Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.

Jim

"Speedy Jim" wrote in message ...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message ...
"Speedy Jim" wrote in message ...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

Thanks for the answer,
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?
In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?
Thanks
Djavdet.

(Djavdet) wrote:
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?
In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?

Eh, it's not like foundations wear out (at least, not over the timeframes we're
dealing with her). Why should it be priced lower? As long as the foundation
area was brought up to code (vapor barrier, insulation) at the time of
construction, I can't see how it'd matter.

Now if the reason things were rebuilt was due to a fire, then I'd be a bit more
leery -- there'd be the possibility of all kinds of spalling or other weakening
if the fire had been severe.

Hi Andy,

Andy Hill wrote in message . ..

Eh, it's not like foundations wear out (at least, not over the timeframes we're
dealing with her). Why should it be priced lower? As long as the foundation
area was brought up to code (vapor barrier, insulation) at the time of
construction, I can't see how it'd matter.

I agree and that's why i am asking whether it's worth to escalte the
issue or just drop it as pointless. But just looking at the ads in our
area, some houses like 2002 "new construction" rebuilt on foundation
of '68 cost about 20-30K less. I was wondering why builders would
disclose the information about foundation, Is there a law forces them
to do so?

Now if the reason things were rebuilt was due to a fire, then I'd be a bit more
leery -- there'd be the possibility of all kinds of spalling or other weakening
if the fire had been severe.

I do not know, how would i found it out? I guess there should be some
records about it, right?
Djavet.

Difficult to say. I would not automatically assume the price should be
lower or the value of the house is less.

I would suggest a local attorney, after you have done all your homework
and have all the facts about building permits etc. It is a lot cheaper for
you to do it than the attorney.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"Speedy Jim" wrote in message
...
Djavdet wrote:

Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far
but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should
we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Ask the town bldg dep't if they have any permit info
on the house. If the rebuild was done sans permit, the
seller would need to have disclosed that fact at least.



If it was disclosed to them.

Thanks for the answer,
Let's say we found that they had building permit and city knows about
( I think it is so ). I am trying to think how bad this is for us?
Would not it be a lie to us and maybe the price of the house should be
adjusted? We negotiated the price without knowledge of that rebuilt
thing. Or maybe i need to ask this question to lawyer?
In general, should not rebuilt house be priced a bit lower then
"normal" one?
Thanks
Djavdet.

1- Do you have knowledge that the owner knew it was built earlier?

2- Is there any evidence of the foundation being in poor condition?

3- How did you find out it was built earlier?

"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Hi Jane,
Please see my answers below,

"Jane" wrote in message ...
1- Do you have knowledge that the owner knew it was built earlier?

Yes I do, I was told that the seller knew about rebuilt, but her agent
did not.
I also was told that seller's agent is supposed to pull the records
from cityhall.


2- Is there any evidence of the foundation being in poor condition?

It looks good enough and our inspector did not notice anything wrong
with foundation.


3- How did you find out it was built earlier?

Appraiser found inconsistentcy in tax papers and some other docs on
the property he also found build permit. I am not sure what docs he
found 'cause I've not seen he's report yet.

Please ask any questions You want, i need to clearfy this situation
ASAP.
Thanks
Djavdet


"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Get an expert to evaluate the foundation, ask the seller about the
circumstances, and if you don't like the answers, YOU be the one to decide
to tell the seller that they should have disclosed it. Or you can pay
somebody to tell you that you can tell the seller the same thing. See what I
mean?
-B

"Djavdet" wrote in message
om...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:35:00 GMT, someone wrote:

Get an expert to evaluate the foundation, ask the seller about the
circumstances,

This is getting nuts.

Why would THIS foundation be any better if the house had NOT been
rebuilt. What evidence is there that there is anything WRONG with it.
The present house has been there how long????

At this point the Buyer needs to demonstrate that they will suffer
some harm from the foundation being older. They need to show they
were harmed by not finding this out earlier.

Okay so maybe they can get out of the contract if they squawk enough.
But to me expecting to continue to buy but get a lower price is a
little much. Who knows, maybe the Seller is highly motivated and
would make a concession to save the sale. But maybe not.

