I've been thinking about Home Inspectors.
This past year, several of my clients lost the sale of their homes, and in each case it was caused by the report and verbal rhetoric of the home inspector the buyer had retained. And the bad stuff that hurt the sales turned out to be the home inspectors aberration, not a reality.
Of course, as you can imagine, each of the inspectors picked by the buyers were not chosen because the buyer knew them, had used them before, or a friend had recommended. It was by a pseudo-lottery.
In one case, the market in the area was falling. We lost the sale because the inspector reported that one seperation of a 10 foot drywall tape drop in a corner was caused by foundation problems. A licensed structural engineer, then hired by my homeowner client, came out and said there were no foundation failures.
But the buyer was so spooked by his inspector's report that he did not exercise his option to buy. By the time we had another contract on the home -- less than two months later -- the value had dropped by nearly $50,000.
So the inspector had collected his $350.00 fee and all was well with him. The homeowner not only lost a sale because of false testimony, but $50,000 because of the falling market that took place between the two contracts.
So last year, home inspectors' faulty reports ruined four of my clients' sales, and they cost me about $60,000 in commissions. How can that be equitable?
PROPOSAL
So I began wondering the other night if the law shouldn't be changed to require each party -- the buyer and the seller -- to be represented contemporaneously by an inspector of their choice. In my plan, the two inspectors would go through the property together, then write a single opinion. Differences would be listed and defended.
If we have become so paranoid about dual agency, why aren't we paranoid about one inspection?
BILL CHERRY, REALTORS
DALLAS - PARK CITIES
Our 45th Year
214 503-8563
Comments(9)