Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Bry911. i appreciate it. So true what you said. It‘s given me a lot to think about. Thanks 😊

It is really hard to know if a seller is being unreasonable or if the buyer is expecting too much without knowing the specifics about the home and location. How many properties did you look at in this price range? How did this property compare to the other properties? If it was the nicest one in your price range maybe it was priced based on the need for some upgrades.

If it is truly over priced given the repairs needed it will sit on the market.

I don't know if it is typical of most sellers, but generally sellers all want top dollar for their home and buyers want a deal.

I do know of one home where the seller was absolutely stuck on getting the price he wanted for his home. The house was listed by multiple agents, each time with the same sale price, from Jan. 2016 until it finally sold in June of 2020.

I have also seen buyers, especially first time buyers, who were unable to pull the trigger and put in an offer, or put in low ball offer on a house and spend the next 6 months or a year comparing everything to that first house and kicking themselves for not getting the first house.

Maybe Arizona prices for hot water heaters are much higher than here in the midwest, but that really doesn’t seem like much of a dealbreaker to me.

Thanks Jennifer. We offered the full asking price. Our realtor said it was market value. However, when the inspection revealed major issues we were no longer willing to offer the full price and asked for a credit for the major items. We were willing to pay to do all the other repairs ourselves.

A house down the street sold for $14k more, but if was 100sqft bigger, completely remodeled, all new windows, bifold door, new AC, new water heater. Compared to this home that was 23 years old with nothing done to it. i was willing to remodel at a later date, just wasn't expecting to be hit with all the major repairs.

Our realtor said the home is overpriced, based on all the issues uncovered by the inspection. She called the house a mess!

Amazed to read about the seller you mentioned who took 4 years to sell his home! His patience paid off.

Yes, that happened to me! A few years ago I made the mistake of looking at properties, when we weren’t ready to buy. i found one with a beautiful floor plan. Someone else bought the home and within months it doubled in price. We missed out. i was guilty of comparing other homes to that one.

Hi Littlebug - but it wasn’t just the water heater. it was approx $50k+ in repairs, which we were willing to pay some of it, but we wanted seller to give us credit for the 3 big items, while we paid for the rest. The point is we were buying this as an investment property, so it didn’t make sense. we offered full asking price, but after discovering all the issues we wanted to lower the price of the house. Our realtor agreed that the house was not worth the price, considering all the issues with it.

This board sometimes just chooses a side for no real reason.

Do you really believe the experts, who have actually seen the house, are going to benefit from the assistance of posters here who haven't even seen a picture of it?

I would default to trusting the inspector who likely did a physical inspection of the AC unit, unless there is significant evidence the inspector isn't competent.

Tile roofs certainly have an underlayment and that underlayment is often necessary and can have a significantly shorter life than the tile roof. If a tile roof that was meant to mostly be decorative the underlayment can the primary protection against water intrusion and may only last 10 - 12 years.

I don't know if this seller was unreasonable... but sellers can be unreasonable. It happens all the time. Spend just a little time browsing Zillow and you will find someone who believes their 60 year old home, that has never been updated, should sell for the same thing as the fully updated house next door. Those people often turn away fair offers before they start lowering the price, which often ends up below the offer they turned down.

The seller was willing to concede $15k and you wanted $34k, a $19k delta…you aren’t that far off. FWIW my custom built home is 24 years old and has an original roof that is still in good shape (40 year Timberline shingles). Sure roofers have told me to replace but hard to swallow a $30k roof replacement when there are no leaks (Had an inspector confirm). We have 4 zoned heat / ac, only 1 out of my 4 units has been replaced. The other 3 are working fine. We were told this by a licensed HVAC contractor. The hot water heater was replaced but that was a relatively minor $3k expense a few years ago. My point? I would price the age of those items into my sales price and would not budge either. We are still in a hot market in NJ where homes sell within a week over asking price, many waiving inspections. You have to ask yourself if it’s worth it and it doesn’t appear so from your post, so move on.

The problem I see here is there is no account taken for the other features of the home. If it is in a location you love, and the house is unique to your tastes, squabbling about 19,000 dollars is rather silly.

Just pay it; no one is going to die because you overpaid for a particular house; You got the house you wanted, not for the price you wanted, but at least got the house. With real estate values averaging 17 percent per year, in time you will more than recoop your money. At todays wages what is $19,000 for a house that will last years. You’ll make that money in three months of working at a low paying wage even. The rebuilt house down the road is indicative of my math here.

I put my money where my mouth is. I bought a house that needs around a $100,000 in work, but I see potenial return on it some day. I am factoring in the collapse of the real estate market and then a rebound, but it will take time to rebuild this house too.

Today everyone wants their dream price on a dream home, but sometimes the seller wins, and especially in a sellers market. But thats okay.

Anyone dealt with unreasonable sellers that won’t budge?

Is anything about this house genuinely one-of-a-kind? That is, does this house have a unique location or historical value or whatever else? A truly unique house can command a higher price. But in most cases such as you describe, the seller just doesn't know the house's true value. Or he is trying to price the house "for the money he needs to move on" not what the house is really worth.

Consider yourselves lucky that you didn’t buy this home. If it’s as ill-maintained as you say, who knows what else you’ll find while living there.

Agree. Unless something about the house is genuinely special in some way, you don't want all those headaches.

If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it. It’s a sellers market. Someone will pay it. Its not about investment numbers. It’s about market scarcity.

It's not necessarily about "can't afford it" -- it's about making a good financial decision.

I'm remembering when my husband and I were engaged and were looking for our first home (33 .years ago). We really wanted a certain house, but the owner was demanding more than the comps -- not even a whole lot more. We'd been looking for months, and I was in love with a few features of the house -- I said, "Let's just buy it, even if he is asking too much." My then-fiance was more financially savvy, and he refused, saying, "If we pay too much now, we'll not be able to sell it /get our money back out of it, and we'll be stuck." I understand now.

I would rather lose money on a home then sell one to someone i dont like.

Why? Once you sell it, you're walking away. It's not like you're forced to see the new owners again.

“For some buyers they think they are in control and that is nit how it is ...

Buyers are in control because they take all the risk ...

Eh, I'd say whoever needs the sale most is in control.

A young couple who has a good downpayment and is living in an apartment is "in control"; they have a place to live and -- while they may want the house -- can afford to wait for the right house at the right price.

A couple who's already bought another house and is paying two mortgages may need to sell quickly -- though their buyers may not know, they (the buyers) have control.

An elderly widow who's selling her paid-for house and moving in with her son can afford to wait for the right price. She, the seller, is in control.

A couple selling a two-year old house in a subdivision where new-new houses are still being built has little control. The buyers have other options, and they are in control.

And any number of other possibilities could exist. But, in most cases, one party "needs" the sale more than the other ... or has more options than the other person.

One of my homes, built in 1929. had a slate roof. When I had accepted an offer, the prospective buyer wanted a discount because "the roof needed replacement". So I had it checked out - no broken slates, no water leaks. I refused the discount. She bought it anyway.

Your buyer swung and missed. It's not personal.

The seller is free to ask any price he or she wants . And is also free not to fix issues. And the buyer is free to say “ no thanks” and walk away . That’s how real estate works.

Yes, that's why selling /buying a house is a complicated financial transaction: replace the carpet, cut down the big tree, leave the window treatments, leave the master bedroom furniture, fix the broken laundry room door ... each and every one can be a yes or a no from the seller, each and every one can be a reason for the buyer to walk away.

Just pay it; no one is going to die because you overpaid for a particular house; You got the house you wanted, not for the price you wanted, but at least got the house. With real estate values averaging 17 percent per year, in time you will more than recoop your money. At todays wages what is $19,000 for a house that will last years. You’ll make that money in three months of working at a low paying wage even. The rebuilt house down the road is indicative of my math here.

I hear what you're saying, but we have no guarantees with real estate. Remember how the bottom fell out in -- was it 2009? Not everyone "wins" with real estate, especially people who find themselves forced to relocate for their jobs quickly.

Today everyone wants their dream price on a dream home, but sometimes the seller wins, and especially in a sellers market. But thats okay.

