Top reason to disclose property defects
If you think it's about liability, you're wrong
By Barry Stone, Tuesday, November 4, 2008.DEAR BARRY: As a real estate instructor, I teach many programs on ethics and disclosure to agents and people preparing to become agents. These same subjects are often addressed in your column. From your perspective, what can we Realtors do to enhance our ethical approach to real estate disclosure? --Janice
DEAR JANICE: Realtors are often advised, in seminars and trade journals, to disclose defects and recommend home inspections to clients. The reason given for this advice is to reduce liability and avoid lawsuits. That recommendation has merit, but it offers a narrow view of the issue. Reduced liability is a fringe benefit of disclosure. It is not the primary motive to disclose.
The best reason to disclose property defects is simple: It is the right thing to do. It is the way each of us wants to be treated in business. The focus, instead of liability, should be promoting the best interests of clients. Agents who pursue that approach, rather than a legalistic one, enjoy three primary rewards: They build a lifetime reputation for honest, ethical business practice; they receive the repeat business and referrals engendered by a solid-gold reputation; and they reduce the likelihood of claims and lawsuits for undisclosed defects. From that perspective, here are some simple ways to put this into practice.
Agents should determine which home inspectors are the most experienced and most thorough, and they should provide a list of those inspectors to all of their clients. Articles and seminars often advise agents to provide inspector lists as a way to avoid liability, but the competence of the inspectors who appear on such lists is rarely mentioned. The problem here is obvious. If the list contains mediocre inspectors, then it fails on the ethics scale, while increasing the agent's liability. If the client chooses an inexperienced home inspector from the agent's list, disclosure will be incomplete, and disputes may occur after the sale.
Real estate brokers should be proactive about disclosure, even when they are not directly involved in transactions. Many brokers are laissez faire in their approach, uninvolved in the home inspector choices made by agents. This lack of oversight increases a broker's liability. When a lawsuit for a faulty home inspection is filed against an agent, the broker is usually named in the suit. To avoid this liability, brokers should influence the inspector referrals made by their agents. The message should be: "This brokerage cannot afford disclosure-related lawsuits. If you work for this company, you must recommend only the most thorough home inspectors available. Here is the list of inspectors we have found to be the most qualified."
Brokers who wish to maximize this approach can test local inspectors to see who qualifies for the referral list. Inspectors can be hired to inspect a representative home, and the findings can be compared to see which inspectors provide the most complete disclosure.
Real estate professionals are in a service business. Success in any service business comes from treating customers the way you want to be treated. Home buyers want to know what they are buying before they buy it, not after the sale is closed. Agents and brokers who approach their profession from this perspective will build reservoirs of repeat business for years to come and will simultaneously reduce their liability.
To write to Barry Stone, please visit him on the Web at www.housedetective.com.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.


You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Lenn Harley on November 4, 2008 - 5:27am.
Indeed. Listing agents who encourage full disclosure or better, repair, of defects will have easier transactions and more satified clients, buyers or sellers.
Unfortunately, the attitude in many areas is, nothing is a defect until the buyer or the buyer's inspector can find it.
A good home inspector is worth their weight in good.
A smart agent who knows how to handle repairs is also a valuable asset.
Lenn Harley
Broker
Homefinders.com
http://www.homefinders.com
Submitted by Stephen Graham on November 4, 2008 - 6:08am.
I handle mostly new construction home buyers. Over the years, I have found a home inspection company that has proven itself through diligence. Forasmuch as this company has earned my trust, I will recommend it; however, I advise my buyer-clients that they can choose any inspector that they so desire. This is documented via e-mail.
Associate Broker | Buyer's Agent
www.realtown.com/BuyersAgentGeorgia/blog
www.georgia-new-homes.net
Submitted by Walter Boomsma on November 4, 2008 - 12:44pm.
Like the original questioner, I also teach real estate. One important distinction is that in prelicensing courses we must be more concerned about the law than "ethics" since most students are studying to pass an exam. Real estate law and "realtor law" (and MLS rules and agency policy) are not the same.
As for "best practice," I'm uncertain what is being suggested here. It seems like there has been a leap from suggesting sellers and their agents should disclose everything because it's the "right thing to do" to hiring a home inspector. Are we talking about the seller or the buyer? (All those agents who would suggest their buyer client accept the seller's home inspection report raise your hands.) I'd argue that it would be equally "unethical" to allow some one to believe we've disclosed everything - or that a home inspection is anything more than a tool for the buyer to make an informed decision.
I agree in principle that we should be making intelligent referrals, but that is not limited to home inspectors. Are we also to prepare a "representative" buyer and have lenders suggest loan packages so we can see who does the best job? (If we'd be doing that for the past few years would we be in the current lending mess we're in?)
Liability and "ethics" present an interesting balance--one in which the questions may be more important than the answers. When we start worry more about our liability than our client's interests we are out of balance. And one way we are sure to cross both lines is to start assuming responsibility for our client's decisions.