I am not seeing a problem here. There *could* be one under some
far-fetched scenario, but what is it besides speculation here.

-v.

Hi ,


This is getting nuts.


What do you mean nuts?!
As I already described all houses in our area are listed lower price
and always described as rebuilt if they are rebuilt. And one of the
thing I am trying to find out if it is possible to ask the seller step
down a little... I bet if he listed the house as rebuilt the price
would be lower.

Why would THIS foundation be any better if the house had NOT been
rebuilt. What evidence is there that there is anything WRONG with it.
The present house has been there how long????

Well, it's suspicios at the least, why the seller did not desclose it
and even more suspicion why the house was rebuilt that early.


At this point the Buyer needs to demonstrate that they will suffer
some harm from the foundation being older. They need to show they
were harmed by not finding this out earlier.

That's true, if the seller demonstrates that the house is clean of any
problems and simply happened to be rebuilt on a bit older foundation
yes I would not have any problems to buy it.


Okay so maybe they can get out of the contract if they squawk enough.
But to me expecting to continue to buy but get a lower price is a
little much. Who knows, maybe the Seller is highly motivated and
would make a concession to save the sale. But maybe not.

I still like the house, and if the seller shows all documents
supporting he's words I'll buy the house, but from my experience, if
people are hiding something at the first place, very offten they keep
lieing to you to the end.
I am just trying to avoid bigger problem if there is any....


I am not seeing a problem here. There *could* be one under some
far-fetched scenario, but what is it besides speculation here.

Thanks for sharing your opinion anyway, it is always good to have more
then one head :-)

Djavdet.

I think the point is that if you have knowledge
before the close of escrow, you can't complain later about lack of
disclosure.

You may have grounds to back out of the deal and can use that to renegoitate
a better price.

Or don't buy the house.

Buyer's remorse is common. But in this case, you can't blame the
seller/seller's agent.




--Remove -NOSPAM- to contact me.

On 7 Feb 2004 19:45:33 -0800, someone wrote:

.... if the seller shows all documents
supporting he's words....

And what kind of documents would those be?????

What are his words? His words are that it was rebuilt many years ago.
So he comes up with a document that confirms that it was? If *you*
are claiming there is a problem, then where are *your* docunents
supporting your words?

You apparently want him to "prove" there is NOT a problem. But
instead, can you PROVE that there *is*??? If you can't, why should he
lower the price???

-v.

(v) wrote in message ...
On 7 Feb 2004 19:45:33 -0800, someone wrote:

.... if the seller shows all documents
supporting he's words....

And what kind of documents would those be?????

I do not know, when you send your car to bodyshop and they perform
some reparings they give you full description of what has been done
right?
Why the same situation with the house should be any different?


What are his words? His words are that it was rebuilt many years ago.
So he comes up with a document that confirms that it was? If *you*
are claiming there is a problem, then where are *your* docunents
supporting your words?

There could be a fire, they painted foundation and i do not see
affected parts of it. How's that?


You apparently want him to "prove" there is NOT a problem. But
instead, can you PROVE that there *is*??? If you can't, why should he
lower the price???

Well, yeah you're right, couple of things
1. it is his property and he did not disclose rebuilt thing.
It is my turn to suspect him now.
2. If there is no document proving the rebuilt, there could be a case
when the house was not rebuilt entirely but say remodelled.

Again non of this was disclosed why should I beleive on his words?
Djavdet.








-v.

With the money you have on the table, it is time to discuss your
concerns with your lawyer. That what you paying him for.

As a sanity check, in my town houses are torn down regularly with the
foundations being reuse. Why? In my town, if you keep the orginal
foundation it is consider a remodeling job for permit purposes. The
resulting houses sell for 700K-1.5 million. I don't think the 100 year
old foundation is hurting the price. But ever town is different.

Also, in my state, you have to declare known defects. I doubt a old
foundation in sound condition is considered a defect. If you are
really worried and still want the house, have it check out by a
structure engineer. If you want out of your contract, it could be a
reason. If you are just trying to get a lower price, you can try but
you also run the risk of the seller walking away.