I think that's always been the case -- or, to use your word, the dream. People are just more picky these days because we've all watched so much HGTV.

So many people here have decided they know more about this house than the OP…

So here is my 2 cents… you had a rent to own that the owner was actually able to convert. That is already a major red flag for any experienced buyer or agent. While there are some decent landlords with rent to own deals, the vast majority of them are scammers, and deferred maintenance is often the scam.

A landlord will take a property that needs work and lease it on a rent to own deal, where the tenant pays higher than market rates to supposedly build equity. However, in rent to own deals the tenant is responsible for maintenance. Most don’t convert because if the tenant couldn’t afford a down payment, they can’t afford the major repairs needed.

So, I would always take caution buying a house that had previously been a rent to own.

While the $19k difference may not be a big deal… it may actually be the last stab at a property the OP should walk away from. Any realtor who has any experience has witnessed this first hand many times.

Sometimes a house will show well but the inspection comes back with enough issues that the buyer should just walk away. However, the buyer has already started mentally moving in and so they are willing to make a bad deal on the house so they ask for a few of things to be repaired and decide they can eat the rest.

I am not saying that is what happened but… it would be natural to feel the seller was being unreasonable when they refused in that, all too common, situation.

A homeowner that ignores the big things will ignore everything. Were it me, I would walk away. Wait for the right one to come along since it’s not your primary home and your immediate need is not so great. The house in question may or may not be a money pit but only you know your bank account and temperment as to wether or not you could weather that storm.

If you buy a house and feel that you were "cheated', you will never get over that feeling. Not a good way enter into a new residence.

I heard that before Louise so it must be true. Can't say I've ever heard anyone that felt they were cheated in not buying and unable to get over it.

If you buy a house and feel that you were "cheated', you will never get over that feeling. Not a good way enter into a new residence.

I somewhat agree but, OTOH, you have to agree to be cheated. The constant reminder of that is in your wallet, printed right there on your money. I'm not talking about fraud and fraud isn't a factor so far as the subject of this thread is concerned.

As details have emerged, this is a case of a property investor trying to buy a home to use as a vacation rental--i.e., Air BnB (or the like) unit. Absentee landlord.

Makes the claim that seller 'won't budge' from the 'market value' price but later reveals that the seller did budge to the tune of $15k, meeting the buyer almost halfway on their demand. A bit of untruth that results in putting a question mark on every thing else the buyer avers.

Adds a bit of drama--buyer considers a water heater as a Big Ticket item. OMG, the roof is about to fail! 'Will leak soon'!!! According to 'inspection'. Never mind that roof in question is a 23 YO tile roof, not some composition roof that has been baking for two decades in AZ sun.

Not one photo of this deteriorated home.

But the seller is 'unreasonable'. Insinuates more than once that the property owner basically doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground...because? he acquired said property thru a lease to buy arrangement!! Buyer is real estate sophisticated because it's in buyer's DNA.

Maybe everything almost that potential buyer says is true. Maybe the home inspector is an honest top tier inspector. And maybe not.

Bottom line is that the home is at least 23 years old. Old enough to be sagging a bit and needing some repairs & replacements. Dry behind the ears buyers know such is to be expected. Unless it was advertised as 'move in ready'.

Obviously, the potential buyer needs to be shopping Move In Ready properties. Or new construction. Likely better to be trying to buy in AZ in May or June or July. Not in October in AZ on the cusp of High Season. And not getting butt hurt because a seller doesn't meet their every last demand. Doesn't work that way. Negotiation, give and take. And just freaking walking away instead of dwelling on it.

I am hoping that this neighborhood is saved from having a short term rental inflicted on them. That someone who wants a home buys it. Maybe someone with DIY skills and/ or family/ friend connections to help make their $$ go as far as possible on whatever expectedly and unexpectedly needs to be done. Because homes have more intrinsic worth than investment properties. Both to the owner and to the neighborhood.

Can't say I've ever heard anyone that felt they were cheated in not buying and unable to get over it.

You assert some sophistication with real estate (inferred from your run with the big dogs comment) and yet have never heard of a buyer who has been cheated and not recovering...

