I for one do not condone such activity. Here's my reasoning.
In California Full Disclosure is required in any real estate transaction. It serves to protect both buyer and seller in the event disputes arise concerning a property's condition subsequent to the sale as well as giving the prospective buyer a clear indication as to the work that may have been performed on the property, at least between the time of the previous and current purchase agreement. I can't tell you how many times I have been asked to inspect homes subsequent to a sale, especially foreclosures or REO's, only to find them needing thousands of dollars of defective workmanship repairs. It is almost as if the lenders who have taken back such properties are trying to unload "lemons" and yet extract as much money as they can from unsuspecting buyers. They offer homes in "as is" condition and hope that the defects will not be noticied or that prospective buyers, who may be first time buyers, will not enlist the services of a qualified builder or remodeler or home inspector to give them an honest opinion as to the property's value. They price the homes low in an effort to entice multiple offers which creates a bidding frenzie and ultimately produces a sale 10's of thousands of dollars above the original listing price and then when the new owner moves in and discovers everything from faulty foundations to leaking roofs they have the audacity to invoke their "as is " stipulation.
Buyer's beware! This should be the warning sign placed on any such offering. In fact I would go so far as to insist that the lenders not be allowed to offer such homes for sale without them meeting minimum code requirements. Wasn't our current economic recession due, in part, to the liberal lending practices of many of the banks that currently own a serious inventory of REO properties? For those who are experts in house flipping, this recent economic downturn has produced great financial rewards but at the same time it has brought about great hardships for many a first time buyer who, thinking they were getting a great deal, has discovered they have purchased a dud with no recourse because of the "as is" clause.
Building codes are typically the minimum requirements stipulated to insure a safe structure. Is it any wonder why there are so many lawsuits in our courts today for faulty workmanship claims? For every builder who fails to comply with the minimum code requirements you can be sure there are probably a thousand homeowners who don't comply as well. It's easy to understand the need to have full disclosure. As over regulated as builders are today, I believe that it is only fair that the seller of a property should be responsible to pay for an independent home inspection prior to the listing of their home and that the home inspector providing the report bear some, if not all of the responsibility, for any repairs that were omitted or which went unnoticed. This would certainly create a much clearer picture of the homes condition and bring to light the potentially serious hazards that exist. It's criminal, in my opinion, that the lenders can hide behind the "as is" clause. If anyone should know better it is this group.
The building codes are necessary guidelines but it must be understood that they are minimum standards. Homeowners who perform DIY alterations to their homes should not be able to claim ignorance of the codes. Any authority having jurisdiction should not penalize or utilize their position to impose unfair rates in order to fund there shortfalls due to fiscal mismanagement. We all need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves "have I been or am I being fair in my dealings with those with whom I am conducting business?"
