Sellers Who Get Presale Home Inspection Slit Own Throats

A presale home inspection is a bad idea for a seller.

An an exclusive seller’s listing agent in Sacramento, I can preach until the cows come home that getting a presale home inspection is lousy idea but I still get resistance from other listing agents who disagree. They are confused about what doing the right thing means. Doing the right thing means protecting our seller’s liability and profit, and paying for a pre-sale home inspection is overkill. Not only that, but it can come back to bite. Such a disclosure can cost sellers tens of thousands and could even destroy their chances of selling a home.

California real estate law says a seller is required to disclose what a seller knows, which includes material facts. It does not say a seller is required to dig up every defect about which the seller has ZERO knowledge and then present those unknown findings on a silver-plated platter to buyers.  It makes no sense in any sense of a logical argument to obtain a presale home inspection, except maybe to a home inspector who stands to profit.

Buyers are required to do due diligence. Buyers are required to obtain their own inspections, any and all that they choose to do. If a buyer fails to perform due diligence or fails to uncover a defect (about which the seller had no prior knowledge), that is not the liability of the seller. It falls squarely on the shoulders of the buyer. That’s the beauty of California real estate law and seller disclosures.

Case in point of ignorance. Barry Stone is a certified building inspector who syndicates a column about home inspections. He suggested in a recent article that banks selling REOs (real estate owned), which are foreclosures, should be required to obtain presale home inspections. This is a good example of a person focusing only on one part of real estate without looking at the bigger picture.

Banks are not required to disclose defects in a foreclosure when they have no knowledge, just like ordinary home sellers are not required to disclose defects about which the have no knowledge. Banks are even more off the hook since they never lived in the house. They sell the house AS IS because they don’t want to invite liability, either. Just like regular sellers.

To try to impose a law that requires home sellers, banks or otherwise, to obtain a list of defects to present to a buyer is ludicrous. Sellers are not required to discover factual information to present. Mr. Stone implies banks are dishonest and unfair because they don’t give their innocent home buyers a list of defects and they allow buyers to purchase their foreclosures without insisting buyers get a home inspection either.

If buyers are naive enough not to pay for a home inspection, and their real estate agent is bad enough not to suggest a home inspection, how is this the fault of the seller? Buyers are accountable to themselves. Our purchase contracts requires that buyers perform certain duties, and sellers give them ample time to complete those duties.

It makes no sense for a seller to go looking for trouble. Not to mention, no two home inspections are ever identical. A presale home inspection could show a defect the buyer’s home inspection would not and vice versa. Just don’t do it. Don’t think about it. Don’t act on that impulse, either. Your California purchase agreement states your sale is AS IS. Just leave it alone.