flipping on the side

[wes owens]

I have a question about flipping houses on the side.

First let me say that I know some of you are against it from previous post on this subject, so I'm not looking for feed back on whether it's ethical or not.

I would not engage in anything that I felt was unethical and risk my reputation that I have worked extremely hard to build.

I was asked about going into business with someone (I will refer to them as the investor from here on), and flip house on the side.

First, I would locate a property and if it looked promising, I would inspect it.

Then the investor would purchase the property.

Then I would do all of the repairs and renovating that I could do, and hire out the rest. The investor would cover material and any subing out I had to hire.

The property would go on the market and if all went well, would sell at a profit. The cost of the property, material, and sub fees (not mine) would come off of the top and be paid first, then the profit would be left.

My question is how should I handle my side.

Should I get paid for inspecting the property and for my time doing the repairs, and then get a small percentage of the profits, or should I not get paid for anything and receive a little more of the profits?

Or is there another way to handle it?

I don't know what would normally be done so I thought that maybe some of you have done, seen, or heard something like this that may give me an idea of what to do.

Thanks.

[Jack Feldmann]

Wes,
First and most important thing. Get it all worked out in advance IN WRITING. Also have an exit plan for when it goes south.

I'm not sure if you belong to ASHI or any other HI organization, or if you are licensed. ASHI's code of ethics actually prohibits inspecting a house that you have, or expect to have, a financial interest.

There also may be regulations about doing work on a home you have inspected, or ethics issues too.

What I have done for inspector friends (that are purchasing a home), is to be the inspector of record, and they just follow me around. It's my report, he is the client, and I get paid. You should probably take off the inspector hat for homes you are going to partner and work on.

I work with several investors, and I have seen a bunch of the partnerships break up over the years. It has always been because they didn't have a clear understanding of who was going to do what, and how the money was going to be handled.

Hope it works out for you
JF

[wes owens]

I took ASHI's code

"Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest."

to mean that I cannot inspect a property for a client that I have a financial interest in. In my case, I am the client.

That would also mean that I can't work on a property for another client for 12 months.

But if I am the client, then the code would be irrelevant.
Right?

Thats how I interpreted it anyway.

I may be wrong.

[Gunnar Alquist]

I see a couple of problems with what you are proposing. If you plan on going back to the seller for corrections or consideration for some unacceptable condition with the house. Then, it would be a conflict of interest. If you are inspecting the building to determine if it is economically feasible, the it seems to me that there is no conflict.

However, more importantly, as an inspector, you may be held to a higher standard (lawsuit wise) than a non-inspector, if something is incorrectly repaired or missed during construction. Be really careful.

[wes owens]

Gunnar,

It would only be to determine if it is economically feasible because according to the investor, foreclosures is what their interested in.

There wouldn't be a seller to go back to.

So, what would be the norm for my side of the business?

[Jim Robinson]

"Should I get paid for inspecting the property and for my time doing the repairs, and then get a small percentage of the profits, or should I not get paid for anything and receive a little more of the profits?"

I don't think there is a problem with conflict of interest. The main questions I see was the one above. If it was me, I would certainly do the first one by getting paid for the work and inspection, and taking a smaller percentage of the profits. There may not be any profit, or it may take a lot longer to flip than you were hoping, which could leave you on the short end. If it works out great after the first one, readjust your percentages and go for it.

[Tony Mount]

Wes, If your the skill, labor and contractor and he is only the money then you should be intitled to at least half, even if you don't do any work but contracting. Your like 2 sides of a coin one side worthless with out the other. Don't sell your self short.

[Aaron Miller]

The ethical considerations aside (if that's entirely possible), the biggest hurdle you will have to jump is the issue of quality. "Flipping" is a euphemistic term synonymous with "whitewashing", if it is used in the context of buying distressed properties, putting as little money into them as possible to make the aesthetically appealing, and selling them to unsuspecting buyers at a profit. How do you, as a competent (assumed) inspector see that you will get beyond this with any degree of grace?

Aaron:D

[Matt Fellman]

As others mentioned, whatever you do get it in writing. I've seen several deals start out good and go south in a hurry when people don't agree on things.

As for the ehtical side of things, the SOP's I've seen just address inspecting a house for someone else that you might have an interest in. I've always thought this is to stop you from talking some buyers out of buying just so you (or someone else you know) could.

It seems like most of the rules and laws surrounding this stuff are about disclosure of some type. I've just always been up front with sellers and/or their agents about what I do for a living so nobody can say I was being deceptive.

[Aaron Miller]

It seems like most of the rules and laws surrounding this stuff are about disclosure of some type. I've just always been up front with sellers and/or their agents about what I do for a living so nobody can say I was being deceptive.

Even the best of intentions can lead to the worst of outcomes. The idea that one organization or the other has a corner on the ethics market or that any one of them can even realistically pretend that legislating ethics is a possibility is absolutely absurd. The best approach is not only to avoid a conflict of interests, but to avoid even the possible appearance of a conflict of interests. Regardless what one says or what one writes, when the lawsuits begin, memories become unclear and so do contractual agreements.

Aaron:o

[Jack Feldmann]

To me, the ASHI Code of Ethics is VERY clear.
1A) "Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest."

The way I see it, you are going to have, AND do EXPECT to have a financial interest. You plan on getting paid to do construction work, AND you plan on sharing the profits from the sale.

IF you get paid for the inspection, AND get paid for the rehab work, you will probably be ahead of the potential profit line, unless the property is purchased at a steal.

You need to look at who is bringing what to the table.

You have the inspection skill. Can the investor get the same job for the same amount of money from someone else? Probably. Cost involved - probably $250 - 500.

Running the job. Assuming you have the proper licenses (could be a big problem if you don't) and skills AND experience (bigger problem if you don't). Can he get this same service somewhere else at less cost? Maybe yes, maybe no. If there are a lot of tasks that you have to hire out, then your worth (to the investor) is less. If you can't get the job done in a timely manner, your worth is less. Cost unknown.

The bottom line to flipping is getting the job done as quickly as possible and getting the property sold. Nowhere in here have I said anything about shoddy work, or whitewashing. True, that's what a lot of flippers do, but is not always the case, and never should be. But a delay in the work can affect the bottom line, because for every day the house is not sold, the bank clock keeps ticking, and the "profit" just slips away.

I guess if the investor is bringing ALL of the money, your share of the "profits" should probably be much lower, since you are being paid for you time and work and didn't bring anything to the table (money wise). He could find another inspector, and another GC to handle the job - he really doesn't need you.

You come from a stronger position of getting paid for what you are doing and walk away. There may not be a profit. The other side is: if the project loses money, will you share in the loss? I can see maybe getting a bonus for bringing the project in on time and under budget. An incentive for getting it done prior to the deadline. But share of the profits? I guess a lot would depend on what you were bringing in.

Hope it works out for you.
JF

[Aaron Miller]

Jack:

I guess we are speaking from different experience pools here. I was a general contract for over 20 years building and remodeling hundreds of houses. In addition, I have been inspecting homes for 11 years now. In my travels I have seen maybe one "flipper" that attempted to do the right thing. He is no longer in that business. Guess why.

In the comfort of the hypothetical assumption that flipping can be profitably accomplished without becoming whitewashing, one might wax confident. From the front lines I must report that your castle in the clouds was likely not one acquired through flipping.

Aaron:eek:

[Lewis Capaul]

"Should I get paid for inspecting the property and for my time doing the repairs, and then get a small percentage of the profits, or should I not get paid for anything and receive a little more of the profits?"

If you are paid for the Inspection and then do the repairs and profit from the sale then you are, in my opinion, in violation of the COEs of most of the HI Associations.

If you are inspecting the home for the purpose of investment, either as an individual or with a partner(s), then there should be no fee seeing as you are inspecting for yourself to determining if the home is suitable for "flipping" then you are doing so as an investor. Be upfront with the seller and listing agent and do the inspection your self, don't worry too much about SOP's, if you find problems that you want a deeper look at, notify the seller and realtor that you demand a more invasive and technical inspection of those conditions than a normal HI would allow.

I was doing this before I became a Home Inspector and it has been keeping me busy for the past year, I'm waiting for 3 o4 feet of snow to melt to finish my latest project. I've also inspected Homes for Investors, but not as a Home Inspector but as a General Contractor where I've brought in Electricians, Plumbers, and other pros for estimates of repairs or renovations. Then I put everything together and submit it to the Investor/Buyer so they can determine if they want to purchase the home and have me perform and supervise the repairs. If they don't then I don't get paid for my "Inspection".

If a buyer or investor pays me to Inspect, then I don't do the work or prepare any estimates. Flipping and Home Inspection are two different businesses, keep them separate.

[Tony Mount]

Wes, So far Lewis has given you the best advice, and as a flipper myself I know from experience that this board is hostile when it comes to flippers. There is a LOT of money to be made from flipping houses and if you can get a money man that is willing to split the profits I don't think you can go wrong. As home inspectors we have a Great advantage over the average guy flipping houses. We can tell if a property is worth investing in and if it will sale once the flip is complete. There is truth in spending as little money as possible in order to make the most profit. That does NOT mean that the final flip is dangerous or something for the buyer to beware. Most builders do the same thing in new construction which is known as lesser quality, but the price reflects what you pay for. The bottom line is flip your houses with safety and the knowledge that you are a home inspector and know what is correct and what is not. Most of the posters on this board would love to make the money you can make flipping houses but believe that only top quality materials, and repairs to the highest standards are acceptable. The mere thought of putting a 20 year shingle, low end appliances or a lesser quality carpet in a flip house screams rip off to the consumer. That is NOT reality in any consumer product made in this country including houses. How many products do you pay top prices for just to have it break due to a plastic part that the manufacture put in it to save money. Lesser quality is the norm in this country rather you like it or not. Wes, I think you have a good opportunity to make a lot of money and that is what makes this the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD so go for it. I'm stepping down from my soap box now. Good Luck. Tony the diamond wearing flipper

[John Arnold]

...a good opportunity to make a lot of money and that is what makes this the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD...

Really? THAT'S what make this the greatest country in the world?

[Nick Ostrowski]

John, it's either that or the fact that TM can proudly boast about his home inspection/precious stones business.

[Jerry Peck]

Then I would do all of the repairs and renovating that I could do, and hire out the rest.

Addressing this from a different point of view as your other issue has already been addressed.

IF (the big "if") SC is like FL, you are only legally allowed to do those repairs if you are a licensed contractor for that trade.

I.e., you can only do plumbing if you are a licensed plumbing contractor, you can only the the electrical if you are a licensed electrical contractor, etc.

To find out, look up the licensing laws for contractors and see what is covered and what exceptions/exclusions there are. If like Florida, that will be homeowner acting as an owner/contractor ... BUT ... that exception does NOT apply when the house is offered for sale or lease within one year - note: not 'sold or leased' within one year, but "offered" for sale or lease within one year from the date of purchase.

Otherwise, you are considered an unlicensed contractor.

[Richard Rushing]

I think it's pretty simple...

You can do one or the other but not both; inspection or be the general contractor.

If you inspect the home for a fee... you are obligated to step out of the general contractor roll due to having a monetary interest (think-- the more you find, the more the contractor would get to fix. That's certainly a conflict of interest).

If you are going to be the GC, then you should quote the job with your company's profit margin already built into the quote--without expectations of splitting the profits. Additionally, there should be some incentives of bringing the job in on-time. The sellers budget is nothing, as a general contractor, that you should be involved with. The quot you provided and eventually agreed upon with the investor has your payment built-into it.

Rich

[Jack Feldmann]

Aaron,
I was also a General Contractor in a previous life, and was raised in a family of contractors (in Southern CA). I started working in the family business in the summer of 1964 when I got my drivers license. I've been an inspector since 1989 by the way. While my main career path took me in the direction of a "real job", I always was involved in the family business, and got my own GC license too.

I have been involved in many renovation projects, and several "flips" if you will, and I can honestly say that we NEVER tried to cover up something, or hide a known defect - or whitewash. Not all of them made the profit we had hoped, and I remember one or two that were on the verge of getting us in the red. We not only built regular homes in the SF Valley, but built many movie stars homes in the Hollywood Hills, as well as commercial buildings.

Not all of the flips I inspect in Knoxville are pieces of crap either. I guess you are right, we are coming from different experience pools.

I agree that a lot of the flippers, especially ones that got into it in the last few years, are more geared to the cover it with paint and caulk and move on and hope no one finds out before the check clears - but not everyone.

Richard is right, Wes has a ethical issue to deal with.
JF

[Lewis Capaul]

Addressing this from a different point of view as your other issue has already been addressed.

IF (the big "if") SC is like FL, you are only legally allowed to do those repairs if you are a licensed contractor for that trade.

