All Forum Posts by: Mike Adams

Thanks, @Jacob Sherman. Seems like he might be intentionally skirting licensing/insurance requirements to me. We're going to skip this one.

Thanks to all who responded, your advice is truly appreciated!

Thanks, @Brittany Kuschel!

Valid point. We really think the property is amazing, but the risks with the home may just not be worth it. FWIW, I found out that only about 16 of MN's 87 counties have adopted the state building code... :/

Thanks, all. 

A few additional notes to answer some of the questions:

RE: "All the same permits and inspections should be required whether the home owner does the work or not." -

...this doesn't seem to be the case where the state building code wasn't adopted. The only permits required are for septic, general build, well and electric - and of those, only septic and electric are inspected. Per the county, they do nothing to inspect the building - they only verify things like setbacks, impervious surface %. That's why we are concerned...it seems like someone in these areas without state code adoption can just build a home as a homeowner, cut the corners of insurance/licensing by doing the work themselves, not have most of that work inspected, then turn around and sell as new construction instead of previously owned. 

I can't find any information on occupancy requirements prior to sale for an owner-builder in this state, though it's well-documented in some other states like Texas so I'd be surprised if no guidelines exist. 

Hey, all. Question for you experts...

Can a tradesperson build their own home in Minnesota, live in it for several months, and then sell as new construction? We are looking at a property that was being built by someone to be their own home but now a few months after completion, they have listed it as new construction. The sales agent said he's built and sold other homes through her, so at first, it seemed like he is more like a GC who does this on the reg, but now it sounds like he and his family used the property last summer for family gatherings, etc. and actually lived there for awhile. 

So this doesn't seem right to me...if I see "new construction" as a buyer, I:

a) assume the home has never been occupied, and

b) that licensed contractors were used to build all aspects to state code, to offset the lack of required inspections.

I know homeowners can do their own work, but shouldn't that imply occupancy and be listed as previously owned home vs. new construction? Otherwise, it seems like a loop hole to avoid licensure, insurance, cap gains, etc...which feels deceptive.

Am I wrong here? Anyone been in this situation? The home looks beautiful, but ya know...looks can be deceiving. We were going to buy this as a rental prop.

Thanks!