Here's a link to photos of the place.

Here is a link that might be useful: The house in question

In every home I have ever purchased or sold the buyer pays upfront for all the inspections and surveys.
Your agent should be able to tell you what is standard in your area, but I never heard of it being done any differently.

It sounds like you are borrowing trouble. Nothing in their attitude raises a red flag to me. They want to sell the house and have priced it accordingly. Do the inspection and then talk to them. If it is a big problem, then they should be willing to talk about the repair cost with you. But I really don't see anything in their behavior that is worrisome. We've bought and sold 5 houses and I would never expect the sellers to pay for the inspections you have mentioned. Good luck and btw, that house is GORGEOUS!
Jo

In all areas where we've purchased a home the buyers have paid for general home inspections, why should the sellers pay for this when you're the one wanting to know what is wrong with the home? I've lived in some areas where termite inspection was the responsibility of the seller who had to provide a "pest inspection letter" to verify that the premises were free of termites. Other areas I've lived in it was the responsibility of the buyer.

I'm not getting the feeling they're unmotivated as much as I'm getting the feeling that they have a bottom line. If you cross that bottom line and ask for more than they're willing to give, they're going to say no. Everyone when selling a house has a bottom line, it doesn't mean they're not motivated, doesn't mean they won't work with you. They're already given you price concessions and are probably really close to the bottom line. If the inspection reveals a major problem you'll have to decide whether the house is enough of a deal to take it with the major flaw. The seller may reevaluate his price if he realizes that the same major flaw will show up in future inspections, or the seller may say that the price reflects the faults that the home has and not budge on his price.

Ditto, inspections are of the buyer's choosing and are left to the buyer to pay for. I think the sellers don't want to pay any more than want is customary (and I wouldn't either!). But that doesn't mean they won't adjust the price if the inspections turn up something (that no one foresaw) that would warrent a lower price if the house is indeed "priced for its condition," KWIM? Keep in mind, you're getting a REALLY old house, and with it, comes OLD stuff and OLD issues, so be reasonable and I'm sure the sellers will be as well.

The house was built in 1893 and it needs a lot of work. We've been assured that this is not an 'as-is' property, so I'm expecting some cooperation, but the red flags are up.

IMO any house over 100 years old is "as is" if the sellers are smart. Don't expect current code or new anything. If the sellers priced accordingly and it is not a buyer's market (as opposed to seller's or neutral market) you can hope for help but not expect it. Make certain your inspector is well versed in old homes. They offer unique challenges.

Just as an aside - an old home might be a better value than a new home price wise, but like any home there is always something. If you have a repair budget in mind, double it. Old, new, in-between all houses cost. Your inspector will not catch everything, and there is always some surprise.

Good luck and best wishes. :-)

I cannot recall buying or selling an investment property were the other party would pay for any repairs, or I would offer to make them.
Investment properties are normally sold between investors in complete 'as is' condition.

While you are purchasing a home for personal use, the seller is disposing of an investment property.
Find the best inspector you can get your hands on and at least go in eyes open.

A house from 1893 will NOT meet major portions of the present building code, and is not required to.
Depending on the AHJ you can find yourself with major costs if you upgrade something and the AHJ demands other work also be performed to comply with various codes.
This is a local problem, and in many cases is what prevents reasonable upgrades from being performed bit by bit.

Lots of good feedback! Thanks for the additional information about potential code issues as well.

In our area it's customary for buyers to pay for the general home inspection and sellers to pay for the pest inspection (which makes sense to me since they can do this once and have a letter to show that the house passed rather than potentially make each prospective buyer do this over and over). Still, I'm fine with paying for it. We're also going to go with a super-deluxe version of the home inspection to find out as much as we can about the condition of the house.

I'm with everyone else - these are things that the buyer pays save possibly the termite inspection.

I take it you found out the dispute info about the shared garage? Was it rectified to your satisfaction?

I cannot recall buying or selling an investment property were the other party would pay for any repairs, or I would offer to make them.
Investment properties are normally sold between investors in complete 'as is' condition.
While you are purchasing a home for personal use, the seller is disposing of an investment property.

I personally would not cut the seller slack for this being an investment property unless he knew you were a professional investor but you are not. He is selling a home in a residential market and he has to expect most of his buyers are buying as a home. So any problem he has with you he will have with anyone else if flaws show up.

As for super deluxe home inspection, it is most important to get an excellent highly recommended home inspector, rather than pay a mediocre one to do more!

Why did it fall out of contract the first time?

artamnesia, In buying "old homes" think of the inspection report as your list of what will need attention. As stated it will probably not meet todays codes. If the home is fairly priced unless it is unforseen structural problem I wouldn't expect a seller to fix. If there is a structural issue you might look for a reduction in price vs having them fix it.

Wow, the sellers came back today with a new contract that suddenly has the 'as is' clause circled.

Their realtor states that they've recently had some deals fall through over petty repairs and they just want to protect themselves. They are saying that the house isn't really 'as is', but that they just don't want to be expected to fix things like the windows or roof - certainly they would take care of any safety issues.

I can't believe that they would attempt to insert an'as is' clause now, after the price has been already been agreed upon and there is no way we are agreeing to buy the property 'as is', at least not without a significant price reduction. Especially, as we had already been assured by them that this was NOT an 'as is' house.

In my opinion, this is a dirty move. Their agent sent the altered contract to ours without even noting the change.

The "as is" clause sends the message to you they aren't paying for any repairs. At this point you accept this, or walk.

I guess I don't see this as a dirty move as much as I see it as a move telling you that they've made all the concessions they're going to make. the buyer is protecting himself from having a price negotiated and then having you as the buyer try to renegotiate the price once repair items present themselves after the inspection.

As xamsx said above, you either accept or walk.

ALL resale homes are essentially sold "as is". It is true that negotiations are often made after an inspection report, but sellers do not have to make any repairs unless already agreed to in the contract.

In my area you do the inspection first, work out any issues and then go to contract (you sign a non binding binder if that makes any sense once the price is agreed upon). Sounds like an idea for you. The problem is that if you are not happy with the state of the roof or whatever and they are not making concessions then you need to be able to get your deposit back. Sounds like you need a real estate attorney

I agree with Cordovamom. They want to stop any games right up front. The house looks like its in pretty good shape from the photos. I wouldnt worry about the "as is" clause. It sounds like they don't want to be nickeled and dimed which might be the impression you gave them of yourself. I dont know how it works in your area, but anything major would have to be taken care of by the seller or you do not have to buy the house. (even with an as is clause)

I think you're being the unrealistic one here. If you don't want an "as is" home, as is customary with most older homes, then buy a new one. A home that of the age of the one you are considering will need a lot of money pumped into it to bring it "Up" to today's standards, or even to just maintain it to the older standards, and no seller can be expected to even consider doing that. You're not going to get a price concession over standard old home issues, just immediate safety ones. If the home needs a new roof, you'll have to do it. If it needs a bare wire in a closet properly placed in a junction box, then they'll do that. Other than some issue like that, don't expect any seller of an older home to even bother negotiating with you over a laundry list of "defects". Defects are part of the charm of an older home, and if you don't have the money to correct them after purchase, and can't live with them as is, then don't buy the house.

Go with AS IS with Right to Inspect. This allows you to walk away after the inspection if you find that there are items that you don't want to deal with. And you get your earnest money back.

As Is With Right To Inspect is very common in my area. It protects the buyer because you can walk if the inspections discovers issues. It protects the seller because you won't nickle and dime the seller trying to get seller to pay for a remodel, for example.

What occurred here is the buyer went lower is sales price than they wanted. So by going lower, the are refusing to pay for fix up costs that you might request.

Don't let this deter you. Only choose to walk AFTER you get the inspection if the inspection uncovers major issues that you don't already know about.

"I can't believe that they would attempt to insert an'as is' clause now, after the price has been already been agreed upon and there is no way we are agreeing to buy the property 'as is', at least not without a significant price reduction."

It seems obvious to me that you and the sellers have vastly different expectations about the house. The sellers appear to be stressing they will only consider paying for safety items found by an inspection and you seem be saying you want structural and maintenance items payed for by the seller.

Negotiations are always fluid until there is a signed contract. The sellers may have sensed your differing expectations and tried to make it clear what they are willing to agree to.

Actually in my area the roof must be free of leaks on the day of closing, it is written into every contract. Really depends on what the defect is and what is customary in the area. No one expects a 100 year old house to be up to code but neither do you expect to have to replace the furnace the day after you move in

In my area contracts are usually written to specify everything must be in working condition unless otherwise noted in the contract. A broken dishwasher is not a safety hazard but it would certainly have to be repaired (not replaced) before closing where I live (am not in Illinois)

From memory you had 2 houses in mind, the shared garage and the 1st one by the college

Which house are you posting about? Curious because what I might post depends on which house it is ;)

roselvr - see the link in the 2nd post. It is the shared garage one.

Thanks :)

The 1st house had come down a lot, ($60,000 IIRC) which was why I asked. Interesting that both have been rentals, that's what threw me.

Both properties know that someone will buy it, the 1st probably as another rental, the 2nd because it's an awesome house.

I'd get the inspections and see what is said, then decide. What if it does need windows and a roof eventually, will you pass it up?

The house in question is the shared garage, Victorian. It was the rental to students.

The other house (1930's cape cod-like) was a family home and never rented. They've lowered their asking price about 30k since they first put it on the market almost a year ago.

Update: The sellers have retracted their late addition of the 'as is. I guess now we know what to expect if the inspections reveal any significant issues! :-)

Just to clear up any misconceptions, we aren't expecting the sellers to make any improvements to the house. We took a good look at it and recognize that the price is fairly low because the house is old and somewhat beat up. We like old houses and passed up some lovely renovations because we want to do it ourselves. Please understand that we haven't asked the seller to make any changes to the house.

We do have a standard contingency that says if the inspection reveals major issues over a certain dollar amount that they can, a. fix them, b. credit us for them, c. do nothing and we have the option to walk. According to them they are willing to deal with any large issue like plumbing or electrical.

Since that's the case I couldn't understand why they suddenly felt that the inspection contingency wasn't sufficient. To suddenly get spooked and toss in an 'as is' clause made it seems as if they have something to hide.

Since that's the case I couldn't understand why they suddenly felt that the inspection contingency wasn't sufficient. To suddenly get spooked and toss in an 'as is' clause made it seems as if they have something to hide.

Maybe the sellers read this forum and are trying to head off any problems.

I have often wondered about people on the other side of the transaction reading this forum

As a seller I would negotiate any structural repairs or roof repairs or dangerous repairs like electrical that show up on the inspection. But nothing more. Sticking windows or doors in a 100 year old home are common. And the buyer pays for all inspections. As a buyer I wouldn't trust a seller's inspection. Because if the seller is paying for the inspector, he gets to choose who it is.

When I said $60,000, I'd meant from what they originally listed the 1st time to the last offer you gave them, which is $57,000. I doubted they would go down that much. Thought I read that one was also rented but rereading today it was me being tired & in pain from shopping all day.

From the pics you posted the windows and roof look ok, the interior of the house also looks great. The worry I would have is that it was rented, so who knows if stuff was kept up. Could be why they added the as is.

The house is beautiful. It's my dream to one day own something similar. There used to be a frat house I used to go to when I was younger, had carved wood all over it, and a dome room. House has been gone for years, I hope someone relocated it.

Have you set the inspection up yet?

"I have often wondered about people on the other side of the transaction reading this forum"

You should...here is a true story:

I was a landlord. Had an issue with a tenant and tenant was threatening to take me to court. I knew I was correct, and also I was being very fair. I knew she was big on using the www. Did a search on her standard userid that I knew through correspondence. Found a hit. She was posting on forums to get free legal help about the possible lawsuit. The vast majority of responders told tenant that she was wrong and that she would lose if it was taken to court. She listened to them(saved me lots of hassle) :)

So lesson here, be as general as possible when posting here in case the party that you are negotiating with finds this forum.

Totally and it always surprises me when people reveal details here, such as thinking of going up X in neotiating or dropping price. What if their counterparty is here

Artemesia, Whatever you do, get an inspector that specializes in old homes. I would not, definitely would not, just get an inspector who normally looks at new construction. Old houses have their quirks and you need a specialist to be working for you.

Get the report, and deal from there.

We're on our 3rd old home and each one has been different and has had it's unique challenges.

"I personally would not cut the seller slack for this being an investment property unless he knew you were a professional investor but you are not."

It is not slack, he does not care.
Not his problem or concern.
He is selling an investment property.

"He is selling a home in a residential market and he has to expect most of his buyers are buying as a home."

As far as the owner is concerned it is an investment.
If you want a cheaper property this is often a good place to look.
Investment properties are seldom in perfect condition, rarely have top-of-the-line anything, and are often sold at less than premium prices for this reason.

"In my area you do the inspection first, work out any issues and then go to contractÂ"

Not the norm in the vast majority of the country.
This is mostly a New York and surrounds thing.

In most places a contract is negotiated by passing the paperwork back and forth and marking it up and initialing.
Once both sides sign without a change it is a VALID contract.
In many places a lawyer is not involved until settlement, if at all.
NY and some nearby areas seem to be the home of the lawyer for everything RE transactions.
Great way to drive up costs.

Old houses need work.
Unless you have the knowledge to repair them you need very deep pockets.

NY and some nearby areas seem to be the home of the lawyer for everything RE transactions.
Great way to drive up costs

My sister bought a house in PA for 750 a few years ago. No lawyer. She has an easement over her neighbors private road or so she thought. When she went to sell, there was no record of the easement, OOPs. She spent quite a bit in legal fees and almost lost her sale a few years later. Pay now or pay later.

Why would a novice (most people are as they maybe buy 3 or 4 homes in their lifetimes, some people less) plunk down their life savings without some assurances that they have dotted all the i and ts so they are getting what they thought they were. A real estate broker, buyer, seller or otherwise is only working for one person, themselves. Why not hire someone to look things over who is working for you and only you

brickeyee: NY and some nearby areas seem to be the home of the lawyer for everything RE transactions.
Great way to drive up costs.

saphire: Why would a novice (most people are as they maybe buy 3 or 4 homes in their lifetimes, some people less) plunk down their life savings without some assurances that they have dotted all the i and ts so they are getting what they thought they were. A real estate broker, buyer, seller or otherwise is only working for one person, themselves. Why not hire someone to look things over who is working for you and only you.

Absolutely, Saphire. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people that come to this forum, are told "get a real estate attorney" and they don't heed that advice. I often wonder if they fear the fees? A real estate attorney has never cost me more than $1,000 on a home, and if you are plunking down $500K that is .002%. It is penny wise, pound foolish to not use a real estate attorney.

If it is not customary in your area to use a residential real estate attorney, call a commercial real estate attorney and they will recommend someone in your area that does do residential real estate.