I.e., you can only do plumbing if you are a licensed plumbing contractor, you can only the the electrical if you are a licensed electrical contractor, etc..

Jerry, Do you meen that a home owner in Florida cannot do repairs on their own property and have to hire a licensed contractor? Here an owner can do his own work, electrical, plumbing, etc. but they need a permit and the work, just like with a licensed contractor, needs to be inspected by the county/city.

[Matt Fellman]

What Jerry's likely eluding to is simiar to here in Oregon. You can't do the work with the intent to sell. Yes, as a homeowner you can do the work (obtaining the permits along the way, of course). But, with the intent to sell you must be licensed in that trade. Or, at least the biggies - plumbing, electrical, hvac, etc. I'm pretty sure they'll let anyone paint and plant shrubs.... at least for now.

Of course, the first question is "what qualifies as intent?" Only somebody in your head knows for sure. Proving what somebody knew is a difficult case to make.... of course not impossible, but more to it than a slam dunk.

There's an easy out that I've seen 'exercised' several times.... "The seller bought the house and was going to move in but after the remodel his wife didn't like it so they're selling instead" - Yeah, right..... But, if it were true it would be totally legit. Because, at the time the work was done it was their 'intent' to own and stay in the house. It gets somewhat gray and fuzzy but that's what I've been told.

[Jerry Peck]

What Jerry's likely eluding to is simiar to here in Oregon. You can't do the work with the intent to sell.

Correct.


Of course, the first question is "what qualifies as intent?" Only somebody in your head knows for sure. Proving what somebody knew is a difficult case to make.... of course not impossible, but more to it than a slam dunk.

In Florida, it is a "slam dunk" to prove intent.

The state statute states that 'offering it for sale or lease within one year' proves "intent": (underlining is mine)

"In an action brought under this part, proof of the sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, of any such structure by the owner-builder within 1 year after completion of same creates a presumption that the construction was undertaken for purposes of sale or lease."

That's a slam dunk.

[Aaron Miller]

Jack:

Point taken. In my area the term flipper is synonymous with unctuous, unscrupulous sleaze. And, that's the PC version of it. The post from diamond-wearing Tony is a prime example of the sort of swindler I'm used to encountering in the flipping business.

I usually attempt to be as objective as humanly possible when inspecting any property. When it comes to a flipped house though, I dust off every code book I own and send them a 75-100 pager. It's the least I can do for both my client and the pond scum who's attempting to rip them off.:D

Aaron:D

[Rick Hurst]

Aaron,

The same goes for me when inspecting these flip homes.

You just know the minute you walk in the place thats its a flipper. Always some kind of cheesy decorative crap sitting on the counters in the kitchen and decorator towels hanging in the bathroom.

Nothing has been updated except for the water down paint sprayed all over the place (including inside the receptacles and service panel) and any wood rot just covered up with the paint.

They put some cheap builders grade carpet that probably cost 1.85 a yard and think they have done some remodeling.

Here comes some first time homebuyer that can't see past the coat of paint and think their buying a dream home. I have no problem with a legitimate remodeler or contractor but when it comes to these HGTV watchers who think they can become the next Donald Trump and try to swindle some buyer I have no mercy with them.

I don't miss a thing when I inspect these "band-aid" homes. I've had these flippers calling me everything but a white boy when they see the report my client gives to them or a repair request. :)

I agree with TM on one thing only and that is this is the greatest country in the world but it is so because it was built with pride and hard work.

[Aaron Miller]

Rick:

Amen.

These disgusting SOBs are nothing but slumlords dba flippers. They add nothing of value to the neighborhoods they operate in, nothing to the lives of the unsuspecting buyers, and nothing to the nation's economy as a whole. They represent the typical "ugly American" that is detested worldwide. Boob-tube-educated imbeciles acting out their sick fantasies.

I've been involved in a couple of lawsuits where flippers were the defendants. I enjoyed the last one some much that I waved my expert witness fee. The a-hole lost, was forced to buy back the house and pay court costs and attorney fees. He called me a few times threatening to do this and that. I recorded one of the calls and sent it to the judge and attorneys involved. Have not heard a word from his since. Imagine that . . :D

As for the jewel-encrusted jerk off, you might try to keep North Texas out of your sights, because a few of us here would just love to do business with you.

Aaron:eek:

[Tony Mount]

Damn, Aaron just get it off your chest man, let it out, don't hold back, looks like you bought a few flip houses and got burned. Then you became a home inspector to save the world. Good job Aaron

[Matt Fellman]

I've seen a lot less flips lately... Without the built-in 10% appreciation just for the year while you work on the house they don't work financially as well.

What I have seen is more than what I would call a flip... It's more of a total rehab. Lifting the house, pouring a new foundation, all new mechanical, etc.

[Jerry Peck]

Tony,

I've got to say 'You have the courage of your convictions', ... standing up and bragging that you rip people off and that there is nothing wrong with that ...

Too bad, though, that you don't have the 'convictions of your courage' ... which would allow you to see why 'that is not a good thing'. :(

[Aaron Miller]

EC Jerry:

Well said.

Aaron

[Rick Hurst]

Damn, Aaron just get it off your chest man, let it out, don't hold back, looks like you bought a few flip houses and got burned. Then you became a home inspector to save the world. Good job Aaron

Bold is mine

Tony,

Where do you get out of any of Aaron Miller posts that he has bought a few flip houses and got burned?

You read into what you want to believe to make yourself feel justified for your own gratification. Little man Syndrome I call it.

If anything, your career and beliefs as a Home Inspector ought to serve as a warning to others considering joining into this business.

rick

[Lewis Capaul]

I've seen a lot less flips lately... Without the built-in 10% appreciation just for the year while you work on the house they don't work financially as well.

What I have seen is more than what I would call a flip... It's more of a total rehab. Lifting the house, pouring a new foundation, all new mechanical, etc.

That's just what I've had to do on many of the homes I've done over the past 35 years, I've never considered it to be flipping, although the goal is the same, profit. The only time I might have came close to "flipping" was when I was in Vegas for a couple of years and bought and sold several foreclosures that didn't take that much work, regrount/repair tile, a new counter top or so, some new doors, sheetrock repair, clean up, and yes paint, not a great profit, but I figured it out one time to be worth around $35/hr if I had been working for someone else.

The property I'm finishing up now, if the damned snow will melt, we completely gutted, new foundation, new everything, including a new well when the snow goes away. I bought the property as acreage, the seller considered the 100 year old rancher to be a tear down, but the structure was solid and will now have a "Historical" value built in IF I sell it,
I'm trying to wiggle things around so that I can afford to keep it.

Don't forget that there are sellers out there that are as bad as some of the worst "flippers", many sellers, some on the advice of their Realtor, use the same methods, new paint and shiny things to dazzle the buyer.

[daniel nantell]

Yes Im flipping on the side myself, its from having nightmares about the condition of the Real Estate Fandango. My wife has tried tieing me to the bed but Im keep flipping on the side. (:( .)

[Aaron Miller]

Flippers:

I just have to say that my hat's off to you inspectors who find both the time and the energy to run a full-time professional inspection business and a professional full-time remodeling contractor firm simultaneously.

But, let's take a closer look. I have done both - one at a time. As a contractor and builder I put in a minimum of 80 hours per week. So, I promised myself that my next business would consume less of my time. Eleven years ago I became an inspector and now work only 60 hours per week.

Now you do the math. Even assuming that I had the desire to do such an insane thing, I would not have the energy to work 20-hour days, seven days a week. Neither, I might add, do you. So, that leads me to the conclusion that you flippers are both part-time inspectors and part-time contractors. Do you follow? Can you see where this is going?

Part-time anything is professional nothing. Jacks-of-all-trades. Tyros. Dilettantes. Amateurs. Get it?

Of course, if one or the other of these jobs is just a hobby, well then, I guess you could be forgiven. But you should be riding that hobby horse on a pre-school equestrian forum and not here with the big boys.

Aaron:D

[Mike Schulz]

Oh blow your horn Aaron :cool:

I'm a full timer in the Inspection business and still think about Buying and selling homes.

There are cookie cutter inspectors that cut rate the business and have to do 15 or more a week to live off the low fee. Then theres the "Inspector" which gets paid accordingly and can do 5 or so a week and have time to flip.

Ahhhhh bullshit. It would be hard to do both and not put do diligent to one of them. :D

Just because a Inspector may not do many inspections doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is doing.:p

[Aaron Miller]

I'm a full timer in the Inspection business and still think about Buying and selling homes.

There's not a thing wrong with just thinking about it . . .


There are cookie cutter inspectors that cut rate the business and have to do 15 or more a week to live off the low fee. Then theres the "Inspector" which gets paid accordingly and can do 5 or so a week and have time to flip.

I couldn't afford my wife on 5 of even East Coast Jerry's inspections per week.

Aaron;)

[Rick Hurst]

Tony,

Don't insult him.

His name is Brian. B-R-I-A-N NOT Bryan.

By the way, your not the moderator of the board and can't tell someone to delete their post by telling them "Last Chance"

Living near those power lines must be getting to you.

rick

[John Arnold]

Tony,...your not the moderator of the board and can't tell someone to delete their post

Rick please. Tony didn't tell anyone to delete a post. He told Aaron to "Deleat". There's a big difference.

[Rick Hurst]

At the front gate:

[John Arnold]

Rick - I wish I had a picture, but my favorite sign was at a restaurant/bar I used to frequent in Floyd, Virginia that said "Closed for remolding". That pretty much said it all.

[James Duffin]

I don't see a problem with a HI inspecting a house he is a party to buying to fix up and sell. If you are doing for yourself how can it be a conflict or violation of anybodies COE?

[Jerry Peck]

I don't see a problem with a HI inspecting a house he is a party to buying to fix up and sell. If you are doing for yourself how can it be a conflict or violation of anybodies COE?

James,

He is wanting to CHARGE for the HI.

No investor worth working with would agree to 'pay for services provided' and then 'split the profits', if you are in it together, you make or break together, to try to charge for your services and then split the profit, that's just plain dumb for an investor to do (and would make me very suspicious of the investor's intent, i.e., will I actually get my share later - and the answer may well be 'Why should you, you already got paid').

[James Duffin]

"My question is how should I handle my side.

Should I get paid for inspecting the property and for my time doing the repairs, and then get a small percentage of the profits, or should I not get paid for anything and receive a little more of the profits?"

The first posters question is posted above in bold. I answered his question.

[Richard Rushing]

:D Hey Tony M. I think this nice feller is trying to tell you something about a fig newton (if I read his lips correctly)...
Looks like he's saying it's at the top of the tree...

RR

[Jerry Peck]

"My question is how should I handle my side.

Should I get paid for inspecting the property and for my time doing the repairs, and then get a small percentage of the profits, or should I not get paid for anything and receive a little more of the profits?"

The first posters question is posted above in bold. I answered his question.

James,

THIS was what you said, it did not answer that question:

I don't see a problem with a HI inspecting a house he is a party to buying to fix up and sell. If you are doing for yourself how can it be a conflict or violation of anybodies COE?

His question was an "or" question, should I do this (A) *OR* this (B). BOTH contained him doing the inspection, the difference was in how he should treat it.

He should treat it as after the *OR* in his question - which makes it not really a "home inspection" done and paid separately, but 'part of the assessment and work' which he is contributing to the joint venture and from which he will receive a share of the profits, if there are any.

[Aaron Miller]

Richard:

Nice little flip-off graphic. I'd have sent Tony Diamond something similar but I'm still cowering in the corner from abject fear that he'll drop a dime to the great Hann in the sky and have me banished from the kingdom for honesty above reproach . . .

Klein mit Hut,

Aaron:D

[Aaron Miller]

Someone just sent me this. The inspector mentioned could very easily be Diamond Tony or one of his ilk. Note that he has upped the ante from just flipping houses to flipping his inspection reports . . .

http://houston.craigslist.org/rfs/571442904.html (http://houston.craigslist.org/rfs/571442904.html)

Go on and drop that dime now, Tony boy.


Aaron:D

[wes owens]

OK,
I'm going to chime in here and say thanks to those who answered my question.

I only need 5 inspections a week to pay my bills, and don't want more than 10 because I take my time to make sure I'm as thorough as possible, and more than 10 would take me too long. But thats me.

That would leave me weekends to work on a house to flip, or buy and rehab if thats better.
I have not, do not, and would not do anything unethical or cut corners to make a quick buck. I can only speak for myself, but if someone has the spare time and does an honest job, there's nothing wrong with a side job.

It would not make me a "disgusting SOB or slumlord."
Nor a "Boob-tube-educated imbeciles acting out their sick fantasies."
I would hope that was not referring to me because you don't know me, so don't judge me.

If you were referring to most people you have come in contact with that does that for a living, and your experience was less than desirable, fine.

