OT: More Electrical

On Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:50:56 AM UTC-7, Larry Blanchard wrote:

> We're selling our mobile home and a potential buyer had it inspected.
> One of the things he said should be done was to install GFCI outlets in
> the outlets near the kitchen sink. OK, that made sense.
[but the box gets VERY crowded]

For standard size electric boxes, you can get extensions (it'll add an inch
of depth, so the box will stick out of the wall a bit). You can also trace
the circuit back to the main breaker and put your GFI in the breaker
box instead of next to the sink. It's not THAT far to walk to reset
it, I trust.
Either way, you aren't stuck fitting everything into the tight OEM box.

Swingman wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 9:11 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Screw it. Leave the outlet alone and put in a GFCI circuit breaker.
>>
>> Echo that. This really does not have to be more complicated than
>> that.
>
>
> IF .... and it can be a big one, you can find one that will fit in the
> service panel.
>

It can be if you have an odd ball panel, but for the overwhelming majority
of residential panels, the big box stores or a local electrical supplier
will have a GFI breaker to fit.

> The other option is to negotiate the sale price to let the buyer take
> care of it.
>

Yup - a very good alternative.


> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving
> targets, I reserve the final decision on whether I will address an
> issue a third party inspector finds if the work was originally done
> to code.

Absolutely. Home inspectors frequently default to current code and create
problems that don't need to exist. Grandfathered things don't need to be
raised as problems. I've seen home inspectors flag the lack of Arc Fault
Breakers in 20 year old homes. In NY, there is no requirement to retrofit
existing installations - even if the house is up for sale. But - it makes
them look like they're on their game, and if the seller is not aware, they
can eat some very unecessary costs.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>> inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>> negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>> parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is
>> bound by the results and can back out of the deal.
>
> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
> are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
> sales deals.

Of course, if it's on TV, it must be true. The only thing more true is if
it's on the internet...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:18:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Of course, if it's on TV, it must be true. The only thing more true is if
>it's on the internet...

You may be right of course, but of all the stations I watch, HGTV
seems to be the more genuine, at least to me. I've occasionally been
known to be naive, but I don't think I'm all that gullible. Who knows?
Maybe the two words are interchangeable in this case.

On 3/25/2012 12:50 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> As long as we're talking about electricity:
>
> We're selling our mobile home and a potential buyer had it inspected.
> One of the things he said should be done was to install GFCI outlets in
> the outlets near the kitchen sink. OK, that made sense. And I'd done it
> before in another room to make the model RR safer. So I anticipated no
> problems.
>
> Boy, was I an optimist! First of all, mobile homes use (or did when mine
> was built) some strange outlets designed for quick installation. They
> look like:
>
> <http://mobilehomepartsstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
> Screen=PROD&Product_Code=230115&Category_Code=SR>
>
> (Click on the picture and look at the other views.)
>
> In this case, the outlet with the line connection was in the middle of
> the string so there was a 3rd set of wires crammed into that fixture.
> I'm not sure that was kosher but it's many years too late to complain.
>
> So now I'm trying to get 3 very old and stiff connection sets into one
> new box. There's not a lot of slack so I'm working very close to the
> wall. Trying to get 2 of those solid 10 or 12 gauge wires under a screw
> on the GFCI outlet is #$%! impossible - at least for me. I spent 3 or 4
> hours yesterday and got nothing accomplished except frustration.
>
> What I'm wondering about is getting a deeper box and wire nutting the two
> load circuits and the 3 ground wires together so that I only have one
> wire to go under each screw. I might even go to 14 gauge for that couple
> of inches of wire so it'd be more flexible. And maybe extend the line
> wires with the same stuff.
>
> Would this meet code? Is it advisable? Or should I just call the
> electrician?
>

Might it not be easier to install GFCI breakers on the affected circuits?
Not cheaper, easier. My folks had a mobile home and the bathroom and
kitchen counter circuits were protected this way and if done properly it
should meet code requirements. As you say, older mobile home wiring tends
to be total crap and is not meant for repair or modification and changing a
light or receptacle can be a nightmare let alone trying to install an
extra-deep device in a shallow box.

Keith Nuttle wrote:

>
> If you read the fine print on the the third party inspection, they are
> only liable for those things that an observant person should see, and
> nothing that they may have to exert themselves to find.

Never saw any language like that in any agreement with a home inspector
around here. In fact, they crawl everywhere that is accessable - even with
difficulty. In crawl spaces, attics, etc. They know and understand
plumbing, electrical and building codes, best practices, etc. Far from what
an observant person should see. Maybe NC does a terrible job of certifying
these guys. NY has very tough certification requirements.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:42:13 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Most folks are excessively timid when it comes to negotiating and will
>use any excuse they can to get out of doing so.