When I was 18 I was buying my first home and made an offer on a house and, after paying a few hundred bucks for an inspection, learned the seller drastically misrepresented the condition of the home on the disclosure. I backed out of the deal but still feel cheated out of the money I spent on the inspection.

That scenario has played out multiple times over my real estate investing career and I don't see how anyone with any real experience hasn't seen it. I have had people lie about water damage, roof repairs, termite damage, etc. A few years ago I was looking at an estate sale, and the family member selling the home checked unknown for everything on the disclosure. He had been managing the property for his mother for ten years and had personally written the check for an extensive termite infestation and paid for the remodeling to hide it.

When sales fall through after the inspection it is often because the seller misrepresented the condition of the property. I don't know why anyone would feel like that isn't being cheated.

I'm not talking about fraud and fraud isn't a factor so far as the subject of this thread is concerned.

Legal elements of fraud: (1) A material false statement, (2) Knowledge that the statement was false when provided, (3) Reliance on that statement by the victim, (4) Damages resulting from the victim's reliance.

We don't know if fraud was a factor or not. What we do know is that the OP spent money to learn the property needed a significant amount of work. Whether there was fraud or not depends on whether the seller actually knew it needed the work.

----

Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that the OP committed unrecoverable funds to this deal and has every right to feel cheated if the property's condition was misrepresented. If that misrepresentation was intentional then it is absolutely fraud. If that misrepresentation was unintentional the seller is still asserting that the property is worth the same in its actual condition as it was in the represented condition. Think about anything other than a house being represented that way... Suppose you bought a "never used" refrigerator only to find out that it had been installed in a house for a year already and the seller refused to give you a discount. Would you feel cheated? Would it matter if the seller knew it had been installed?

It’s perspective. This is a vacation home, so obviously in a desirable area, with possible income potential. People in my local area are still buying houses without inspecting them at all. Houses here are sold “as is,” and it’s rare to have demanding buyers. We’ve had rentals and vacation properties, and they always need something done.

Where did the OP say the seller did not disclose or misrepresented anything? Seller’s disclosures (other than material misrepresentation of known defects) are not mandatory in every state. The buyer made newbie mistakes. When we look at properties we ask the age of the roof and systems BEFORE we even make an offer. The home inspection period should not be the time to reopen negotiations, although it has become that way. And yes the buyer has the right to ask, which they did and the seller conceded some. It wasn’t enough for the buyer and thus the deal was squashed. The seller then relisted at the price he believes is fair for the property. Their prerogative.

What did I miss here? What money did OP sink into this house other than the cost of the inspection? That's gone, forget about it. It's the cost of the discovering any issues/problems, whatever you want to call them, before closing on the house. I've had a number of houses I bid on inspected and waved bye-bye to that cash when the deals went south. The cost of inspection is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the house.

Earnest money? I've always gotten that back when deals fell through. Even got it back when I chose to back out of a deal at the 11th hour (long story...). This may vary by state, though. IDK.

Buying a home is a negotiation. Buyer owns something seller wants, buyer is in the driver's seat when it comes to accepting or refusing offers. He had his reasons for refusing the offer, that is his prerogative -- nothing unreasonable there.

Its a vacation home, which means it is in a desirable area that attracts people from all over. You may feel that the house is overpriced for the local market. But for an outsider from a big city (for example), the valuation may seem fine. Or that big city buyer might just have that much money and wants a vacation house is this area and is willing to pay whatever the price is now.

The "unreasonable seller" is just wanting to maximize his profit. So all you can do is wait and keep looking. There will be another if this one does not ever happen. Covid freaked out a lot of people who rushed to buy secluded homes in vacation areas. Interest rates were very low at the time. The currently high interest rates can't be good for home sales right now.

We bought our house at a large discount to the original price. We had to wait many months to get it at that price, and we looked at many others in the meantime. We used the listing broker for the deal instead of involving another broker in the transaction. In general, when a house sells, the listing broker gets half the commission and the selling broker get the other half. If the listing broker and the selling broker are the same, that broker gets both sides of the transaction.

In our case, the listing broker had a strong incentive to prod the owner into accepting our lower offer because the broker would actually make more money with our lower offer than if the owner sold at full price to another.

