I really wish they would just make it a requirement for any property in a SFHA. The terms 100 year or 500 year are not readily understood and may be a false sense of security.
Remember, Texas is the state that set up a self-insurance mechanism for its public buildings but failed to fund it, leaving the buildings uninsured. If common sense needs to be legislated to protect the citizenry, so be it.
How does she think a seller is supposed to know whether the house could possibly flood in a future catastrophic situation? Any house can flood in that scenario. What good does that do if everyone answers it as yes? This will just open up sellers to lawsuits anytime their old house floods. The property seller shouldn’t be responsible for educating the buyer about potential risk. They should tell the buyer what’s happened to the house in the past, not what they think could happen in the future.
Failure to disclose a known defect is grounds for all sorts lawsuits. Involving many potential defendants. The real culprit in failure to disclose easily identifiable risks is the real estate agent. They are supposed to have a detailed knowledge of not just the house, but where the house sits. And let us not forget the title company. Their “detailed” research of the property history is a joke. A friends son recently bought a house. The day before closing, the title company “discovered” an IRS lien on the property. If the sale had closed, the son would have been involved with the IRS. I told him to use the magic words, “material misrepresentation”, and see what happened. The title company waived all of their fees and premiums, and the lien was immediately paid off. And remember, there is no law that says a real estate agent is entitled to a 6% commission. I’ve never paid that much. In fact, I’ve always stipulated a flat amount in the listing agreement. Always funny when, at closing, the agent realizes that instead of $10,000-12,000, all they are getting is $2,500. Should have read the listing agreement.
So the bill requires the seller to disclose if the home “might flood” in a catastrophic situation. Most seller’s won’t know this. Here’s an easier solution – have seller and/or realtor provide a flood quote with listing – buyer either accepts or rejects it. As usual we’re creating laws that reinforce the concept that “it’s somebody else’s fault”. I’m surprised a Rep would sponsor this bill.
What’s so difficult? When I purchased home, I was provided a form to sign warning that house was in a high wind, high fire and high earthquake zone. I, of course, knew all of this before making an offer. Buyers should know the potential risks, especially if there’s a chance they won’t be able to obtain insurance to cover the potential hazards.
I really wish they would just make it a requirement for any property in a SFHA. The terms 100 year or 500 year are not readily understood and may be a false sense of security.
A little bit of common sense usually goes a long way.
Remember, Texas is the state that set up a self-insurance mechanism for its public buildings but failed to fund it, leaving the buildings uninsured. If common sense needs to be legislated to protect the citizenry, so be it.
How does she think a seller is supposed to know whether the house could possibly flood in a future catastrophic situation? Any house can flood in that scenario. What good does that do if everyone answers it as yes? This will just open up sellers to lawsuits anytime their old house floods. The property seller shouldn’t be responsible for educating the buyer about potential risk. They should tell the buyer what’s happened to the house in the past, not what they think could happen in the future.
Failure to disclose a known defect is grounds for all sorts lawsuits. Involving many potential defendants. The real culprit in failure to disclose easily identifiable risks is the real estate agent. They are supposed to have a detailed knowledge of not just the house, but where the house sits. And let us not forget the title company. Their “detailed” research of the property history is a joke. A friends son recently bought a house. The day before closing, the title company “discovered” an IRS lien on the property. If the sale had closed, the son would have been involved with the IRS. I told him to use the magic words, “material misrepresentation”, and see what happened. The title company waived all of their fees and premiums, and the lien was immediately paid off. And remember, there is no law that says a real estate agent is entitled to a 6% commission. I’ve never paid that much. In fact, I’ve always stipulated a flat amount in the listing agreement. Always funny when, at closing, the agent realizes that instead of $10,000-12,000, all they are getting is $2,500. Should have read the listing agreement.
So the bill requires the seller to disclose if the home “might flood” in a catastrophic situation. Most seller’s won’t know this. Here’s an easier solution – have seller and/or realtor provide a flood quote with listing – buyer either accepts or rejects it. As usual we’re creating laws that reinforce the concept that “it’s somebody else’s fault”. I’m surprised a Rep would sponsor this bill.
What’s so difficult? When I purchased home, I was provided a form to sign warning that house was in a high wind, high fire and high earthquake zone. I, of course, knew all of this before making an offer. Buyers should know the potential risks, especially if there’s a chance they won’t be able to obtain insurance to cover the potential hazards.