I think my question is ultimately: What constitutes a seller "knowing" that there is a serious issue with a home? I recently cancelled a sale for a home I was under contract on after a nightmare inspection. We had a structural engineer come out and confirm the findings, which is that the building is not structurally sound due numerous issues and the cost to get the home safe to inhabit would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. We obviously backed out, explained our reasoning why although we didn't pay for a written report so there isn't really a paper trail. I noticed today the house is back on the market, same asking price, and of course I have no idea what they might say to the next buyer but it does have me wondering: At what point is a seller obligated to tell the next buyer what came up during a previous buyers inspection? submitted by /u/Antique-Signal-5071 [link] [comments] source https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEstate/comments/1so94ar/when_do_sell...
Looking for some advice on behalf of a client. He's got 80+ small residential properties, all single-family or very small multifamily, under 200 units total. Each property has property management, and his CPA firm handles the accounting. Should be sorted, but in reality, he's getting buried in all the insane shit that falls between the cracks; insurance claims, vendor coordination, being the liaison between the PMCs and the CPA, general admin that nobody else owns. His time is getting eaten alive, and he wants to add a layer between himself and his property management companies, someone who can own the day-to-day administrative and operational coordination so he can get back to the three other businesses he owns. The obvious answer feels like an Asset Manager, but I'm not sure that's right for a few reasons: The portfolio isn't really growing; this isn't a "find the next deal" role A good Asset Manager wants to be underwriting deals and optim...