Playing Offense vs. Defense
About a dozen Twin Cities municipalities have them: a city-required home inspection that must be completed before homeowners can transfer title to a Buyer at closing.
Leaving aside the merits of such inspections, when does it make sense for Sellers — and their agents — to market that the home has passed the city inspection?
Answer (at least mine): almost never.
There are two reasons for that:
One. Even the strictest city inspection (St. Louis Park’s comes to mind) is much less rigorous than a private inspection performed by/for the Buyer, once a deal has been signed.
Which makes sense: private home inspectors are typically paid $300 – $500 and spend a couple hours evaluating a home.
By contrast, Truth-in-Sale-of Housing (“TISH”) inspectors are paid about half that, and their mandate is usually limited to identifying immediate health or safety threats to the home’s occupants (Golden Valley’s inspection is focused on safeguarding the city’s water supply).
Two. Sellers are responsible for clearing any repair-or replace items (“R&R’s”), unless they contractually assign responsibility to the Buyer.
Translation: homeowners don’t get extra credit for doing what they’re already supposed to do.
Exceptions to the Rule
So, what’s the one exception to not trumpeting a completed city inspection?
When a home is especially dated and/or in rougher condition, and there are legitimate questions about how much the new owner needs to tackle.
Then, marketing that the home has passed the city inspection is a way to tell prospective Buyers that the home is free of truly glaring defects.
See also, “City Inspection “True or False”; “Who’s Doing the City Point of Sale Inspection — and Why it Matters“; and “Are Municipal Inspections a Waste of Time?”
