The large contractors I used for the job didn’t even know about this. I had to have my AC unit relocated and they had to pull a City of Austin mechanical and plumbing permit to do the job. The plumbing failed when the inspector noted I didn’t have the installed hard-wired smoke alarms. What a pain in the a**! Now I have to spend this weekend wiring smoke alarms in my freekin’ attic in July!

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/hs.toc.htm

I ran across this blog because I’m buying a house and noted that the seller’s disclosure is marked “unsure” with regard to whether the smoke detectors meet the code. I’m glad there was someone out there who could clear up why seller might not know. Now if only someone could clear up the law itself.

Steve

Glad you found the information useful.

Steve

“At present, a Seller in Texas has no obligation whatsoever to make any repairs or improvements to a property being sold. It doesn’t matter if it’s out of code, falling down, roof leaks, etc. All property is sold as-is except for those repairs agreed to in writing between a buyer and seller.”

So often I find that many buyers feel that the seller is obligated to be making any/all repairs (pursuant to the inspection report). I feel it’s the agent’s responsibility to point out to their buyers what it says on Pg. 3 of the contract, #7 PROPERTY CONDITION, under D, Acceptance of Property Condition. It clearly states that the buyer accepts the property in its present condition. By the way, those blanks are there to write in something that was glaring when they viewed the home (i.e. hole in the bedroom wall, broken down car in the backyard) NOT the words, “Per inspection report”. Where are these agents getting this crap from? From other (bad) agents?

Personally, and I find many agents agree, this section on the contract needs to be in bold, in 14 point & hi-lited in yellow. It’s ridiculous to me when buyers are buying existing homes, not a brand new home (& even they have issues) and expect the home to be perfect, further, if it’s not, they feel the seller needs to bring it up to their standards. WRONG. Buyer’s Agents, Brokers, please do your job, read the contract and make sure your buyers do too; advise your buyers accordingly.

Texas is a Buyer Beware state and the responsibility lies with the buyers to understand they are purchasing a home AS IS, if they want time to get inspections, they need to PAY the seller for that time, it’s called an Option Period (and what’s with the pidly $25, $50 Option fees? for friggin 10 day Option Periods?). Agents remind your buyers the seller doesn’t have to fix anything, they are buying it AS IS (remember they signed the contract, pg. 7, Acceptance of property condition?). If they are going to want to address issues with the seller, agents need to explain to the buyers, it should be something BIG & SERIOUS and/or DANGEROUS (i.e. HVAC issues, Electrical issues, Foundation issues). By better preparing the buyer or the seller about what to expect through the differenct phases of the transaction, most will find that everyone involved will cooperate & the transaction will go smoothly. When everyone is kept informed, they feel involved and know what their choices are that will allow them to make reasonable decisions, resulting in a smoother transaction. In the big picture, thus resulting in future referrals from those satisfied clients.

The seller’s disclosure just went to 5 pages, I’m sure it won’t be long until the contract goes beyond 8 pages (we are already seeing ugly signs of Mineral Rights – due to the drilling leases/contracts for the Barnett Shale). It’s becoming more & more difficult to get through a transaction smoothly and I find most of the time it is because an agent failed to inform their party accordingly.

I’ll have to look further into that. I had heard something about requiring upgraded sewer lines in the older parts of town upon sale someday, which may be part of what you’re talking about.

Yes, it seems like we’re moving toward a day when selling a home will mean having to comply with government imposed “upgrades”, which is unconstitutional. It will probably be placed under the umbrella of “for the better good of all”. Believe me, there are plenty of Buyers and Sellers who can’t afford even the simple repairs that are revealed upon inspection, so I’m not sure who we think will be coming up with the cash to comply with mandated retrofits and upgrades.

Thanks for your comments.

Steve

I don’t mean to be knit-picky – I understand and agree with the heart of your opinion. But I don’t think that HB 2118 has anything on Austin City Council Resolution 20070215-023. It was passed back in February, and mysteriously, we haven’t heard anything more about it. Let’s recap some portions of that resolution:

1)implementing building codes requiring all new single-family homes
to be zero net energy capable by 2015 (Somebody PLEEAASE pass the perpetual motion machine!)

2)implementing building codes to increase energy efficiency in all
other new private and public sector buildings by at least 75 percent
by 2015

3)implementing policies identifying opportunities for energy
efficiency retrofits and upgrades, and requiring all cost-effective
retrofits and upgrades for all properties at the point of sale
(This one gets me. This, to me, is a BLATANT violation of private property rights.)

4)developing enhanced technical assistance and marketing incentives
and standards for the Green Building Program, developing policies
requiring achievement of upper-tier ratings in cases where green
building is mandated as a product of City programs or negotiations,
and developing an optional “Carbon Neutral” certification to
accompany green building ratings
(What is an ‘optional’ Carbon Neutral certification? If they’re going for pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, why not go for the gold?)

5)develop a menu of greenhouse gas reduction strategies for local
implementation that citizens and organizations can fund through the
purchase of “carbon offset” credits, thereby reducing their own
carbon footprint
(FUND?? People will be too busy-and broke-trying to ‘retrofit’ their homes. And buying carbon credits.)

I know you’ve addressed this issue before, but I think it merits mention here. Some folks say this resolution is empty because it’s vague – but it sure sounds good – and I’m wondering when the city council will pounce.

Sounds like I’m anti-environmentalism, which isn’t true. I’m just not for being unrealistic about it – and AT THE PROPERTY OWNER’S EXPENSE. Oh, but I forgot – Mayor Wynn was so gracious to suggest that the improvements could be wrapped in the buyer’s mortgage.

So, why don’t we just wrap the cost of the smoke-detector upgrade into the mortgage?