I guess that's to be expected, especially so since one of the shows I
was referring to is called "Property Virgins". Quite of few of these
"virgins" are so timid and scared that the stress of the process has
them weeping on camera.

On 3/25/2012 9:11 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>>
>> Screw it. Leave the outlet alone and put in a GFCI circuit breaker.
>
> Echo that. This really does not have to be more complicated than that.


IF .... and it can be a big one, you can find one that will fit in the
service panel.

The other option is to negotiate the sale price to let the buyer take
care of it.

I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving targets, I
reserve the final decision on whether I will address an issue a third
party inspector finds if the work was originally done to code.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Dave wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2012 13:10:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife
>> says, this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.
>
> Yup. And adding to the hassle factor of going to a new home is the
> stress of moving all your belongings. Apparently, it's fact that
> moving is one of the most stressful things that someone can do.

In my younger years I had moved a lot. The life of a GI, and then getting
out and settling into a couple of short term places before settling into a
home. Divorced, moved a couple more times again after that, and finally
settled in again 27 years ago. Back then, it didn't seem to bother me too
much. A few cases of beer, some more beer for folks that might have helped
me, and life was on. Now - the thought of moving is bigger than the thought
of having another kid - and that's big...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 3/26/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
> [email protected]:
>
>> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving targets, I
>> reserve the final decision on whether I will address an issue a third
>> party inspector finds if the work was originally done to code.
>
> That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of my house
> is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word. At least, if you
> want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.
>

I have sold many, many houses, Han. In most locations a COO is only
issued once, and _third party inspectors_ are not in control of that.

That is the realm of the municipality who dictates which building codes
are followed for their inspections that the COO is predicated on.

You mileage may differ where you live, but that is certainly not the
case in many, if not most, places.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> As long as we're talking about electricity:
>
> We're selling our mobile home and a potential buyer had it inspected.
> One of the things he said should be done was to install GFCI outlets
> in the outlets near the kitchen sink. OK, that made sense. And I'd
> done it before in another room to make the model RR safer. So I
> anticipated no problems.
>
> Boy, was I an optimist! First of all, mobile homes use (or did when
> mine was built) some strange outlets designed for quick installation.
> They look like:
>
> <http://mobilehomepartsstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
> Screen=PROD&Product_Code=230115&Category_Code=SR>
>
> (Click on the picture and look at the other views.)
>
> In this case, the outlet with the line connection was in the middle of
> the string so there was a 3rd set of wires crammed into that fixture.
> I'm not sure that was kosher but it's many years too late to complain.
>
> So now I'm trying to get 3 very old and stiff connection sets into one
> new box. There's not a lot of slack so I'm working very close to the
> wall. Trying to get 2 of those solid 10 or 12 gauge wires under a
> screw on the GFCI outlet is #$%! impossible - at least for me. I
> spent 3 or 4 hours yesterday and got nothing accomplished except
> frustration.
>
> What I'm wondering about is getting a deeper box and wire nutting the
> two load circuits and the 3 ground wires together so that I only have
> one wire to go under each screw. I might even go to 14 gauge for
> that couple of inches of wire so it'd be more flexible. And maybe
> extend the line wires with the same stuff.
>
> Would this meet code? Is it advisable? Or should I just call the
> electrician?

Screw it. Leave the outlet alone and put in a GFCI circuit breaker.

On 3/27/2012 6:52 AM, Han wrote:

> I only remember that the lack of an original, real COO was a problem
> (that we overcame) with both refi's and the sale. Whether the
> railing/balustrade was a COO problem or required for the insurance of the
> buyer, I can't remember.

The deck should have nothing to do with occupancy.

We had never applied for a permit for the deck,
> because at the time, a structure that was NOT attached to the house
> didn't require it. So we just built it an inch or so off the house. And
> it was a real nice deck, I assure you!


That's strange, because around here folks don't even necessarily keep a
copy of their COO. AAMOF, most of the home owner's here would not even
know what it was if it bit them.

All it takes is a call to the issuing authority, which is usually simply
checked by the company providing the title insurance prior to closing.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

whit3rd wrote:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:50:56 AM UTC-7, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> We're selling our mobile home and a potential buyer had it inspected.
>> One of the things he said should be done was to install GFCI outlets in
>> the outlets near the kitchen sink. OK, that made sense.
> [but the box gets VERY crowded]
>
> For standard size electric boxes, you can get extensions (it'll add an inch
> of depth, so the box will stick out of the wall a bit). You can also trace
> the circuit back to the main breaker and put your GFI in the breaker
> box instead of next to the sink. It's not THAT far to walk to reset
> it, I trust.
> Either way, you aren't stuck fitting everything into the tight OEM box.

That was my thought. I used ground Fault circuit breakers for my pool
equipment in a former life. They get pricey for double pole like
that, but for a kitchen outlet they are not so much, and MUCH cheaper
than a house call by an electrician.

--
Gerald Ross

Prune: A plum that has seen better days.

On 3/26/2012 8:04 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>> inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>> negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>> parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound by
>> the results and can back out of the deal.
>
> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
> are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
> sales deals.

that is their basic purpose. We do that on every one we purchase, just
for that reason.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 26 Mar 2012 13:10:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife says,
>this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.

Yup. And adding to the hassle factor of going to a new home is the
stress of moving all your belongings. Apparently, it's fact that
moving is one of the most stressful things that someone can do.
==========================================================================
Yep. Before the age of 17, I had lived in 5 countries and 6 different
states. It is no wonder that I haven't been more than 150 miles from home in
over 25 years.

On 3/26/2012 8:40 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:gfGdnasF-fls8-
> [email protected]:
>
>> DISCLAIMER: I detest most RA's, think they are a pox on the industry,
>> and take delight in pointing out their shortcomings to them, in front of
>> their buyer preferably, when NOT performing the job they are grossly
>> overpaid to do ... and their lack of attention to the COO is one thing
>> that most often gives me the opportunity to enjoy that satisfaction.<eg>
>
> RA?? My first purchase was with a nice attorney to advise us, and he was
> worth what we paid him, especially since we were fisrt time buyers in
> Nassau county, Long Island, where anyone not using an attorney is a fool.
> I can't remember whether we had an attorney on the second buy, in Bergen
> County, NJ, where it was less common to have attorneys for real estate Txs.
> Don't know whether that holds now.

Lawyers in a real estate transaction are extremely rare around here, but
almost always cheaper if all you need is the contract and deed drawn up.

As a rule, RA's make 6% off the seller on the sale of house here in
Texas ... that's $60,000 on a million dollar home. They get sassy and
self important after doing that once or twice, and often need to be
brought down a peg or two. :)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 3/26/2012 8:45 AM, Han wrote:

> Well, if I were selling my home, I wouldn't want the inspector hired by
> the buyers to damage the home just trying to find something.

An ever present danger, and something that has actually happened to me
with a brand new house ... third party inspector decided he needed to
determine the slope on a shower pan in an upstairs bath, stopped up the
shower drain to do so, then neglected to drain the shower, or completely
turn off the water. Left on all night.

It was so obvious and egregious that the buyer paid for the repairs
without blinking an eye (besides, there was a backup contract on the
house and he wanted it, bad) ... I don't know what kind of deal he made
with the inspector.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 3/26/2012 6:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2012 13:10:30 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife
>>> says, this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.
>>
>> Yup. And adding to the hassle factor of going to a new home is the
>> stress of moving all your belongings. Apparently, it's fact that
>> moving is one of the most stressful things that someone can do.
>
> In my younger years I had moved a lot. The life of a GI, and then getting
> out and settling into a couple of short term places before settling into a
> home. Divorced, moved a couple more times again after that, and finally
> settled in again 27 years ago. Back then, it didn't seem to bother me too
> much. A few cases of beer, some more beer for folks that might have helped
> me, and life was on. Now - the thought of moving is bigger than the thought
> of having another kid - and that's big...


First thing we did back then was ice down the beer cooler; next thing
was hook up the stereo; then the moving and unpacking could began in
earnest.

I'll never forget my first washer and dryer ... that one purchase was
clearly a mile marker at the end of a care free life ... no more one
pickup, and a couple of friends, to move.

Now look at us ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> We had that fairly easy since we had several months for the move and a
> Plymouth Caravan to do it with when the Hudson River tolls were still
> affordable.

I had a _Dodge_ Caravan and my neighbor bought the similar Plymouth
_Voyager_.

--

Michael Karas
Carousel Design Solutions
http://www.carousel-design.com

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
[email protected]:

> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving targets, I
> reserve the final decision on whether I will address an issue a third
> party inspector finds if the work was originally done to code.

That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of my house
is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word. At least, if you
want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 3/26/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving
>>> targets, I reserve the final decision on whether I will address an
>>> issue a third party inspector finds if the work was originally done
>>> to code.
>>
>> That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of my
>> house is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word. At
>> least, if you want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.
>>
>
> I have sold many, many houses, Han. In most locations a COO is only
> issued once, and _third party inspectors_ are not in control of that.
>
> That is the realm of the municipality who dictates which building
> codes are followed for their inspections that the COO is predicated
> on.
>
> You mileage may differ where you live, but that is certainly not the
> case in many, if not most, places.

Only relating my experience in Long Island, Karl. We had already bought
our new home, and the sale of the old one was going slowly. The final
objection was that the deck my wife and I had built didn't have a
properly balustered railing. We had 4x4 posts with a top railing at the
right height, but with 4"x4" plastic covered wire mesh between the posts.
IMO it was nicer than fancy balusters, because you could see through.
But it needed properly spaced balusters, so I made and brought over wood
1 1/2" square cut to the height, and screwed them on. Case closed. This
was in 1998, and the only thing I know is that the new owners dug up the
nice flower yard my wife had made around the house and put in lawn ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 3/26/2012 7:09 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 3/26/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving
>>>>> targets, I reserve the final decision on whether I will address an
>>>>> issue a third party inspector finds if the work was originally
>>>>> done to code.
>>>>
>>>> That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of
>>>> my house is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word.
>>>> At least, if you want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have sold many, many houses, Han. In most locations a COO is only
>>> issued once, and _third party inspectors_ are not in control of
>>> that.
>>>
>>> That is the realm of the municipality who dictates which building
>>> codes are followed for their inspections that the COO is predicated
>>> on.
>>>
>>> You mileage may differ where you live, but that is certainly not the
>>> case in many, if not most, places.
>>
>> Only relating my experience in Long Island, Karl. We had already
>> bought our new home, and the sale of the old one was going slowly.
>> The final objection was that the deck my wife and I had built didn't
>> have a properly balustered railing. We had 4x4 posts with a top
>> railing at the right height, but with 4"x4" plastic covered wire mesh
>> between the posts. IMO it was nicer than fancy balusters, because you
>> could see through. But it needed properly spaced balusters, so I made
>> and brought over wood 1 1/2" square cut to the height, and screwed
>> them on. Case closed. This was in 1998, and the only thing I know
>> is that the new owners dug up the nice flower yard my wife had made
>> around the house and put in lawn ...
>
> As below, the 4" rule on balusters is a safety issue for children
> something I would normally address without question, however.
>
> I'll go back to my original contention. A _third party inspector_ in
> most real estate transactions is hired by one of the two parties to an
> anticipated sale of a home, thus the terminology.
>
> The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
> inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
> negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
> parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound
> by the results and can back out of the deal.
>
> I advise and welcome buyers to have a third party inspection done by
> an inspector of their choice, but I always let the buyer know upfront
> that I reserve the option to not address any issues I feel are
> invalid, and they may be subject to negotiation.
>
> Why?
>
> There is an excellent reason the electrical arguments are so long and
> convoluted around here ... Because no two inspectors will ever agree,
> nor will the results of two inspections coincide identically ... IOW,
> it is most always a subjective process and one of the parties must
> finally put their foot down.
>
> That is not to say that I will shoot myself in the foot over something
> like refusing to put AFCI's in a bedroom circuit of a house that, when
> built, it was not required.
>
> Normally, and I state this upfront with regard to third party
> inspections: "We will discuss and address any and all valid safety
> issues, but all others are negotiable."

I fully agree with regard to the 3rd party inspector. Do you also
suggest that sellers get an inspection at their expense before putting
the home on the market?

We had several issues with the house. One was that there was no
previously issued CO, even after we had done remodeling, so there were
issues about "grandfathering". Another was the antiquated oil-fired
steam heat (albeit with fairly modern - then - oilgun), etc, etc. I
guess, I'm still resentful for the last minute extra work I had to do.

I've only bought 2 homes in my lifetime, and sold 1 myself, excluding my
parents' home from the list (sale was easy, but regrets about the buyers
and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife says,
this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>>inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>>negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>>parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound by
>>the results and can back out of the deal.
>
> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
> are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
> sales deals.

That is a very important reason. Sometimes things come up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 26 Mar 2012 13:11:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>That is a very important reason. Sometimes things come up.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of people just changing their
> minds, not because of any specific practical reason.

First time home buyer. Inspection report after contract was signed says
water stains possibly due to water coming in from concrete around the house
(no drainage), also the neighborhood is overrun with kids going to and
coming out of school. Home owner refuses buyer's inspection when asked can
he come over right after a heavy rain storm. Sale canceled.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 26 Mar 2012 13:10:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife says,
>>this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.
>
> Yup. And adding to the hassle factor of going to a new home is the
> stress of moving all your belongings. Apparently, it's fact that
> moving is one of the most stressful things that someone can do.

