The OP was advised by someone with a duty to know the permitting process that permits were not necessary. Noting the work was done without a permit (which is what I would do), so that the buyer can fully investigate, would be more than sufficient. You are typically not required to investigate a disclosure (in this case whether or not a permit was required for your renovation). I specifically stated what I would do, which is not a lie. Please don't start drama, this is someone with a real problem and not some theoretical debate. You're suggesting the guy lie on the disclosure sheet. In this particular case, much of the work done was structural and couldn't be fixed with Band-Aids or after the fact changes. When feasible, I suspect remediation could be possible and delinquent permits obtained and cleared. The buyer sued and the result was that all of the unpermitted work was demo'd and redone properly, at the seller's expense. I know of a case where a seller failed to disclose that a substantial remodel had been unpermitted. And even if not covered in a specific question, to be forthcoming about disclosing any condition or circumstance that could affect a potential buyer's assessment of value or state of the building. While in general homes are sold strictly "as is", sellers here are required by law to answer a series of standard questions. In my state, the standard sellers' disclosure form includes a question on this very point- if to the best of the sellers' knowledge any work had been done on the house that was not in compliance with building codes and permit requirements.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |