House buying Survey

[snoopy]

Hi all,

We are post home inspection on a house and the inspector found mold in attic caused by a bathroom exhaust fan improperly venting into the attic rather than outside the house. I've done enough research to confirm this is a fixable problem without long term implications. However, mold is one of those perception issues. We will always have to disclose it. Realtor says as long as we can show its been remedied, it won't be a problem to buyers. I know that is not completely true. It is a question of how many buyers would be okay with it versus how many would just say no.

Would you buy a house with a mold disclosure (if said issue was remedied)?

 

[Aceon6]

I would, as it being disclosed likely means it’s being dealt with properly. It’s no different than if you had a leaning chimney and had it repaired. BUT, first time home buyers (and their parents) might get freaked out. If it was my house, I’d print an addendum to the disclosure saying “The issue was addressed by XYZ company on a certain date. XYZ offers a 2 year warrantee that is transferable. We will provide prospective buyer with a current air quality report.”

 

[MacMadame]

I have no idea if I'd buy it. If I fell in love with the house and then found out about the mold, I would probably still buy it but if I had any other doubts....

But if you do what @Aceon6 said, I would be very impressed (as a buyer)

 

[Deleted member 221]

Do you have to disclose it if it's resolved prior to your ownership? (E.g., if the seller remediates prior to closing?) I thought disclosures only applied to your ownership? I guess this depends on the state. If my roof leaks and I patch the roof, I have to disclose that to a buyer. When that buyer then sells, I do not believe (at least in states where I've bought and sold property), he/she/they need to disclose anything if the roof doesn't leak again. I have never re-disclosed things the seller disclosed to me, unless it was also an issue during my ownership. Most of the disclosure forms I've filled out specify during your period of ownership.

Even if you have to disclose, I think:
1) it's unlikely to affect you if you sell many years from now. Imagine reading, "Mold in attic found during home inspection in 2000, due to improperly venting exhaust fan. Fan rerouted and mold remediated by XYZ company. No issues since." Nobody is going to care.
2) even if you sell in the short-term, what aceon6 says (+ accompanying paperwork) is likely to appease most people.
3) you can always get a mold inspection prior to listing your property and provide that to buyers.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Hi all,

We are post home inspection on a house and the inspector found mold in attic caused by a bathroom exhaust fan improperly venting into the attic rather than outside the house. I've done enough research to confirm this is a fixable problem without long term implications. However, mold is one of those perception issues. We will always have to disclose it. Realtor says as long as we can show its been remedied, it won't be a problem to buyers. I know that is not completely true. It is a question of how many buyers would be okay with it versus how many would just say no.

Would you buy a house with a mold disclosure (if said issue was remedied)?

Nope... Not unless you get it at half price.

Mold is one of those insidious things and you would always have to be worried about..... And it can kill you!

There a gazillion houses out there. If it were me I would find a different one.

But that is just me.

Good luck.

 

[snoopy]

If you remedy the cause, mold is not always a problem and not all mold can kill you. (You get mold on bread, you throw it away. Problem solved. It’s the same way with some house molds. You can get rid of it.) But there is the perception of an ongoing problem which is what is giving me pause.

 

[sk8pics]

I would have said it was okay to buy if properly remediated, but I have a friend who has a severe mold toxicity issue. She was very ill several years ago and is extremely sensitive to many potential irritants. I would be concerned that not all traces will be gone, and someone who is extremely sensitive may still have issues. Certainly it can be fixed well enough that most people would be okay with it, and the house she was living in cost tens of thousands of dollars to mitigate. It was a nightmare.

Maybe there is a better house that does not have this potential issue.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Unless it's in a climate where you can't get rid of mold once it's there, I'd have the seller pay for an inspection to certify the house is mold-free. Then I'd be fine buying.

 

[snoopy]

So primo example of why I dislike the real estate industry.

We pulled out of this deal within the terms of the purchase agreement due to the mold issue. My realtor requested that we soft pedal the pull out reason so she doesn't have to provide the inspection report to the seller's realtor. IOW, so the seller's realtor has plausible deniability for failing to disclose the attic mold to other potential buyers.

Caveat emptor, baby.

Then she suggested we offer to split the earnest money just to make things transition more smoothly. This is annoying but I understand sometimes you have to do relationship things.

