All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

 You might be waiting for a while... thats if you are waiting for a 15% price drop in San Francisco. 

:)

You seriously aren't suggesting that the price of 1 condo in San Francisco is sufficient to determine where the economy or real estate market is heading are you?

Properties being sold 'as is' can be problematic especially if the seller is somewhat cryptic or tight lipped about just exactly what the issues are with the property. Getting the inspection to estimate repairs is a way to go but you probably want to be more concrete and firm on what actual repair cost will be as much as feasibly possible. 

You cannot and should not make an offer on a property (most certainly with an 'as is' property) without knowing with a fair amount of certainty what the ARV and total repair estimate are/will be; you may also factor in your target profit margin.

The way you are phrasing the question suggest some emotional attachment to the deal. If the seller is aware of what both the repair cost and ARV for a property is but want you to make an unreasonably high offer that makes the deal unprofitable for you - simply find another deal.

You often make money on most rentals when you buy (based on what market you are in).

If you (and the crew) were to mismanage things, the guarantor can then be on the hook with the bank and possibly risk his assets. This can be extremely risky.

He already stated that he did not utilize an appraiser. His buyer's appraiser however discovered the error but he relied on county, seller, realtor etc. when he bought it as a foreclosure from the bank.

Actually misrepresentation by the bank with deeper pockets and resources may be worse than misrepresentation by a private person. 

We also do not know for a fact that seller never knew of actual square footage despite county's recording error. The problem with the seller (private or not) being able to disclaim any liabilities from providing bad information is that there will be instances where the seller can deliberately exploit that loophole to defraud the public.

The issue of whether the misrepresentation was deliberate or not usually may for instance only matter in determining if the Realtor gets disciplined by the board or if someone gets charged with a crime but that does not mean buyer can't sue. The liability is not contingent on the misrepresentation being deliberate. Honest mistakes can still be just as costly.

Also buyers are often told to verify actual condition of foreclosure properties so as to better estimate repair; the square footage of a property is not exactly a property condition. A foreclosure property may miss a door or window but properties just don't mysteriously shrink in size because they are in foreclosure. 

The fact that the buyer may have had limited access to verify actual property specifics only gives them a legitimate reason to rely on seller info. The seller can get in a brawl with the county if they want to but you can't always expect to pass every buck of fault to the buyer.

Is that an excuse? We were too busy to get accurate information about the property for the buyer? You think that will fly with the jury? 

You can't go around deliberately defrauding buyers with bad information then claim they had the burden to verify. 

There are hundreds of case law where in real estate transactions the buyer has a right to rely on seller representations and has no particular obligation to independently verify seller representation and is entitled to damages for any loss that arise from a material representation despite the fact that every joker tries to disclaim liability for providing erroneous information.

I can tell you that lawsuits have resulted from discrepancies lesser than 300 sqft resulting in monetary damages. You just have to find the case law. It actually takes some work to bungle 300 sqft in recording error on a SFR.

If it was a foreclosure, it sounds like you have both a bank and Realtor possibly involved? If you relied on any information they gave you in regards to the square footage, there may be something. Everyone will always claim you had a responsibility to verify the information but the seller also has a responsibility to ensure that information they provide to the buyer is accurate.

This is an example of a case where the buyer sued the real estate agent and the brokerage firm for some variance of 155sqft in the MLS listing. The specifics of your case will determine if you can sue or not.

Its not just the contract. The county will very likely throw its hand in the air and if like most counties, will claim it disclaimed any and all liability on its website and that the information is provided to the public for tax information only and not for reliance by real estate investors. Either way it sounds like his buyer's appraiser discovered what his or his initial seller or his lender's appraiser did not. If he only relied on the county's data... then he indeed is f*&%#d.

This is an interesting case.. but you seem to be dismissing the most important element of the case... the county's error. Before you go after the VA appraiser, you may want to look at the initial transaction (when you bought the property).

It sounds like you were sold the property at a price higher than what is should have been if the county had recorded correct square footage. That seems like a clear cut business tort. Someone somewhere made an error, that error led to an incorrect valuation that in turn led to you paying a higher price than you probably would have. An error which your buyer is using to undercut your sales price.

Between the person who sold you the property and the county appraiser's office, someone owes you money. You want to explore that angle before going after the VA appraiser. They may of course try to give you the run around and you may have to sue someone but you seem to be skipping the most important element of the case.