The whole point for me starting this thread, since I have never bought and
sold for profit, was to see what would be the best way to go about it.

I figured some of you guys would know and could give me some good tips.
If doing this on the side proved to much or not profitable through honest work then I wouldn't do it.

Again, thanks to those who tried to help.

[Tony Mount]

Your welcome Wes, and good luck.

[Aaron Miller]

Wes:

Unless otherwise obviously pointed at some particular person, all comments coming from me fit neatly into the "if the shoe fits, wear it" category.

Take offense at your own peril.

Aaron;)

[wes owens]

Well,

Since it doesn't "fit" me, I will presume you were talking about other people that may have well deserved your insults.

I would like to think that a person can ask an honest question without insults and unjustified criticism.

[Jim Luttrall]

Wes,

I would like to think that a person can ask an honest question without insults and unjustified criticism.

Take heart, Aaron was not intending any criticism at you personally, unless the shoe fits (his words.) He is an equal opportunity offender.:o

He actually has some good thoughts though if you have thick enough skin to stay around long enough to hear.

[Aaron Miller]

He is an equal opportunity offender.:o

Yes, and that phrase, at least to me, means plain spoken, straight shooter.

The whole idea of freedom of speech is not to have freedom of just some speech. Then it comes down to some individual deciding which speech is to be free and some group of people deciding who that individual will be.

In this particular instance someone, and not Wes, seems to claim the right to speak openly confirming his lack of ethics while at the same time disclaiming my right to speak out against his modus operandi. What is equitable about that? Where's the bilateral freedom?

I attempt to preface all statements that border on ad hominem attacks by saying that I am making the statement based upon my own personal and unique experience pool. This is the reality I perceive through my filters. It does not have to correspond or even remotely resemble another's before I have the inalienable right to speak it.

So says the Constitution that the current administration has attempted to completely shred.

Aaron:rolleyes:

[Steve Lowery]

I had a psyche Prof. who put it succinctly. "You can't insult me. I'm too ignorant."

[Lewis Capaul]

:o

Yes, and that phrase, at least to me, means plain spoken, straight shooter.

The whole idea of freedom of speech is not to have freedom of just some speech. Then it comes down to some individual deciding which speech is to be free and some group of people deciding who that individual will be.

In this particular instance someone, and not Wes, seems to claim the right to speak openly confirming his lack of ethics while at the same time disclaiming my right to speak out against his modus operandi. What is equitable about that? Where's the bilateral freedom?

I attempt to preface all statements that border on ad hominem attacks by saying that I am making the statement based upon my own personal and unique experience pool. This is the reality I perceive through my filters. It does not have to correspond or even remotely resemble another's before I have the inalienable right to speak it.

So says the Constitution that the current administration has attempted to completely shred.

Aaron:rolleyes:


Aaron, I thought all you "Big Boys" lived over there in that InterGalatic HI Association. Most individuals I've met who considered themselves to be a "Big Boy" usually suffer from a "Big Head" and an inflated ego.

Maybe you could give us your definition of what constitutes a Professional and your reasons for believing that someone can't do more than one thing at a time and still be a professional

Have a nice day "Big Boy"

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron, I thought all you "Big Boys" lived over there in that InterGalatic HI Association. Most individuals I've met who considered themselves to be a "Big Boy" usually suffer from a "Big Head" and an inflated ego.

Maybe you could give us your definition of what constitutes a Professional and your reasons for believing that someone can't do more than one thing at a time and still be a professional

Have a nice day "Big Boy"

Lewis,

By your lack of posts actually contributing anything to this site, and your post above ...

... dear chap, it seems as though YOU are the one with the "Big Boy" "Big Head".

Tony, Lewis there is trying to defame Aaron, you going to click on his post and report him? If not, why not?

[Lewis Capaul]

Lewis,

By your lack of posts actually contributing anything to this site, and your post above ...

... dear chap, it seems as though YOU are the one with the "Big Boy" "Big Head".

Tony, Lewis there is trying to defame Aaron, you going to click on his post and report him? If not, why not?

Jerry, my reply to Aaron was in response to his atempts to defame anyone operating a business in any way he didn't approve of by inferring that they were unprofessional, I suppose because he didn't approve, he's the one who brought up the subject of "being here with the "BIG BOYS", I only stated my many years experience with assholes who claim to be one of the "Big Boys", "Big guys", or any other statement of superiority, most I have met have a very inflated veiw of both their importance and their abilities.

I also asked Aaron for a definition of what he considers a "Professional", he seems to believe that someone who has more than one Profession, can't be professional. I see no reason that just because someone does more than one job or works only part time, that it makes him unprofessional. Maybe you do.

Go back to the beginning of the thread, my first post was advice to keep Home Inspection and "Flipping" or any other business separate. Others jumped into criticize those who may do, or want to do renovations, or flipping as a separate business. Put all those names on your list right along with yours and mine, I see several threads over the past few days especially in your responses to Harvey, where you as one of the "Big Boys" here, haven't been too helful at all.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, my reply to Aaron was in response to his atempts to defame anyone operating a business in any way he didn't approve of by inferring that they were unprofessional,

That is understood, and, in your reply, you tried to defame Aaron.

Now then, that makes TWO of you.

And, in my response to you, that makes THREE of us.

Just don't try to say that it is okay for you to do it but it is not okay for Aaron to do it.


Go back to the beginning of the thread, my first post was advice to keep Home Inspection and "Flipping" or any other business separate.

I see several threads over the past few days especially in your responses to Harvey, where you as one of the "Big Boys" here, haven't been too helful at all.

Yep, I make sure to mark up that one made one, possibly two potentially helpful threads, to my ... how many?

You do not want to start calling the kettle black with me because I will point out the the pot is just as black, or blacker ... and that you are that pot.

Want to keep it going? I'd let it go, just like Brian said we should, it's up to you.

[Aaron Miller]

Whew! What a trip, I'm back.

I bowed out gracefully from this forum, gosh it seems like such a long time ago. What on earth happened? Let's see . . . oh yeah, I'm remembering bits and pieces, the last thing I recall was, uh . . . yes, that I was caught up in a tornado in Mustang (Yee-hah!) Oklahoma, known sphincter of the Universe.

That's it! The tornado motion accelerated the Borealis effect so that my 30-day moratorium is now over! Don't scoff. More miraculous things are happening all the time. Did you know that the only thing that keeps the Great State of Texas from sliding down and becoming one with Raul Castro's Cuba is the startling fact that Oklahoma s-u-c-k-s?

Kansas probably sucks worse though, and we can be thankful for it, else the god-forsaken Sooner state would move southward and we'd be overwhelmed by fu*&ing Okies on stick horses with important-sounding names like Anthony here in the Lone Star State.

I seem to remember Dorothy someone from there having experienced a similar time-distorting event due to the faster acceleration they must have in Kansas.

So, I guess I'm off to other parts of this forum spreading joy, as usual.

Nice to be back,

Aaron:D

[John Arnold]

Aaron - Welcome back! It seems like only yesterday that you left us!

[Jerry Peck]

Aaron - Welcome back! It seems like only yesterday that you left us!

Hot dang! They do exist!

Aaron found a worm hole in the space time continuum and was able to slide through time.

And many others have said it is called a 'theory' because there is no proof! WE HAVE PROOF! :D

[Rick Hurst]

Aaron,

Good to have you back on aboard after such a adventurous journey.

Thanks for the gift you picked up for us all. I knew they had to be selling it up there as you can see on the labeling.

rick

[Rick Hurst]

Hot dang! They do exist!

Aaron found a worm hole in the space time continuum and was able to slide through time.

And many others have said it is called a 'theory' because there is no proof! WE HAVE PROOF! :D

Jerry,

It was actually larger than the worm hole we expected.

Seems Aaron walked into a Wal-mart building that had been vacated (actually they moved across the street) and found a time travel portal. Lets just all be thankful he made it back safely.

rick

[Rick Hurst]

Here's the proof.

[Lewis Capaul]

That is understood, and, in your reply, you tried to defame Aaron.

Now then, that makes TWO of you.

And, in my response to you, that makes THREE of us.

Just don't try to say that it is okay for you to do it but it is not okay for Aaron to do it.



Yep, I make sure to mark up that one made one, possibly two potentially helpful threads, to my ... how many?

You do not want to start calling the kettle black with me because I will point out the the pot is just as black, or blacker ... and that you are that pot.

Want to keep it going? I'd let it go, just like Brian said we should, it's up to you.


Jerry, We have another difference of opinion here, I'd say that you were the Pot, one of the "Big boys" Aaron mentioned, similar at times to those chosen few over there in Nachi Land who feel they have special privileges for what ever reasons, maybe their relationships with then owners or the message boards.

Asron doesn't bother me, he wants to flame people he doesn't agree with, I'm more than able to flame right back, even if you want to jump in because you tend to agree with his idea of what is Professional.

You post here much more often than I do and for the most part you are very helpful to everyone, and you have even helped me on several occasions, but it seems to be you calling the kettle black, because no matter how many helpful posts you have made, you have also made many more worthless, argumentative, and defaming type posts than I have.

Take any of your many discussions with Harvey, Burkeson than others, tell me that they follow Brian's rules and more than some of mine. The point in this thread is that I'm not the one who attacked and attempted to defame people first, I was being helpful, whether or not you or Aaron agree with what I do or suggest. You, Aaron, or anyone in my opinion can post any thing you like, but when you attack someone you should expect a response whether or not it violates Brian's rules, both the original attack, the counter, and the defense by others all seem to me to be violations, as are the many arguments here in which you take part.

Harvey has suggested that you have some kind of special privileges here, I usually disagree with everything Harvey says, but in this case it seems there must be some truth in his suggestion, or at least it appears that you believe you do.

Don't preach to others about argumentative posts until you clean up your own act It appears to be you who is saying that it is okay for you to do something, but not for others to do the same. You seem to feel that you have the right to defend yourself against attacks from people like Harvey,
Burkeson and others on this message board, just look at the many posts you have made doing so, maybe that's one of the special privleges permitted to the "Big Boys".

[Aaron Miller]

Rick:

GREAT PICTURES . . . I found picture 1 after entering picture 2.

Helluva trip,

Aaron:D

[Brian Hannigan]

Yesterday I was away from the computer. I took the day off to put down a furry family member of 17 years. Today I was out of the office most of the day so I'm sorry I have not responded sooner.

I come back to work this afternoon to an in box full if e-mail from many members on the board encouraging me to act on my own rules/policy because they are sick of the petty personal bickering that continues to go on between a few members of InspectionNews. There is a common thread through most of the e-mails that I received and that is that they come to InspectionNews to learn and/or help others and have a good time and that they would like to so without the train wreck of off topic post and personal attacks that are going on.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I thought I made that point clear two days ago when I reminded everyone of the rules they agreed to when they registered on the message board and the policy for enforcing those rules.

I went back and read several of the posts that were mentioned. Posts put up after I had once again asked everyone to simply follow the rules. I think it just comes down to the fact that InspectionNews is not the place for everyone.

For those that do not have the social skills to come into my home and discuss topics without defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented or threatening remarks towards one another, there are other places you can go. I've read posts that knock InspectionNews and the people who post here. I have opened up my home and allowed you to come in for free. If you don't like it here, leave. It's as simple as that.

InspectionNews was developed for mature business professionals. Entrepreneurs who are interested in discussing all aspects of the inspection business, to help educate one another and collectively improve the quality of the inspection industry and to help individual businesses succeed. If you do not have the social skills to voice your opinion without tearing into someone else then InspectionNews is not the place for you.

InspectionNews is for the new inspector, established inspectors and those just thinking about getting into the business. Everyone should feel comfortable asking any inspection related question without the fear of being ridiculed. This is a place where people come for answers and help. Even if you think that the question is remedial either answer the question and try to help the person or don't answer at all.

I have spent more time then I care to on this subject. I have done all that I can to reiterate the rules & policies and let adults police themselves. For those of you that don't agree with InspectionNews, I thank you for stopping by and wish you the best in where ever you go. The professional business men and women will remain and help one another to succeed.

[Jim Robinson]

Well said. Wes asked a legitimate question. A few people answered, and a few people jumped on their soap box.

[Michael Farha]

First of all, partners are nothing but dead weight. If it is at all possible to do it on your own you'll be alot better off, not to mention keeping all the profit. That way all of your time and effort is an investment in YOU.

Mike Farha,
A Plus Inspections, LLC
Edmond, OK.

[Eric Van De Ven]

Wes,
If you were going to do this, I would charge a set fee as a "retainer" for any work performed in the first 3 days.

After that, I would be compensated 50% of the net profit minus the retainer fee. I wouldn't pay for any materials, the "investor" should do that. I would also get everything in writing including notification of when the closing is, where it is, etc.

