Tim is right in that it USED to be the way he recalls. It was that way when I bought my house too. That is no longer the case.
I sold my house in 2001. I was told that as a seller you can't even show the house without a certificate that says the Truth in Housing Inspection citations have all been fixed. You have to have a Truth in Housing Report available to everyone who looks at the house and it shows all the things cited, and also that they were remedied, plus a lot of other stuff the inspector noticed, but doesn't merit a citation (things like water stains on basement walls). Not only that, the seller has to fill out another form that discloses anything that you know of that has happened in the past and been repaired that might again be a problem for a buyer, such as having had ice dams, water leakage in the basement, etc. If you do not disclose these items you are liable to be sued. If you do disclose these items, you can argue in court that the buyers bought the house knowing there were these potential problems. So, disclosure is in your best interest. I'm all for these kinds of disclosures. I only object to having to fix picayune things that are not related to health and safety. Taken individually these things are not much, but it all adds up. My 100 year old house was in great shape, and I spent $1000. Some cannot afford this. I know of others who have spent much more. Examples of what I would call picayune are: * a toilet that worked great and was fine according to Truth in Housing when I bought the house, but whose inside the tank pipe was 1/2 inch longer than code. The entire toilet had to be replaced (for the same cost as replacing the parts) * Installing an electrical receptacle on the overhead garage beam for the automatic garage door opener. Plugging it into the receptacle on the wall is not acceptable. * Cutting off abandoned pipes in the basement that were there, and abandoned, when I bought the house. They weren't a hazard in any way. These are just a few of the examples of nit-picking stuff that had to be fixed. Again, let me say that I think we need a law that addresses fixing health and safety hazards -- things like unsafe venting, open drains, exposed electrical junctions, etc. It's just that the way the law is enforced now goes too far, and since the vast majority of people hire their own inspectors it is unlikely that even the smaller things will be overlooked in their purchase. By the way, re an inspections backlog -- the way to avoid this is to hire a licensed private inspector. There is a whole industry that has grown up in Minneapolis to provide these services due to the law, and buyers hiring their own inspectors to go over the property for them, despite the fact that it has to have been inspected and all the citations repaired before it can even get on the market. At least this was my experience in 2001. Barbara Nelson Burnsville, formerly Seward for 18 years Tim Bonham wrote: > I'm not sure that Barbara is correct in saying Truth in Housing "requires" > numerous repairs. > > When I bought my house in South Mpls, in a private contract-for-deed sale > from the owner, she was required to show me the Truth in Housing report, > but there was no requirement to have these 'problems' repaired. <snip> And I > really appreciated that I was able to decide > what, if anything, to do about the items listed, without any city > requirement being set for either me or the seller. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