If there was a legally required disclosure statement that lists the year of installation and condition of the roof, HVAC, etc., the buyer should make an offer that considers this information. The seller can then decide to accept or reject the offer. In the past few years I’ve heard people saying that one should always offer the asking price, then if accepted, get an inspector to “find” problems that they can demand be fixed or upgraded to their preferences. While there are many professionally trained inspectors who are honest at all times, like in any profession there are those who have little experience beyond a few handy man skills but advertise themselves as experienced and highly rated. In this case, if the seller does not get any takers soon he will lower the asking price.

Just for reference in November 2022 the National Association of Realtors had an article about seller disclosure lawsuits on the rise.

It quoted a study that found 60% of sellers admitted failing to disclose a known issue. 65% of sellers had misled a buyer about the severity of an issue that was disclosed, with 74% of them hiding the issue with poor repairs.

These numbers have largely been verified mathematically and anecdotally.

Statistically, the seller is far more likely to be the party responsible when negotiations fail after the inspection. So I am struggling to understand why the default assumption here seems to favor the seller. Odds are the seller misrepresented the condition to get an offer, because that’s just the way statistics work. I mean 95% of buyers find a problem that wasn’t disclosed (from the same survey but that aligns with my experience).

As for the people pretending they would know… I call B.S.! I grew up in plumbing, spent a summer working for an electrician, and can frame decently well, just not fast. On average I probably look at a dozen houses a year and sometimes buy two or three. I flip most of them, rent some of them, live in a few of them. With that experience, I have still been fooled many times and so has my inspector.

I’ve heard people saying that one should always offer the asking price, then if accepted, get an inspector to “find” problems that they can demand be fixed or upgraded to their preferences.

The primary rule of buying property is to get the property under your control.

When buying property I make an offer based on what I believe the property is worth given the information that the seller has provided and that I have ascertained about the area. I never make an offer with the intention of amending it later. I also don't worry about small maintenance issues or defects that are apparent when I look at a home. However, if I become aware of an undisclosed problem that effects the value after I have made my offer, I will amend my offer, even if I don't have an inspection contingency.

I can't know for sure whether the buyer knew of the defect or not, but I assume that the buyer will act to protect their interest, and I will act to protect mine. I don't really care if I have a right to change the offer or not... they can't market the property until they release my offer and a buyer isn't going to spend the six figures and five years to sue me.

"Statistically, the seller is far more likely to be the party responsible when negotiations fail after the inspection.

So what. It is a NEGOTIATION -- one party doesn't like what the other is offering and further negotiations ensue or somebody walks away. That is the nature of the game.

So I am struggling to understand why the default assumption here seems to favor the seller."

Because the seller is in the driver's seat when it comes to accepting or refusing an offer. He didn't like her counter-offer. He did nothing "wrong" yet the OP claims he's being unreasonable.

Because the seller is in the driver's seat when it comes to accepting or refusing an offer. He didn't like her counter-offer. He did nothing "wrong" yet the OP claims he's being unreasonable.

That literally (and I actually do mean literally) has nothing to do with being unreasonable.

The OP never claimed the seller did something wrong, in fact, the OP defended the seller by noting that they believe the seller was unaware of the condition before the inspection. The OP just believes the seller is being unreasonable... which largely just means that the seller is responding outside the expected norms.

We see sellers here regularly who wonder why their house will not sell, only to find that they have set an unreasonably high price based mostly on comparable sales of houses in much better condition. All the OP is saying is that her and her realtor feel the seller is asking an unreasonable amount for the home given its condition... yet, not having seen the home at all, you seem to believe you can explain why the seller is reasonable to the OP (who presumably has seen the house) and the professional who is advising the OP (who presumably has also seen the house and actually gets paid to advise on these things in that area).

---

ETA: Really... the title is a little confrontational and people decided to pick the other side. Yes... there are unreasonable sellers all over the place. Browse Zillow for just a little bit and you will find houses that have been on the market for hundreds of days with prices that are still astronomically too high. We can't know if the seller is being unreasonable, but when in doubt I tend to trust the people who have actually seen the house over the internet.

Just to update you.