You and the investor will split the profits, however, he will be on the hook for the materials, which should motivate him to make the deal happen. You are just out your time, which may have been spent watching Judge Judy and Dr. Phil.:D

One other thing, "Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest". That is a very ambiguous statement and could be read several different ways.;)

[Thom Walker]

Wes,
I would agree with the last post re: partners. For Flips, go it alone. You want to be in control of the quality of work and in control of the overhead.

Where you are the inspector, I suggest that you stay out of all other roles. Make your profit on the Inspection. Give the Investor a break based on quantity of work, if you wish, but don't make your profit in any way based on the profitability of his business accumen.

Where you are the Investor/ Flipper, locate the person with the reputation as the Inspector from Hell to inspect it when you think you're ready to market it. Make that report available to all prospective buyers.

[Jim Luttrall]

Thom, thanks for recommending my services. That was one of the more complimentary names I have had from realtors over the years.:D ;)


locate the person with the reputation as the Inspector from Hell to inspect it when you think you're ready to market it.

[wes owens]

Thanks guys.

[Joe Klampfer]

"Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest".

I think that statement means that if you, the HI, had a financial interest in the home (ie: part owner) AND you were then hired by the potential buyer to perform an independant home inspection.... there-in lies the conflict... There is no harm in inspecting a home you are planning to buy, repair and flip. As long as anytime during the process you remain the vendor and NOT a HI representing the buyers.

[Eric Van De Ven]

"Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest".

I think that statement means that if you, the HI, had a financial interest in the home (ie: part owner) AND you were then hired by the potential buyer to perform an independent home inspection.... there-in lies the conflict... There is no harm in inspecting a home you are planning to buy, repair and flip. As long as anytime during the process you remain the vendor and NOT a HI representing the buyers.

I have always had a problem with that part of the SOP. Here is why. If you inspect every home the same way, to find everything wrong that you can, then it shouldn't matter who is paying you. There isn't a conflict of interest if your interest is to find everything wrong that you can. Do the job first, then get paid.

If the associations think that adding one sentence to the SOP is going to stop those who "look harder for themselves or relatives or friends" than the clients, they are acting very naively.

I had a Seller tell me that I was being picky because it was for a friend. I responded "so what you are saying is that I short-changed the other 4,000 clients?"

I think it is a matter how "ethical" you really are.

[Joe Klampfer]

Hmmm.... let me put it another way... you may be the most ethical person in town but if you owned a house that was for sale (or had a financial interest in it) and you REALLY wanted it to complete at sale, IF the prospective home buyer called you from the phone book to perform the home inspection and did not know of your financial interest in the property... you might hesitate in your choice of wording used (or lessen the impact) in your report for fear of losing the sale. There's where the question of ethics comes into play and why most SOP's disallow it.

You need to distance yourself from the financial gain side of the transaction if you represent the buyer and hope to provide an unbiased / honest report, because without a doubt, if your financial interest in the property is revealed at a later date, your ethics or motives will forever be suspect regardless of how honest you are.

Why would you even want to be in that situation... it just isn't worth the aggravation.

[Eric Van De Ven]

Hmmm.... let me put it another way... you may be the most ethical person in town but if you owned a house that was for sale (or had a financial interest in it) and you REALLY wanted it to complete at sale, IF the prospective home buyer called you from the phone book to perform the home inspection and did not know of your financial interest in the property... you might hesitate in your choice of wording used (or lessen the impact) in your report for fear of losing the sale. There's where the question of ethics comes into play and why most SOP's disallow it.

You need to distance yourself from the financial gain side of the transaction if you represent the buyer and hope to provide an unbiased / honest report, because without a doubt, if your financial interest in the property is revealed at a later date, your ethics or motives will forever be suspect regardless of how honest you are.

Why would you even want to be in that situation... it just isn't worth the aggravation.


If I were selling my home, it would be able to pass any inspection, so that isn't a concern. If the Buyer called me to perform the inspection, I would inform him that I own the home, and he would be advised to pick another inspector. By informing the Buyer, you remove this part of your statement: you might hesitate in your choice of wording used (or lessen the impact) in your report for fear of losing the sale. There's where the question of ethics comes into play and why most SOP's disallow it.
It also removes this part of the equation: if your financial interest in the property is revealed at a later date, your ethics or motives will forever be suspect regardless of how honest you are.

As for being in the "situation", as I said above , if you inspect every home the same way, perform the inspection in an unemotional way, you should be fine. At least, from an ethical standpoint!

[Jerry Peck]

The error I see in the above discussion is that it is about 'conflict of interest and how one can avoid it'.

However, the real question with ethics is ...

"the appearance of a conflict of interest and how one can avoid it"

One may be the most ethical person around and may indeed *do nothing they would not otherwise do, and would do everything they would otherwise do*, but, ... it is "the appearance of" that cannot be totally shaken off.

It's not really a question of that "conflict of interest", but "the appearance of" that conflict of interest ... that is what is to be avoided whenever possible.

[Eric Van De Ven]

The error I see in the above discussion is that it is about 'conflict of interest and how one can avoid it'.

However, the real question with ethics is ...

"the appearance of a conflict of interest and how one can avoid it"

One may be the most ethical person around and may indeed *do nothing they would not otherwise do, and would do everything they would otherwise do*, but, ... it is "the appearance of" that cannot be totally shaken off.

It's not really a question of that "conflict of interest", but "the appearance of" that conflict of interest ... that is what is to be avoided whenever possible.

That is the bigger problem, the "appearance" of anything!

Just because it looks a certain way, doesn't make it so, and, I believe that there are things you can do to remove the "appearance" of a conflict.
Besides, I don't deal in "appearances". I deal in facts.

As an aside, I was at a friends 40th birthday party. Someone came up to me and said "Do you remember me?" I said, to be honest, I don't. The person informed me that I inspected his home 5 years ago. We had a discussion and he went off somewhere. At that time, I looked around and discovered that of the 50-60 guests at this party, I had inspected almost all of their homes, including the one where the party was held.
Conflict of interest? Not with me!

I must have done a good job because no one tried to kill me!

[Aaron Miller]

EC Jerry is right:

"Relativity applies to physics, not to ethics." - Albert Einstein

Aaron:D

[Jack Feldmann]

I don't think there is any way in the world that a person could inspect their own home and not give the appearance of a "conflict of interest".

