" and "title insurance is never useful, ever, despite documented cases showing otherwise". That seems to be where we disagree, and I'm fine with leaving it there. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:13
|
|