We recently represented a buyer in the purchase of his first home.  The house was great.  It was in a wonderful neighborhood.  The interior had been beautifully updated, and the air conditioning was new.  The house had been repainted inside and out, and a very nice, high-quality stockade fence had recently been placed around the backyard.

Things were moving along well, and the time came for our inspections.  We had requested a low figure for repairs, since the house had obviously been well-cared for and looked to be in great condition.  Of course, our request for repairs was also a part of our bargaining strategy, since we were asking for closing costs.

To our dismay, and even more to the dismay of the seller, inspections revealed the need for over $5,000 in repairs, including four piers, repairs to the furnace and hot water heater, and treatment for termites!  This came as a complete surprise to everyone involved.  Of course, that is part of why we have inspections--many defects are often not visible to the observer, and only become apparent on inspection.  I could see the look of utter disbelief and shock on the seller's face when the inspector went over repairs with us.

It seems that in some circumstances it might be wise for sellers to consider paying for an inspection before putting a house on the market to avoid unpleasant surprises at inspection.   This might particularly be true for older homes, which are likely more at risk for adverse findings on inspection.  Having a pre-listing inspection for the seller would help him/her have a more accurate understanding of the costs he/she will need to pay in connection with the sale of the house.

Has anyone had an experience with this?  We would be interested in hearing your thoughts or experiences on this topic.