We had that fairly easy since we had several months for the move, and a
Plymouth Caravan to do it with when the Hudson River tolls were still
affordable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:gfGdnasF-fls8-
[email protected]:

> DISCLAIMER: I detest most RA's, think they are a pox on the industry,
> and take delight in pointing out their shortcomings to them, in front of
> their buyer preferably, when NOT performing the job they are grossly
> overpaid to do ... and their lack of attention to the COO is one thing
> that most often gives me the opportunity to enjoy that satisfaction. <eg>

RA?? My first purchase was with a nice attorney to advise us, and he was
worth what we paid him, especially since we were fisrt time buyers in
Nassau county, Long Island, where anyone not using an attorney is a fool.
I can't remember whether we had an attorney on the second buy, in Bergen
County, NJ, where it was less common to have attorneys for real estate Txs.
Don't know whether that holds now.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 3/26/2012 9:04 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>>> inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>>> negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>>> parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is
>>> bound by the results and can back out of the deal.
>>
>> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
>> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
>> are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
>> sales deals.
>
> I have sold several houses with third party inspectors in Indiana and
> in North Carolina. While they will pick up thing that you could find
> if you look, many times when they can not find anything major, they
> start to nitpick.
>
> As an example we sold a house in Holly Springs about 10 years ago,
> that the inspector said the outside faucet was leaking. All it needed
> was to tighten the nut on it. The buyer made a big deal out of it.
>
> My niece bought a house a couple of years ago. Things that the third
> party inspector missed was an undersized heating unit the would not
> heat the house, and an outside wall full of rot that had to be
> replaced.
>
> If you read the fine print on the the third party inspection, they are
> only liable for those things that an observant person should see, and
> nothing that they may have to exert themselves to find.

Well, if I were selling my home, I wouldn't want the inspector hired by
the buyers to damage the home just trying to find something. That having
been said, I'd like to expand that observant person so he is also
knowledgeable. And the buyer should know in advance what the inspector
can and will do. If the buyer is himself NOT knowledgeable, he should
also hire a good real estate attorney, whether or not that is a moronic
contradiction in terms for said attorney.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 3/26/2012 8:40 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:gfGdnasF-fls8-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> DISCLAIMER: I detest most RA's, think they are a pox on the
>>> industry, and take delight in pointing out their shortcomings to
>>> them, in front of their buyer preferably, when NOT performing the
>>> job they are grossly overpaid to do ... and their lack of attention
>>> to the COO is one thing that most often gives me the opportunity to
>>> enjoy that satisfaction.<eg>
>>
>> RA?? My first purchase was with a nice attorney to advise us, and he
>> was worth what we paid him, especially since we were fisrt time
>> buyers in Nassau county, Long Island, where anyone not using an
>> attorney is a fool. I can't remember whether we had an attorney on
>> the second buy, in Bergen County, NJ, where it was less common to
>> have attorneys for real estate Txs. Don't know whether that holds
>> now.
>
> Lawyers in a real estate transaction are extremely rare around here,
> but almost always cheaper if all you need is the contract and deed
> drawn up.
>
> As a rule, RA's make 6% off the seller on the sale of house here in
> Texas ... that's $60,000 on a million dollar home. They get sassy and
> self important after doing that once or twice, and often need to be
> brought down a peg or two. :)

You mean what by RA? Realtor (agent)? Appraiser? Used car salesman?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 3/26/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>
>> You mean what by RA? Realtor (agent)? Appraiser? Used car salesman?
>>
> Realtor, aka 'real estate agent', aka 'next of kin' to your latter above.

Thanks, Karl! Do you have an app to read newsgroups on the iPad? What I
have for my iPhone stinks.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Only relating my experience in Long Island, Karl. We had already
>> bought our new home, and the sale of the old one was going slowly.
>> The final objection was that the deck my wife and I had built didn't
>> have a properly balustered railing. We had 4x4 posts with a top
>> railing at the right height, but with 4"x4" plastic covered wire mesh
>> between the posts. IMO it was nicer than fancy balusters, because you
>> could see through. But it needed properly spaced balusters, so I made
>> and brought over wood 1 1/2" square cut to the height, and screwed
>> them on. Case closed. This was in 1998, and the only thing I know
>> is that the new owners dug up the nice flower yard my wife had made
>> around the house and put in lawn ...
>
> Nothing you just detailed there Han, supports your statement about a
> house requiring a CO and being subject to a third party inspector.

I only remember that the lack of an original, real COO was a problem
(that we overcame) with both refi's and the sale. Whether the
railing/balustrade was a COO problem or required for the insurance of the
buyer, I can't remember. We had never applied for a permit for the deck,
because at the time, a structure that was NOT attached to the house
didn't require it. So we just built it an inch or so off the house. And
it was a real nice deck, I assure you!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving
>>> targets, I reserve the final decision on whether I will address an
>>> issue a third party inspector finds if the work was originally done
>>> to code.
>>
>> That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of my
>> house is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word. At
>> least, if you want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.
>
> You live in a place where a third party inspector has jurisdiction?
> Are you quite sure about how you understand that? Shirley then, he
> has some written code or guidelines.
>
> If your house already has a CO, why would an additional one be
> required to sell the house? Didn't have a CO to start with?