 

[MacMadame]

Then she suggested we offer to split the earnest money just to make things transition more smoothly. This is annoying but I understand sometimes you have to do relationship things.

Why does she care what a seller and their agent think or want to make things easier for them? I'd tell the seller exactly why and get all my earnest money back. The agent's relationship with other agents isn't your problem.

 

[Spun Silver]

Agreed. I'm pretty sure what she's asking is illegal. She represents you, not the sellers, right? I've heard of some sort of dual agents but don't have any experience of those.

 

[snoopy]

My agent is not a dual agent. There are two different agents but it’s all the same real estate universe. They scratch each other’s backs to get deals done. Yes it’s corrupt.

My agent sent over a release for a $1. I don’t know why they’d push for more at this point.

 

[Spun Silver]

I've had a lot of problems in buying three homes and selling two in the past 15 years but I never had an agent cross that line. Personally, if it's that clear she's comfortable with lying and taking my money for no legal reason, I would get another agent.

 

[snoopy]

Yes. Though the earnest money is less troublesome to me than the chicanery wrt withholding the mold disclosure.

 

[Deleted member 221]

No way would I split the earnest money.

The rules on whether a seller has to disclose something from a lost buyer’s inspection depend on the state. Depending on the state laws, it may not be crossing a line. Inspections cannot be deemed to be 100% accurate.

 

[snoopy]

that may be true but one look in their attic would be illustrative. I wonder if they will ignore it and hope for a dud home inspector next time or if they will try to clean it up.

 

[Aceon6]

that may be true but one look in their attic would be illustrative. I wonder if they will ignore it and hope for a dud home inspector next time or if they will try to clean it up.

Now, I’m an opportunist and would buy it anyway for the former bid less 3x to 5x the remediation cost. That’s what we did with our house as it had an in ground oil tank. It took two sales cycles as the owner was hoping for a bid that didn’t require her to remove/replace, but she never got one. Ours was the only bid where we, the buyers, would take care of it.

 

[Debbie S]

Get all your earnest money back. You have the right to back out and receive all of your deposit. The agent can do whatever she wants as long as it doesn't affect you or interfere with your refund/money.

This is yet another reason why I hate real estate agents and didn't use them to buy or sell.

 

[Deleted member 221]

that may be true but one look in their attic would be illustrative. I wonder if they will ignore it and hope for a dud home inspector next time or if they will try to clean it up.

If they do clean it up, they'll be required to disclose.

I'm generally against requiring sellers to disclose what a lost buyer's home inspection found because the inspector is not an independent party, and inspections are part fact and part opinion. I've seen wrong home inspections, and/or home inspections where one inspector's opinion differed dramatically from another's (especially around things like fireplaces and stucco). When inspectors start to provide opinions on remaining useful life, that's again an area that can produce wildly different estimates.

In your case, it sounds like it's cut-and-dried, but not every case is like that. I've seen buyers try to bully sellers with a ridiculously picky home inspection, demanding huge credits or "else you'll have to disclose this to any other buyer." Their inspector will say fireplaces are unusable, stucco needs to be entirely pulled off, the roof is on its last legs, etc. And "strangely" they will not be open to remediation or escrow, only a huge cash credit.

In general, I'm ok with caveat emptor. Hire your (general you) own inspector. Never let a realtor recommend an inspector to you.

Now, I’m an opportunist and would buy it anyway for the former bid less 3x to 5x the remediation cost. That’s what we did with our house as it had an in ground oil tank. It took two sales cycles as the owner was hoping for a bid that didn’t require her to remove/replace, but she never got one. Ours was the only bid where we, the buyers, would take care of it.

I'm with you. I'd let this property sit for another two months, then go back the day before Christmas (when no one will be looking for quite some time), with a bid that's even lower.

 

[snoopy]

I think most things in a home inspectors report aren’t disclosable issues. An old roof isn’t, drafty windows aren’t, a leaky faucet isn’t. Things that are disclosable here are mostly safety or lack of function issues: bad electrical wiring, mold, mechanicals don’t work, foundation leaks, bug infestations.

In our report, there were a lot of minor things but the only one that I think was officially disclosable was the mold.