Comments on: So, You’re No Expert?

By: AgentGenius

AgentGenius — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:19:15 +0000

#agnow In Tennessee we have even gone to a second mold disclosure much like we did for the normal home inspections.... http://bit.ly/btICT2

By: Grant in Nashville

Grant in Nashville — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:19:13 +0000

In Tennessee we have even gone to a second mold disclosure much like we did for the normal home inspections. In addition, we have a 3 page blanket disclaimer that in meant to indemnify agents from having any opinions or passing comments becoming hard fact. We have certainly passed the point where common sense is enough.

By: Holly White

Holly White — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:48:35 +0000

When in doubt, disclose. When there is no doubt, disclose. …And closing your eyes to a potential material defect doesn’t make it go away.

By: Ken in Chicago

Ken in Chicago — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:19:17 +0000

“Do I have to disclose that? The answer is always yes. Disclose. Disclose. Disclose. Just like location, location, location.”

That sums it up.

Why people think that they can get away with hiding something is beyond me. Why would you attempt to hide a known defect and risk getting sued or worse. Sure an agent might get away with hiding things a few times, but sooner or later it will catch up to them.

By: Vicki Moore

Vicki Moore — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:43:06 +0000

Do I have to disclose that? The answer is always yes. Disclose. Disclose. Disclose. Just like location, location, location.

If you know it, you disclose it. Bad or good. Bad and good are subjective.

In California everybody discloses; seller and both agents.

“If the Seller has repaired all the items, I don’t think they should have to reveal the report or fact that its been repaired.” We have to disclose that too.

By: Matthew Rathbun

Matthew Rathbun — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:13:07 +0000

Raymond: You’ve mostly got it. There wasn’t a dual agency, in that the Broker was not representing the Seller. The agent in question only had a listing interview, but never had a bilateral agreement with the seller to represent them. Therefore they weren’t clients. Dual Agency would require the Broker (directly or with agent from the company) to represent both. However, in your vantage point, your comment is otherwise correct. Good to hear your thoughts – thanks for commenting!

Thomas: I agree that it is an enlightened state that would require the Seller to be responsible for disclosure, as well as the Listing Agent. I am at a quandary on how I feel about previous inspections. If I’ve got some crack-pot home inspector that ruined the potential closing; I’d hate to think that I would be forced to pass on the legacy of that knuckle head. If the Seller has repaired all the items, I don’t think they should have to reveal the report or fact that its been repaired… Those are just my thoughts and I don’t have a lot of basis further than that. It’s interesting to know what your state requires. Thanks for stopping in and commenting!

By: Thomas Johnson

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:57:59 +0000

“to have possession of a home inspection report paid for (therefore owned by) a previous purchaser”
In the enlightened Lone Star State, a seller must disclose if a previous inspection exists. Obviously, a seller probably is not in possession of the inspection, but someone on the seller side may end up with it if the buyer send it over with a request for repairs referenced in the report. If that sale busts, I shred immediately. The last thing I need to be is a canonical repository of defects in houses I have attempted to transact. Am I wrong?

By: Raymond Stoklosa

Raymond Stoklosa — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:50:47 +0000

Matthew,
From my vantage point you are describing a Dual Agency issue. Both “agents” worked for the same company who is by law the agent of record, hence a dual agency situation and a conflict of interest. Agency is tested on a company basis and not an individual basis. The “agents” had a fiduciary duty to make a full and complete disclosure of material facts that affect value or desirability. It seems to me that the court is correct in it’s finding. Full disclosure is the law and apparently the “agents” lost sight of that.

By: Paula Henry

Paula Henry — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:31:42 +0000

Matthew – Originally licensed in California, where there is a disclosure for everything and even an agents visual inspection report, I still visually look at everything. I look for watermarks on the ceiling, cracks around the foundation, sagging floors, etc.

I don’t pretend to be the expert and always recommend my buyers get a professional inspection.

Even if I previously represented the seller and know of material defects, I believe I am obligated to tell my “now” buyer client. Material defects are not protected by the agency relationship and must be disclosed, if known. I could not disclose the sellers motive for moving, their finances, or any other non material fact, but a material fact which could affect the buyers decision to buy, should be disclosed.

We must always remember who we represent and what our agency relationship requires of us.

By: Matthew Rathbun

Matthew Rathbun — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:21:25 +0000

Julie, YOu’re right about what the priorities seem to be, unfortunately too few understand that if an agent gives outstanding customer service; they can often avoid liability.