Again, this all happened more than 10 years ago. In Floral Park, Nassau
county, NY. The original house had no COO. We did several big and small
improvements, which required permits and inspections by the building and
fire inspectors. They were all very polite and helpful, especially where
I was the person doing the work. Advice such as the wiring of outlets
and fluorescent lights. Outlets had to be re-oriented so the ground was
up "because a knife could fall behind the plug and short things". I
forget whether that was mentioned as the official NYC code, or code for
Nassau as well. As mentioned elsewhere the deck was built by my wife and
me ourselves because at the time a permit was NOT required for UNattached
structures. We built it an inch or so off the house on 4x4" posts, set
into holes and with sloping concrete around the post to direct water
away. IIRC, there was no requirement for gravel under the posts (soil
is/was pure sand).

When we sold the house the buyers had a 3rd party inspector. The
"problems" - real and imagined - were points of negotiation, and some we
fixed, and some we said, well that's the way it is. We weren't going to
change the heating system for them.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Michael Karas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> We had that fairly easy since we had several months for the move and a
>> Plymouth Caravan to do it with when the Hudson River tolls were still
>> affordable.
>
> I had a _Dodge_ Caravan and my neighbor bought the similar Plymouth
> _Voyager_.

Thanks for the correction. We now have a Dodge Grand Caravan (2005 model).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 26 Mar 2012 13:11:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>That is a very important reason. Sometimes things come up.

I was thinking more along the lines of people just changing their
minds, not because of any specific practical reason.

HeyBub wrote:

>
> Screw it. Leave the outlet alone and put in a GFCI circuit breaker.

Echo that. This really does not have to be more complicated than that.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 3/26/2012 8:04 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>> inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>> negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>> parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound by
>> the results and can back out of the deal.
>
> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
> are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
> sales deals.

Most folks are excessively timid when it comes to negotiating and will
use any excuse they can to get out of doing so.

It is expected, and I do not want to sell a house to someone who has the
slightest reservation about buying, either because of the house, or
something personal they have not disclosed, which is none of my business
anyway.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:18:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Of course, if it's on TV, it must be true. The only thing more true
>> is if it's on the internet...
>
> You may be right of course, but of all the stations I watch, HGTV
> seems to be the more genuine, at least to me. I've occasionally been
> known to be naive, but I don't think I'm all that gullible. Who knows?
> Maybe the two words are interchangeable in this case.

Oh hell Dave - we all are... especially if what we hear or see tends to jive
with our own natural thoughts. My wife is an HGTV addict (of course - she's
a she...), so I definitely understand the concept that HGTV must be right.
After all, like I said - my wife...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 26 Mar 2012 13:10:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife says,
>this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.

Yup. And adding to the hassle factor of going to a new home is the
stress of moving all your belongings. Apparently, it's fact that
moving is one of the most stressful things that someone can do.

Han wrote:

>
> Only relating my experience in Long Island, Karl. We had already
> bought our new home, and the sale of the old one was going slowly.
> The final objection was that the deck my wife and I had built didn't
> have a properly balustered railing. We had 4x4 posts with a top
> railing at the right height, but with 4"x4" plastic covered wire mesh
> between the posts. IMO it was nicer than fancy balusters, because you
> could see through. But it needed properly spaced balusters, so I made
> and brought over wood 1 1/2" square cut to the height, and screwed
> them on. Case closed. This was in 1998, and the only thing I know
> is that the new owners dug up the nice flower yard my wife had made
> around the house and put in lawn ...

Nothing you just detailed there Han, supports your statement about a house
requiring a CO and being subject to a third party inspector.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
> [email protected]:
>
>> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving
>> targets, I reserve the final decision on whether I will address an
>> issue a third party inspector finds if the work was originally done
>> to code.
>
> That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of my
> house is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word. At
> least, if you want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.

You live in a place where a third party inspector has jurisdiction? Are you
quite sure about how you understand that? Shirley then, he has some written
code or guidelines.

If your house already has a CO, why would an additional one be required to
sell the house? Didn't have a CO to start with?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 3/26/2012 8:31 AM, Han wrote:
> Dave<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 26 Mar 2012 13:11:22 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> That is a very important reason. Sometimes things come up.
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines of people just changing their
>> minds, not because of any specific practical reason.
>
> First time home buyer. Inspection report after contract was signed says
> water stains possibly due to water coming in from concrete around the house
> (no drainage), also the neighborhood is overrun with kids going to and
> coming out of school. Home owner refuses buyer's inspection when asked can
> he come over right after a heavy rain storm. Sale canceled.

As it should have been. The system works.

That said, it can also be gamed, and some asshat is always looking to do
so. Caveat Emptor ...


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 3/26/2012 8:10 AM, Han wrote:

> I fully agree with regard to the 3rd party inspector. Do you also
> suggest that sellers get an inspection at their expense before putting
> the home on the market?