We found out. There was a buyer before us who had put in an offer. it was accepted, and they went through the inspection, tried to get a credit, then got ”cold feet” and walked away.

So we were the 2nd buyer to walk away.

So a question to those of you with more knowledge on this. The seller and realtor knew there were major issues with the home, but did not disclose them. Isn’t this illegal in Arizona? Perhaps they were hoping we would not do an inspection? Or that our inspector might miss something? Either way, we were misled. The listing says ”well maintained home” and the price is market value, but does not account for major issues.

There is now a third buyer who is a ”pending sale”. They will, no doubt, do the inspection, try to get a credit and then walk away also.

I think the seller is hoping for that emotional buyer that falls in love with the home and overlooks the problems.

What are your thoughts?

Bry911 - exactly. it’s like someone advertising a pretty car. then after the inspection you find out it has no engine or head gasket. So of course, the car is no longer worth the price they’re asking.

When you made your offer the seller had to fill out a sellers disclosure form. Usually the disclosure form asks if the roof has leaked, if it has been repaired, how old it is, . . . same with heating and AC, Water heater. They can't ask the seller to disclose an issue that has not yet arisen.

Did you read through the disclosure statements with your agent? Did the seller lie on the disclosure statement? Did he misrepresent the age of the roof or the age of the equipment in the home? Did you inspector find evidence that the roof had leaked? Did the hot water heater and heating and air conditioning units work at the time of the inspection?

If the inspection identified current issues and not just warnings of future issues and the seller did not disclose those findings he would be breaking the law, but he doesn't have to disclose that some inspector thinks the roof will leak the next time it rains.

Jennifer - there was no disclosure form. we asked seller’s realtor how old the roof was and he told us 10 years old. we later found out that the roof was 23 years old, according to the inspector. Seller and realtor claimed it was a misunderstanding. There was no disclosure form ever. Seller even knew the sliding door was broken at the house, and it was the inspector that told us about that too.

Inspector said the AC was in bad shape, as was the water heater. And the roof underlayment was worn away in several areas and due. The previous buyer that got an inspection would have discovered these things. But the info was never disclosed to us.

Also in our report was mention of cracks in the garage that indicated possible foundation issues. we did not investigate further as they seemed like normal cracks to us.

Was the house being sold "as is"?

States have different sales disclosure laws. You can check the requirements here for your state. Realtors are licensed by the state. So if you wish to complain, you will need to research that with the state.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-state-seller-disclosure-requirements

Arizona doesn’t have a statute for required disclosures. Instead the requirement stems from a 1986 case that set the precedent. It is basically the same requirement as everywhere else… the seller must disclose any known material latent (hidden) defects.

While there is no statute, the real estate commisioner has a rule that licensed realtors are required to disclose all material defects they know of. Because of that rule realtors will have a disclosure requirement in their listing contract and typically use some version of the form provided by the Arizona Association of Realtors.

If there was no disclosure form then something fishy is going on here. Your realtor should have advised you about this. I would call the listing realtor’s broker and ask that they provide you with a copy of the disclosure form. You really need to find out if they didn’t provide one or if your realtor just didn’t get it to you.

“Was the house being sold "as is"?”

All real estate sold in the U.S. is sold as-is. This is why seller’s use inspection clauses, but that doesn’t change disclosure requirements.

Adding as-is to a listing largely just scares away most buyers and encourages real estate investors to bid.

Again, cracks that indicated possible foundation issues is not a known defect.

I am questioning your realtor's due diligence more than the seller's at this point. I just googled the law in AZ and a seller does have 5 days to deliver the disclosure form to the buyer after acceptance of the offer.

In CA, where I sold real estate, a seller has 7 days. That said, when I listed a property for sale I had them complete the seller's disclosure form. When I represented a buyer I would look on the MLS to see if the seller's disclosure had been uploaded to the MLS. Sometimes new listings were not complete, but it was a red flag if the listing was a few days old and didn't have a disclosure attached. Under normal circumstances I would have requested the disclosure from the seller's agent prior to writing the offer.

Your agent is your representative in these transactions. Why didn't she/he ask for the disclosures or mention that they weren't available or when you should expect to get the disclosure.

