Bought a House w/ Unlawful 2nd Kitchenette, Who is Responsible?

[BranDocMan]

Also, is it not a realtor's fiduciary responsibility to check on the city code pertaining to things such as rental/ADU? If so, such an analysis by them was never done.

 

[quincy]

Also, is it not a realtor's fiduciary responsibility to check on the city code pertaining to things such as rental/ADU? If so, such an analysis by them was never done.

No. It is not a realtor’s duty to check city codes.

Here is a link to DC’s “duties of real estate brokers, salespersons, and property managers:”

https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/42-1703.html

It is not illegal to sell houses in DC that have code violations but, if the violations are known to the seller and/or the real estate agent/agency, these violations must be disclosed.

 

[TrustUser]

i dont know how it is in your area, but in my area, realtors are expected to deal with these issues. and the seller needs to disclose everything in disclosure documents. it is one thing if the realtors were lied to. but they should have at least been aware enough to notice and ask.

but in your case, you know that the seller flipped the property, and so definitely knew.

also, home inspections are not common out here. instead, people like to rely on the home warranty business, whose service is next to worthless.

when i have used inspectors for investment purchases, they have all been very good. i would say all of them would have noticed anything that was not up to code. but they dont check with the city for permits.

 

[quincy]

i dont know how it is in your area, but in my area, realtors are expected to deal with these issues. and the seller needs to disclose everything in disclosure documents. it is one thing if the realtors were lied to. but they should have at least been aware enough to notice and ask.

but in your case, you know that the seller flipped the property, and so definitely knew.

also, home inspections are not common out here. instead, people like to rely on the home warranty business, whose service is next to worthless.

when i have used inspectors for investment purchases, they have all been very good. i would say all of them would have noticed anything that was not up to code. but they dont check with the city for permits.

I provided DC-specific information. Check out the link.

 

[Taxing Matters]

i dont know how it is in your area, but in my area, realtors are expected to deal with these issues.

But California is a very liberal state (even more so than DC) and in particular requires more in the way of home disclosures in a sale than pretty much any other state/territory of the US. I lived in DC for a number of years. It is not the real estate broker's obligation to check to whether a particular property meets the city building code or that the property or part of it would qualify to be rental unit under the DC Code. Those are things the buyer can verify himself by hiring an inspector for the building code matters (and any other defects present that, while not violating code, would impair the value of the home) and consulting an attorney in DC about the rental unit issue. Not paying for those things is penny wise and dollar foolish. When you are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for property (and in DC the median home sales price is currently about $675,000) that's a huge investment and paying a few hundred to a few thousand bucks for professional and legal advice is good insurance against problems.

Now, if the real estate broker or sellers had actual knowledge of the problems and actually mislead the buyers then, of course, they are liable for fraud. Proving that, however, is generally very difficult. in DC and the seller needs to disclose everything in disclosure documents.

also, home inspections are not common out here.

I'm surprised given how expensive property is in much of California. It's really shortsighted not get an inspection. I wouldn't buy a used car without an inspection, and that costs a whole lot less than a house. I certainly wouldn't buy a pre-owned home without an inspection. It's just good common sense.

 

[Zigner]

I'm surprised given how expensive property is in much of California.

TrustUser's experiences are atypical. You are rarely going to find a financial institution in this state that is willing to finance a home purchase without an inspection.

 

[quincy]

TrustUser's experiences are atypical. You are rarely going to find a financial institution in this state that is willing to finance a home purchase without an inspection.

Nor in Michigan.

 

[Taxing Matters]

TrustUser's experiences are atypical. You are rarely going to find a financial institution in this state that is willing to finance a home purchase without an inspection.

I've never lived anywhere where home inspections were not the norm in home sales. But then I've never lived in the People's Republic of California.

 

[quincy]

I've never lived anywhere where home inspections were not the norm in home sales. But then I've never lived in the People's Republic of California.

Banks tend to be pretty careful when it comes to lending money.

 

[TrustUser]

appraisals are always required. here is an article talking about how inspections are not required. that has been my experience. however, i bought 2 lifetime rental investments 4-5 years ago. and i did inspections on both.

in fact, i did the one with the thermal imaging. only a little bit more expensive. by far and away, the thing that creates the most havoc in homes is water damage. without thermal imaging, an inspector cant usually tell damage inside the walls.

i passed up on 1 house after i was in escrow and had the inspection. it showed a lot of water damage that seller was trying to conceal - LOL

i now stay locally in southern california. so what happens in nocal, i dont know.

i will also say that i had a conventional loan, with quite a sizeable down payment. so my credit union was in no danger of losing money.

i am not doubting zigner's experience. but i am also not ready to say that my experience is the one that is atypical

i am possibly close to being in escrow for one of my 3 rehab units that i bought over a year ago. no mention of any sort of home inspection. buyer did ask me to pay for a home warranty. if the seller isnt willing to pay for it, i am not sure that the buyer typically gets one.

it has certainly been my experience that home warranties are much more common than inspections. they promise to fix anything that goes wrong in the first year. but the fixers are usually horrible. and it takes them 4-5 times to get it right, if they ever do. if you are living there, you may be willing to deal with that. but in my case, i would have lost my tenants with that sort of nonsense going on. i didnt even try to get a refund. just told them i did not want their service any more

that was just a mistake i learned from.

https://www.bpfund.com/home-inspection-required/

 

[quincy]

appraisals are always required. here is an article talking about how inspections are not required. that has been my experience. however, i bought 2 lifetime rental investments 4-5 years ago. and i did inspections on both.

in fact, i did the one with the thermal imaging. only a little bit more expensive. by far and away, the thing that creates the most havoc in homes is water damage. without thermal imaging, an inspector cant usually tell damage inside the walls.

i passed up on 1 house after i was in escrow and had the inspection. it showed a lot of water damage that seller was trying to conceal - LOL

i now stay locally in southern california. so what happens in nocal, i dont know.

i will also say that i had a conventional loan, with quite a sizeable down payment. so my credit union was in no danger of losing money.

i am not doubting zigner's experience. but i am also not ready to say that my experience is the one that is atypical

i am possibly close to being in escrow for one of my 3 rehab units that i bought over a year ago. no mention of any sort of home inspection. buyer did ask me to pay for a home warranty. if the seller isnt willing to pay for it, i am not sure that the buyer typically gets one.

it has certainly been my experience that home warranties are much more common than inspections. they promise to fix anything that goes wrong in the first year. but the fixers are usually horrible. and it takes them 4-5 times to get it right, if they ever do. if you are living there, you may be willing to deal with that. but in my case, i would have lost my tenants with that sort of nonsense going on. i didnt even try to get a refund. just told them i did not want their service any more

that was just a mistake i learned from.

https://www.bpfund.com/home-inspection-required/

Ahh. I see that you are differentiating between inspection and appraisal.

A purchaser of property might not have property inspected (which can be a costly mistake) but a mortgage lender will have the property appraised, the appraisal of which generally includes an inspection of the property to make sure the amount of the loan does not exceed the value of the property.

 

[aldaron]

Bought a House w/ Unlawful 2nd Kitchenette, Who is Responsible?
A. The buyer.
You need to be accountable for your actions, buying a house is not the same as renting an apartment. Personal responsibility s what made this country great, liberalism is destroying it.

 

[quincy]

This is pretty solid information. Appreciate the responses above so far.

Good to know.

This thread is from February.