(Djavdet) wrote in message . com...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

Walk away. You'll never be happy...you'll always be suspicious, you'll
always feel screwed over. Why bother. Is this the only house for sale in the
area where you live? Why are you pursuing it? Go buy another house. The age
of the house is meaningless. Where I live there are plenty of 100 year old
houses that sell for over a million dollars while new houses sell for 500 to
800K. Age has nothing to do with anything. Get a competent building
inspector if you must have this house and only this house out of all the
houses in the universe. The inspector can pretty much figure out what was
changed. You sound like a person who thrives on aggravation and drama.


"Philip" wrote in message
om...
With the money you have on the table, it is time to discuss your
concerns with your lawyer. That what you paying him for.

As a sanity check, in my town houses are torn down regularly with the
foundations being reuse. Why? In my town, if you keep the orginal
foundation it is consider a remodeling job for permit purposes. The
resulting houses sell for 700K-1.5 million. I don't think the 100 year
old foundation is hurting the price. But ever town is different.

Also, in my state, you have to declare known defects. I doubt a old
foundation in sound condition is considered a defect. If you are
really worried and still want the house, have it check out by a
structure engineer. If you want out of your contract, it could be a
reason. If you are just trying to get a lower price, you can try but
you also run the risk of the seller walking away.

(Djavdet) wrote in message
. com...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet

we had a similar issue...the house listed as 1978, but all windows labelled
as 1984. Furnace is 1984 too...during the
requisite lawyer signings, I noticed something...the home was listed as
1978, but original permits were in 1969!! Turns
out that there was another house here, and a bunch of stuff happened "in
between" sans permit. local neighbours confirm
that a much smaller house "used to be here", and to avoid complication, a
single part of the foundation was left original
and built "around" to avoid needing permits....apparently it was possible
back then!

I had an appraiser cornered and ran this by him...he agreed to take a look
at the house quickly (family friend) and let me know....
he didn't even get inside the house and told me it was worth every penny and
more of what I paid, no matter the age. Local
neighborhood, quality, etc were all too high to even think of starting
litigation to get back some money....

I guess being surrounded by $300K homes does well, doesn't it?? If the
house is "the one", and its right in every other
way...have it thoroughly inspected and looked over. if its got a clean bill
of health, who cares? I know I don't...

b

"art" wrote in message
...
Walk away. You'll never be happy...you'll always be suspicious, you'll
always feel screwed over. Why bother. Is this the only house for sale in
the
area where you live? Why are you pursuing it? Go buy another house. The
age
of the house is meaningless. Where I live there are plenty of 100 year old
houses that sell for over a million dollars while new houses sell for 500
to
800K. Age has nothing to do with anything. Get a competent building
inspector if you must have this house and only this house out of all the
houses in the universe. The inspector can pretty much figure out what was
changed. You sound like a person who thrives on aggravation and drama.


"Philip" wrote in message
om...
With the money you have on the table, it is time to discuss your
concerns with your lawyer. That what you paying him for.

As a sanity check, in my town houses are torn down regularly with the
foundations being reuse. Why? In my town, if you keep the orginal
foundation it is consider a remodeling job for permit purposes. The
resulting houses sell for 700K-1.5 million. I don't think the 100 year
old foundation is hurting the price. But ever town is different.

Also, in my state, you have to declare known defects. I doubt a old
foundation in sound condition is considered a defect. If you are
really worried and still want the house, have it check out by a
structure engineer. If you want out of your contract, it could be a
reason. If you are just trying to get a lower price, you can try but
you also run the risk of the seller walking away.

(Djavdet) wrote in message
. com...
Hi every one.
I have a question,
We are trying to buy a house and everything was good enough so far but
recently we found that house has an older foundation then structure
itself.
Seller did not disclose that fact and listed the house as '85 but
foundation is older , like '69.
So does anybody know whether the seller is supposed to disclose such
information and what's gonna happen if he did not? I mean , should we
be warried about it or just forget it?
Yeah everything is happening in NH
Please advise
Thanks
Djavdet