Yes. I always do (unless of course it is a new house, that has a
recently issued COO based on a completed final inspection by the issuing
authority), and then I let the buyer make the decision ... but I ALWAYS
advise them to do so regardless.

In short, I will not buy a house without one, and I don't expect a buyer
to either ... plus I like to have the comparison for the very purposes
just discussed.

Build your houses "beyond code" in all aspects, and welcome the
opportunity to be inspected.

> We had several issues with the house. One was that there was no
> previously issued CO, even after we had done remodeling, so there were
> issues about "grandfathering". Another was the antiquated oil-fired
> steam heat (albeit with fairly modern - then - oilgun), etc, etc. I
> guess, I'm still resentful for the last minute extra work I had to do.

I have chewed out many a real estate agents ass for not doing their job
and not even checking on a COO to protect their buyer, which most around
fail to do

DISCLAIMER: I detest most RA's, think they are a pox on the industry,
and take delight in pointing out their shortcomings to them, in front of
their buyer preferably, when NOT performing the job they are grossly
overpaid to do ... and their lack of attention to the COO is one thing
that most often gives me the opportunity to enjoy that satisfaction. <eg>


> I've only bought 2 homes in my lifetime, and sold 1 myself, excluding my
> parents' home from the list (sale was easy, but regrets about the buyers
> and their attitude to the dear neighbors over there). As my wife says,
> this is our last home, we'll leave feet first, toes up.


Know the feeling ... :)


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound by
>the results and can back out of the deal.

I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
sales deals.

On 3/25/2012 11:50 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> As long as we're talking about electricity:
>
> We're selling our mobile home and a potential buyer had it inspected.
> One of the things he said should be done was to install GFCI outlets in
> the outlets near the kitchen sink. OK, that made sense. And I'd done it
> before in another room to make the model RR safer. So I anticipated no
> problems.
>
> Boy, was I an optimist! First of all, mobile homes use (or did when mine
> was built) some strange outlets designed for quick installation. They
> look like:
>
> <http://mobilehomepartsstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
> Screen=PROD&Product_Code=230115&Category_Code=SR>
>
> (Click on the picture and look at the other views.)
>
> In this case, the outlet with the line connection was in the middle of
> the string so there was a 3rd set of wires crammed into that fixture.
> I'm not sure that was kosher but it's many years too late to complain.
>
> So now I'm trying to get 3 very old and stiff connection sets into one
> new box. There's not a lot of slack so I'm working very close to the
> wall. Trying to get 2 of those solid 10 or 12 gauge wires under a screw
> on the GFCI outlet is #$%! impossible - at least for me. I spent 3 or 4
> hours yesterday and got nothing accomplished except frustration.
>
> What I'm wondering about is getting a deeper box and wire nutting the two
> load circuits and the 3 ground wires together so that I only have one
> wire to go under each screw. I might even go to 14 gauge for that couple
> of inches of wire so it'd be more flexible. And maybe extend the line
> wires with the same stuff.
>
> Would this meet code? Is it advisable? Or should I just call the
> electrician?
>


It would be recommended and the proper way to do it. Receps should
always be pigtailed from a wire nutted through connection. This is much
preferred to using the recep as part of wire path. There can be
exceptions to GFI circuits if you want the GFI to protect everything
down stream.

--


___________________________________

Keep the whole world singing . . .
Dan G
remove the seven

On 3/25/2012 11:50 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
...

> What I'm wondering about is getting a deeper box and wire nutting the two
> load circuits and the 3 ground wires together so that I only have one
> wire to go under each screw. I might even go to 14 gauge for that couple
> of inches of wire so it'd be more flexible. And maybe extend the line
> wires with the same stuff.
>
> Would this meet code? Is it advisable? Or should I just call the
> electrician?

The connections are definitely ok (and iiuc, and there were two
conductors under a single screw that's not).

The 14 ga _isn't_ ok if it is a 20A circuit, though, despite the short
length. The connection to the receptacle doesn't count as a device like
a light fixture that may only have 16 or 18 internally connected to the
12 or 14 house wiring.

I hear your pain, though; the miniature stuff used in mobile and many
prefab units is surely a sorry thing to have to work on/with... :(

I'd never had to deal with it until a few years ago got involved w/ a
disaster long-term response team after some severe storms in the area.
Many of those were old, old, old, trailers and I learned to hate them
very quickly. :) (or, :( maybe???)

--

On 3/26/2012 9:04 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:46:24 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
>> inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
>> negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
>> parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound by
>> the results and can back out of the deal.
>
> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports
> are frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential
> sales deals.

I have sold several houses with third party inspectors in Indiana and in
North Carolina. While they will pick up thing that you could find if
you look, many times when they can not find anything major, they start
to nitpick.

As an example we sold a house in Holly Springs about 10 years ago, that
the inspector said the outside faucet was leaking. All it needed was to
tighten the nut on it. The buyer made a big deal out of it.

