All Forum Posts by: Richie Thomas

@Caleb Heimsoth thanks for your reply.  It makes sense that the inspector wouldn't move anything around (for liability reasons, among other things?).  But if this is the case, then is it fair to say that neither the inspector nor the buyer's agent could be held liable for a defect which is obscured by the seller's possessions?  And if so, what evidence could an agent give which would bolster their defense that they couldn't have known of the problem?  Seems hard to expect a reasonable person (even a professional) to find a defect which has been obscured by the seller.  For example, a large crack in a basement wall which is covered by a bookshelf or something.  At the same time, without photographic evidence that the defect was obscured, it also seems like it's one person's word against another's.

Apologies if "faulty" isn't the right term.  As you mentioned, if you get a good inspector then anything they miss isn't likely to be major.  The part of that statement I'm most curious about is "if you get a good inspector".  As with most professions, I imagine the quality of home inspectors varies from poor to great, and it's hard to know in advance which one any given inspector is.  If it were easy, everyone would just hire the great ones, right? :-)

My goal is to ballpark-estimate the risk of the worst-case scenario, where a realtor hires a bad inspector and they miss something non-trivial.  By this I mean, approximating how likely this is to happen, and what's the financial exposure if it were to happen.  I'm guessing that "non-trivial" could mean anywhere from $5,000 to $500,000 depending on the nature of the problem that the inspector missed.  And based on your answer, I get the sense that the likelihood of an inspector missing something of this magnitude is slim.  Are both of those last 2 statements accurate?

I'm trying to learn more about the real estate industry by studying for my California real estate license.  I'm currently learning about conveyances and disclosures, specifically the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement.  In my study materials, I read the following statement:

Based on the above, it seems like the inspection process is both time-consuming to do manually for each of the agent's listed properties, and super-important for the agent to perform correctly from a liability standpoint:

a) If the agent marks "NO" (as in the property does not fall within any of the listed hazard zones) when a "YES" would be more appropriate, the transaction could be cancelled by the buyer due to mis-representation of the property.

b) If the agent marks "YES" when a "NO" may be more appropriate, the buyer may be needlessly scared away and the deal could collapse for no reason.

I'd love the opinions of any real estate agents in this forum on this topic:

1) How much time do you spend on these disclosures for a single transaction, in terms of both due diligence/research/looking up records and also filling out the required disclosure forms?

2) If you multiply this amount of time by the number of transactions you do in a given month, about how much time does the inspection cost you per month?

3) Have you tried any software tools which make this task easier, and how easy/hard were they to use?

EDIT- the reason I was led to believe these disclosures are painful from an agent's perspective is because of the following excerpt in my CA licensee study materials:

Seems to me that there's significant risk on both sides:

1) If the agent marks "NO" (as in the property does not fall within any of the listed hazard zones) when a "YES" would be more appropriate, the transaction could be cancelled by the buyer.

2) If the agent marks "YES" when a "NO" may be more appropriate, the buyer may be needlessly scared away and the deal could collapse for no reason.

Is the above correct?

I'm in the process of studying for my California real estate license. Not for the purpose of becoming an agent (I'm a software engineer by trade), but rather for the purpose of learning more about the real estate industry, with a view to perhaps starting a business tailored to the industry.

I recently learned about the inspections that a buyer's agent must conduct in order to make their client aware of any defects in the property (cracks in the foundation, mold and mildew, etc.).  I'm wondering how this process works from the agent's perspective:

1) Does the agent hire a licensed home inspector to come vet the property?  Or do they usually perform this inspection themselves?  

2) Does the inspector need the home vacated in order to properly conduct the inspection, i.e. with all the previous occupant's belongings moved out for easier access?

3) If the agent hires an inspector, what price range should the agent expect the inspector's fees to fall in?

4) Have you ever experienced a faulty inspection, i.e. where the inspector missed something?  How big a problem would it be if they did so, in terms of financial impact / wasted time / etc.?

5) How long do these inspections usually take, from the time the inspector is hired until they deliver their report?

Hope that's not too many questions at once, and thanks in advance for your opinions.  This forum has really helped me level up my skills in this complex industry.

I'm in the process of studying for my California real estate license. Not for the purpose of becoming an agent (I'm a software engineer by trade), but rather for the purpose of learning more about the real estate industry, with a view to perhaps starting a business tailored to the industry.

I'm currently learning about conveyances and disclosures, specifically the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement.  It strikes me that discovering whether a property is in a natural hazard zone might be a task which is both: 

  a) time-consuming to do manually for each of the agent's listed properties, and 

  b) super-important for the agent to perform correctly, from a liability standpoint.

I'd love the opinions of any real estate agents in this forum on this topic:

  1) How much time do you spend on these disclosures for a single transaction, in terms of both due diligence/research/looking up records and also filling out the required disclosure forms?

  2) How many transactions do you do in a given month?

  3) Are there any software tools which make this task easier, and have you used them before, and how easy/hard were they to use?

Yeah I agree, it seems safest to just disclose by default.  Thanks for your quick responses!

Thanks @Dylan Vargas.

So to confirm that I understand you: if the real estate agent is also the principal buyer, they don't have to disclose that they are an agent?

I ask because I'm seeing information elsewhere which contradicts the above statement:

  If the agent is a Realtor - a member of the local, state and National Association of Realtors - it is a requirement of the Code of Ethics that a Realtor disclose their Realtor status when buying or selling for their own account.

Source- https://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/do_the_real_estate_agent_buy_a_property_has_to_dis-274906

I'm an aspiring real estate investor who is taking an online California real estate license prep course. My goal in earning my license is to do things like obtain access to the MLS, lock box access so I can tour properties on my own, etc.

I'd also like to be able to generate leads for properties, probably through an online advertising strategy. My website and online ads would have messaging saying something like "We buy distressed properties. Contact us today."  There will be more info than that, of course, but hopefully you get the idea. 

However, while reading my exam prep materials today, I see the following:

    "Anyone who is not a California licensed broker may not legally solicit California residents."
    Source-

I know the requirements to become a broker are much more strict than the requirements to become a real estate agent (more hours of class time, a 2-year full-time industry employment requirement, etc.).  Therefore, the fact that the courses uses the term "broker" here (as opposed to "agent") has me concerned.

Question- Does the above quote mean that I'll have to become a full-fledged California broker before I can place the kinds of ads I mentioned above?  Or can I do so as a simple real estate agent?

Note- I will of course be disclosing the fact that I'm an agent to any potential sellers when acting as a buyer/investor. I'm aware of the ethical and legal rules that come up when agents buy properties from sellers, and I fully intend on operating above-board and making all required disclosures.