The seller's agent is responsible for protecting the seller. When my niece bought her townhome last year the seller's agent allowed us to bring an inspector into the property to walk through the house and discuss the condition prior to my niece making an offer, but stipulated that their could be no written report or disclosure of findings to her or the seller.

Properties were selling in 48 hours with multiple offers and no contingencies.

You’re beating a dead horse. Old systems are not “major issues” or lack of disclosure, they are updates you want done. Just because you can’t afford to do the updates doesn’t mean the seller is unreasonable. Your post said the seller is willing to do $15,000 in credits/upgrades but you want $45,000. So it’s a difference of $30,000. The seller thinks someone else will be willing to accept that, why do you keep harping on this??? You made a decision to walk away, why do you need validation from Houzz? Sales fall through all the time.

I was in a similar situation to the OP. Seller wouldn't pay for all the repairs we thought the house needed. Roof etc. They offered a reduction that was less than what the repairs would cost. Guess what? We bought it anyways. Now, when I sip wine on my patio, listening to the ocean and watching the sun set, I haven't a care in the world.

In this case the disclosure responsibility is a moot point. The cost for an attorney to recover would be more than the damages. Had the OP bought the house and discovered these defects it might be a different discussion but the OP is only out the inspection monies and it is not worth pursuing.

As for disclosures, the norm in most areas is disclosure before the offer. Accepting an offer only to have a buyer withdraw because of information in the disclosure is bad for everyone.

As for the legally required dates… there is some debate on the enforceability of the purchase agreement before the disclosure. Courts have ruled both ways but that largely doesn’t even matter. What is the seller going to do… leave the house off the market for three years while the attorneys fight it out?

In 1997 we put in an offer on a lake house. Price was $105,000, we offered $95,000. House was 2 bed 1 bath. Part of the septic field was on the neighbors lot. The lot was 45' wide by about 60' in depth. There were lots of very large pine trees, some leaning on the house.

The woman who owned the home (it was her Mom's) lived in Arizona, she thought a lake house should go for more. We walked away from the house.

Found another home on same lake lot 108' x 450'. 3 bed, 1.5 bath $125,000. We offered $115,000 and our offer was accepted! Love living on the lake!

Much better deal!

The right home will find you, be patient.

Off topic, but, did you know not all vacation homes can be used to generate rental income?

Local governments typically set zoning and planning codes that affect how these properties can be used.

As such, it’s essential to know the relevant laws and rules in the specific Arizona locale you’re looking at before signing the papers.

Replacing a roof that does not leak or an AC unit or a water heater that still works is not a repair. It’s an upgrade.

Shadywillowfarm - again, this is why we paid for an inspector. they said the AC was in bad shape (it was 23 years old), roof was in bad shape (underlayment needed replacing, was 3 years past due) and water heater rusty. sorry but you’re wrong. these 3 are mandatory when buying a house. they’re not merely upgrades. the house was market value but the price did not account for these issues. so the house was not worth the price, without receiving a credit.

elcieg - yes, our realtor checked for us 3 times, including with the HOA. this was one of the essential questions we initially asked. we would never have put an offer on this home unless we had the ability to rent it out.

Bichonbabe— i understand what you’re saying, but this was an investment property. it did not make sense for us to spend upwards of $60k in repairs, in addition to future renovation costs. house was overpriced for the repairs needed. nothing had been done to this home since it was first built in 2000.

Shadywillowfarm - the house was a money pit. total repairs would’ve been approx $60k. as an investment property it was a bad investment. so we walked away, like the buyer before us.

OK, earlier you said it was a vacation home. Good luck with an investment property in this market! We sold all our rentals and are sitting it out for a bit.🙂

We had a buyer one time jnterested in a condo we had for sale. He had an inspection, found a few monor things then had another one as a second opinion. Deciding not to buy it, he sent us a letter stating he was a police officer and we had to pay for the inspections threatening us with legal action if we did not pay him.

The letter was full of spelling mistakes, 5 day timelines and obvious intimidation.

My FIL, MIL, SIL and BIL are real estate attorneys and my girlfriend is the baby of the family who teaches, needless to say i felt bad for the guy for what he unleashed upon himself.