My niece bought a house a couple of years ago. Things that the third
party inspector missed was an undersized heating unit the would not heat
the house, and an outside wall full of rot that had to be replaced.

If you read the fine print on the the third party inspection, they are
only liable for those things that an observant person should see, and
nothing that they may have to exert themselves to find.

On 3/26/2012 9:42 AM, Swingman wrote:

> It is expected, and I do not want to sell a house to someone who has the
> slightest reservation about buying, either because of the house, or
> something personal they have not disclosed, which is none of my business
> anyway.
>

I making a note of that tip. It seems well-worth remembering!

Bill

On 3/26/2012 9:48 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:42:13 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Most folks are excessively timid when it comes to negotiating and will
>> use any excuse they can to get out of doing so.
>
> I guess that's to be expected, especially so since one of the shows I
> was referring to is called "Property Virgins". Quite of few of these
> "virgins" are so timid and scared that the stress of the process has
> them weeping on camera.


The husband of the couple selling us our house cried a few tears at our
closing. It might have been because of the closing costs, but it made
me feel like I was getting a decent house! : )

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:09:09 +0000, Han wrote:

> The final
> objection was that the deck my wife and I had built didn't have a
> properly balustered railing.

In my case it was the insurance company. Our front porch had no
railing. That was fine for about 15 years but after the big hurricane in
Florida the insurance companies got paranoid. We had to put up a railing
or lose our homeowners insurance

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:04:50 -0400, Dave wrote:

> I've been watching a few of the homes for sale shows on TV lately. It
> appears obvious (to me anyway), that third party inspector's reports are
> frequently used as a backup method of reneging out of potential sales
> deals.

We think that's what just happened to us. Backing out with no reason
would have cost the buyer $1000 in earnest money. The inspection cost
$250.

BTW, I think the inspector did a good job (3 hours), and the stuff he
found was all reasonable. I'll probably hire him to do our inspection
when we buy a place.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 3/26/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:

> You mean what by RA? Realtor (agent)? Appraiser? Used car salesman?
>
Realtor, aka 'real estate agent', aka 'next of kin' to your latter above.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 3/26/2012 7:09 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 3/26/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:6tWdnfYxAZ8my-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I warn clients up front that, since building codes are moving
>>>> targets, I reserve the final decision on whether I will address an
>>>> issue a third party inspector finds if the work was originally done
>>>> to code.
>>>
>>> That's a great position, Karl! There is one but. If the sale of my
>>> house is subject to a C of O the inspector has the last word. At
>>> least, if you want to sell the house. DAMHIKT.
>>>
>>
>> I have sold many, many houses, Han. In most locations a COO is only
>> issued once, and _third party inspectors_ are not in control of that.
>>
>> That is the realm of the municipality who dictates which building
>> codes are followed for their inspections that the COO is predicated
>> on.
>>
>> You mileage may differ where you live, but that is certainly not the
>> case in many, if not most, places.
>
> Only relating my experience in Long Island, Karl. We had already bought
> our new home, and the sale of the old one was going slowly. The final
> objection was that the deck my wife and I had built didn't have a
> properly balustered railing. We had 4x4 posts with a top railing at the
> right height, but with 4"x4" plastic covered wire mesh between the posts.
> IMO it was nicer than fancy balusters, because you could see through.
> But it needed properly spaced balusters, so I made and brought over wood
> 1 1/2" square cut to the height, and screwed them on. Case closed. This
> was in 1998, and the only thing I know is that the new owners dug up the
> nice flower yard my wife had made around the house and put in lawn ...

As below, the 4" rule on balusters is a safety issue for children
something I would normally address without question, however.

I'll go back to my original contention. A _third party inspector_ in
most real estate transactions is hired by one of the two parties to an
anticipated sale of a home, thus the terminology.

The _resolution_ of any issue found as the result of a _third party
inspection_ , hired by either the buyer or seller, is subject to
negotiation between the two parties to the sale. Unless one of the
parties is terminally stupid and agreed to it, neither party is bound by
the results and can back out of the deal.

I advise and welcome buyers to have a third party inspection done by an
inspector of their choice, but I always let the buyer know upfront that
I reserve the option to not address any issues I feel are invalid, and
they may be subject to negotiation.

Why?

There is an excellent reason the electrical arguments are so long and
convoluted around here ... Because no two inspectors will ever agree,
nor will the results of two inspections coincide identically ... IOW, it
is most always a subjective process and one of the parties must finally
put their foot down.

That is not to say that I will shoot myself in the foot over something
like refusing to put AFCI's in a bedroom circuit of a house that, when
built, it was not required.

Normally, and I state this upfront with regard to third party
inspections: "We will discuss and address any and all valid safety
issues, but all others are negotiable."

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop