Tag Archives: New Construction

New Construction Warranties

Posted on by
6

I recently had a conference call with an agent and his buyer who was purchasing new construction from a small builder. In the course of the conversation, we started talking about the builder’s warranty (which there was none) and the agent chimed in with the following: “Well, even without a written warranty, the buyer will still get the one year warranty that is required under state law.” Unfortunately, I had to correct Mr. Agent in front of his buyer by letting him know that the only warranty that a builder provides by law is the Implied Warranty of Habitability.

[photopress:oldhousecrunch.jpg,thumb,alignright]Good news was this warranty is an implied warranty in the contract and the statute of limitations on bringing a claim under the contract is 6 years, not one (subject to a bunch of other issues too complex for this post). Bad news was that the Implied Warranty of Habitability is very limited and basically means that the home can be lived in. In recent years, it has been extended to things like conformance with building codes. It does NOT, however, cover things that a new construction buyer usually deals with post-closing. Things like paint chipping, floors warping, siding going bad, window cracks, carpet coming up, etc., etc., etc. These defects are usually smaller items but can add up in total to a lot of money and even more frustration. The only warranty that would cover something like this is a written warranty from builder to buyer. If one does not exist, then no warranty and no recourse to Buyer. Buyers should also read the fine print as many builder warranties contain more holes than swiss cheese. Don’t rely on the fact is says “Warranty” on top of the page. In my experience, the good builders usually provide pretty decent warranties. The smaller builders are across the board. In this case the old adage applies — Get it in writing!

What exactly IS a townhome?

Posted on by
14

First, let’s all agree that a townhome usually has at least two stories, but you can have a “ranch style townhome” or “rambler style townhome”. Usually there is no one over or under you in a townhome, except sometimes, like in Sixty-01, they occasionally stuff a condo under the two story townhome. In the Seattle area a townhome usually has a garage on the first level, main living areas on the second level and bedrooms on the third level. When there is a view involved, especially a water view, it is better to but the main living areas at the top and the bedrooms on the lower levels.

But why is a townhome sometimes a condominium, and sometimes a single family dwelling? Why is it sometimes a single family dwelling when it is attached to other townhomes, and sometimes a condominium when it is not attached at all?

The phrase townhome was coined by the real estate industry to “upgrade” the term rowhome. Many major cities, like my Philadelphia, have had rowhomes for over a hundred years. As many as twenty five all attached together with no break until you get to the “end of row” or “breezeway”. When builders started building attached dwellings out in the suburbs, they didn’t want to call them “rowhomes” and so came up with the term “townhomes”. Very upscale areas started calling their rowhomes, townhomes, and so the term was created and expanded.

Very simply, if you own the land under the townhome all by yourself, meaning the lots are subdivided at every shared wall from the front of the lot to the back of the lot, then it is a single family townhome or “single family attached”, much like the original “rowhome”.

[photopress:townhomes.jpg,thumb,alignright]If the lot is not subdivided and you build two or more separately owned structures on one lot, whether they are attached or not, they are condominiums. As far as I know, condominiums are always built on land that is shared and not subdivided per each individual owner. So if you put two separate houses on one lot and sell them to two different people, they are condominium townhomes. If you attach 25 homes in a row, but subdivide the lots so that they own their front yard and back yard and the land under their house, they are single family dwellings.

I always say, when you are sitting in your house, if you own the land under your butt all by yourself, it is a single family dwelling. If the land under your butt is jointly owned with other people, then it is a condominium 🙂

Condo Conversion vs. New Construction

Posted on by
61

Given the popularity of condo conversion communities in the Seattle area, I think it is worth noting what these are, and what these are not.

I have heard both buyers and escrow companies refer to condo conversion communities as “new construction”. Please know that these are not new construction, but remodels, for the most part asthetic remodels, of older, rental communities. While you are buying the interior, and the interior is remodeled, you are also buying a fractional interest in the exterior. If there are 100 units, you are taking on a 1/100th responsibility for the new roof or exterior paint and all of the major components shown in the reserve study.

If you are buying into a condo building or community that has always been a condo community, the monthly dues for the last 15 to 20 years should have provided for an accumulation of “reserve funds” to replace the roof. If you are buying into a condo conversion, make sure the developer has “contributed” enough monies into reserves, to compensate for the fact that there were never before “unit owners” putting monies into the reserve account toward future replacement needs.

The roof may be OK today. But if it is a 20 year shingle and a 15 year old complex, there should be 15 years worth of accumulated monies set aside by the developer before he turns over the complex to the Home Owner Association. This is to insure that when the roof needs to be replaced in 3 to 8 years, there will be sufficient funds in reserve to buy the new roof. Also make sure that the monthly dues set by the developer include a sufficient amount for reserves. In five years when you need a new roof, you will need five years of owner contributions, plus the 15 years worth of reserves set aside by the developer, so that the roof can be replaced without a special assessment.

Understand that if a condo community or building functions as it should, there should never need to be a special assessment. Every owner, via their monthly dues, should be paying their fair share of future repair and replacement costs each year. It’s a simple calculation which assures that the monies will be in the reserve fund at the time the Major Component item needs to be replaced.

So I leave you with this warning. Find those things that are not new when buying into a condo conversion, and make sure the developer is contributing an amount into reserves reflecting that portion of “useful life”, used to date.