We got his letter on Friday and by the time Tuesday came, he was apologizing. Smart man, he nearly lost his job for that tactic.

The 3rd buyer just walked away. Now they have a backup 4th buyer. Rinse repeat, rinse repeat lol. Seller is not disclosing the known issues to each buyer in the beginning.

*edited to clarify

" Everyone is paying for inspections because seller is not disclosing the issues in the beginning"

Everyone's paying for an inspection because they want an inspection before investing their money.....Even if he disclosed something, buyers should still get an inspection done, unless the market is so hot and you're very confident.

I looked at a cottage with a stunning deck and lake view, but a very atypical architecture that wouldn't suit most buyers, and in need of a lot of updating (roof, etc). He was asking $300K, I offered $250K and he laughed at me. It was on the market - with 3 different agents - for another 3+ years. Apparently he finally found an agent who told him the truth (or an agent he finally listened to) and did some decluttering, updating, and upgrading. It finally sold for almost $500K.

Good for him -- I would never have spent $500K for a cottage with any view, but he was willing and able to hang in for as long as he needed to in order to get what he wanted. I don't begrudge him that. Who knows......maybe he needed those years to come to terms with leaving.

https://housesigma.com/on/trout-creek-real-estate/571-ralph-s-road/home/b1DBW7RpAPAYqlAp 

Shame on the real estate agents for not letting potential buyers know that there have been offers that people later passed on.

@ katy3816 - I am curious about what your realtor said when you asked him/her why they did not raise any concerns over not getting the property disclosure statement or take any action when the realtor lied about the age of the roof.

It seems as though you want some sort of justice from this. You are angry that you fell in love with a property only to find out after spending money on the inspection that the property has an old roof and old systems.

If the owner lied about them on the disclosure this would be illegal, but we have determined that the only thing the seller has done is not provided the information prior to the deadline. That is not illegal. Lying about the age of the roof is illegal, but if it is not in writing you cannot prove that they lied.

I have thought back through my experience to see if I could come up with something that may satisfy your need for something to be done about this. I get it and I respect you outrage against injustice. I get angry when things are not fair or I feel duped. It is like they stole your money. They could have saved you the cost of the inspection by being honest and forthright about the condition/age of the roof and home systems. That would have been the right thing to do.

When I was selling real estate their was a new condo complex built in Mission Valley. The complex was built with underground parking. I had worked in Mission Valley and knew the valley flooded every time it rained. It is the floodplain for the San Diego River.

I asked the property agent about this when my client and I were looking at the condos. Her response was that the builder was working with the city to have the property removed from the floodplain. Oh yeah - that can be done. We just petition the city to have those lines moved. Really! I asked her if she could get that in writing for us. She couldn't.

I explained to the realtor that you can't just have a property removed from a flood plain. They would have to move the building out of the flood plain. I also explained to her that her statement was deceptive and that I would need to report this to the San Diego County Board of Realtors as an ethics violation. I did report the incident to the Board of Realtors and copied the agent and the property owner. They were on notice that there was now a written record of our conversation filed with the Board of Realtors and if someone bought based on this lie there was discoverable recourse.

It was the only time that I reported someone for unethical behavior.

You could do the same. You won't get your money back, but you may make the realtor think twice about lying about the age of the roof and at least you have taken some action against the person who tried to dupe you.

Depending on how angry you are there are additional actions that you can take. Rate the sellers realtor on Zillow and explain that although they followed the law they didn't follow common practice with providing the property disclosure and that you were mislead when the agent told you the age of the roof. You can go to the selling agents Facebook page and comment on your experience. Google the selling agents name and go to all the sites he is listed under and make comments where possible. As a Realtor your reputation is your passport to wealth. Get a bad reputation and you might as well find another way to make a living.

" Shame on the real estate agents for not letting potential buyers know that there have been offers that people later passed on. "

How do you know they didn't? When I was house shopping, I looked at houses that others had passed on, or where the owner had declined a previous offer. What's important to one person (and may have caused them to walk away) may not be important to me - and vice versa. My agent not only told me, but told me why.