In the same light, if I was a seller, and someone came to inspect my house, and he was a partner with the buyer, or had a "dog in the fight" with regards to the future of the house (defined as flipping), I would certainly question his findings and ethics. My first impression would be, "this guy is here to make mountains out of mole hills".

A good filter to use when trying to figure out ethics is....If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck....it is probably a duck. A shorter version is...If you are questioning yourself if something is ethical, it will probably be viewed by someone else as NOT.
Eric said.."One other thing, "Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest". That is a very ambiguous statement and could be read several different ways."
I guess I have to disagree. I see nothing ambiguous about the part that says have or expect to have a financial interest. Are you planning on making money on something other than the inspection? If yes, then in my view, there is a conflict of interest. Pretty clear in my opinion.
JF

[Jim Zborowski]

After reading the original post........again, what I'm thinking the scenario he's trying to relate would be:

He is going into partnership where he would provide labor and the partner would provide the funding. In that case, he would theoreticaly be performing the service for himself and his partner. In that case, he would be simply drawing a wage for time spent ( billable hours ) applied toward the total expense of the joint project which would then be deducted off the profit.

If I'm reading this correctly.

[Aaron Miller]

“An ethical person ought to do more than he's required to do and less than he's allowed to do” - Albert Schweitzer

Aaron:)

[Eric Van De Ven]

I don't think there is any way in the world that a person could inspect their own home and not give the appearance of a "conflict of interest".

In the same light, if I was a seller, and someone came to inspect my house, and he was a partner with the buyer, or had a "dog in the fight" with regards to the future of the house (defined as flipping), I would certainly question his findings and ethics. My first impression would be, "this guy is here to make mountains out of mole hills".

A good filter to use when trying to figure out ethics is....If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck....it is probably a duck. A shorter version is...If you are questioning yourself if something is ethical, it will probably be viewed by someone else as NOT.
Eric said.."One other thing, "Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest". That is a very ambiguous statement and could be read several different ways."
I guess I have to disagree. I see nothing ambiguous about the part that says have or expect to have a financial interest. Are you planning on making money on something other than the inspection? If yes, then in my view, there is a conflict of interest. Pretty clear in my opinion.
JF

I knew it was only a matter of time before the infamous "Duck" showed up!:D
I agree with you on that part. That is why communication is key.

The other issue (this guy is here to make mountains out of mole hills), if your report has pictures, there really isn't much to dispute and people will think what they want. The fact is "it is what it is" and no amount of whining or complaining or thinking about appearances will change that.

[Lewis Capaul]

I don't think there is any way in the world that a person could inspect their own home and not give the appearance of a "conflict of interest".

In the same light, if I was a seller, and someone came to inspect my house, and he was a partner with the buyer, or had a "dog in the fight" with regards to the future of the house (defined as flipping), I would certainly question his findings and ethics. My first impression would be, "this guy is here to make mountains out of mole hills".

A good filter to use when trying to figure out ethics is....If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck....it is probably a duck. A shorter version is...If you are questioning yourself if something is ethical, it will probably be viewed by someone else as NOT.
Eric said.."One other thing, "Inspectors shall not inspect properties for compensation in which they have, or expect to have, a financial interest". That is a very ambiguous statement and could be read several different ways."
I guess I have to disagree. I see nothing ambiguous about the part that says have or expect to have a financial interest. Are you planning on making money on something other than the inspection? If yes, then in my view, there is a conflict of interest. Pretty clear in my opinion.
JF


In this case he's an Investor or buyer not a Home Inspector, but as a Investor/Buyer he has the right to Inspect the property for himself, but not for a fee paid by any third party or potential partner in the "investment/purchase", there is no conflict of interest when a buyer chooses to inspect the property himself even if, by profession, the buyer is a Home Inspector, no more than an attorney who chooses to represent himself in court, or a mechanic inspecting a used car he is buying for himself.

[Aaron Miller]

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

[Jerry Peck]

Eric,

No one is, I know I'm not, questioning your ethics, however, if you were to step back and thing of that very same scenario being done by someone else (other than yourself), there always could be a question of "appearance of" a conflict, whether or not there really was a conflict or not.

Regarding the original posters question: Either inspect it for a fee and that's that, or, inspect it for no fee but as part of your 'experience package' the investor is buying with you as a partner.

No profit on the investment and, just like the investor, you make nothing ... if there is a profit on the investment, you share in that profit just like the investor.

That way, it is not really a "home inspection for a fee", it is a "field assessment of the prospects of profitability" for the project.

Do you get paid for that "field assessment regardless of whether or not the project succeeds in making a profit? Heck no. That's part of 'your risk' you undertook in the project.

[Jack Feldmann]

Lewis,
In the original post it was pretty clear he intended to be paid for the inspection, AND then do the work on the house.

In a licensed state. or at least TN, a home inspection can only be done by a licensed home inspector. Sure, anyone can do a visual inspection if they are buying a house, but a "real" inspection, or one that actually would count in the real estate transaction, has to be done by a licensed inspector.

The code of ethics then says that you can not inspect a house you are going to have a financial interest in. You can look around all you want, but you can not perform an inspection.

Jerry's example is really semantics. I did an inspection for a friend of a friend in North Carolina. I'm not licensed in NC to do inspections. So he hired me to be his building consultant. Both of the agents understood and agreed to me coming to the house and do the "consulting", but there was an understanding that my report would not be accepted as a "home inspection report".

I have to say the North Carolina agents were very nice and even took my wife to lunch with them (I took her with me since it was a 3+ hour drive).

Ducks aside, it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry's example is really semantics.



Jack,

It's really a lot more than just semantics.

It's in how you address it and treat it.

As a Home Inspector, if I were doing it and getting paid for doing it, then it: looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck - it's a duck, i.e., it's a "home inspection".

As a General Contractor, if I were doing it, I would be assessing the potential work involved and assessing it's potential for turning a profit after doing that work. I would only make money if the construction project made money. It no longer looks like, walks like, quacks like, or smells like, a duck - it isn't - it's a project assessment, with the answer being 'yea' or 'nay' to the project based on what I saw.

The original poster wanted to combine both of the above. Therein lies the "appearance of", if not an actual, "conflict of interest".

[Lewis Capaul]

Lewis,
In the original post it was pretty clear he intended to be paid for the inspection, AND then do the work on the house.

In a licensed state. or at least TN, a home inspection can only be done by a licensed home inspector. Sure, anyone can do a visual inspection if they are buying a house, but a "real" inspection, or one that actually would count in the real estate transaction, has to be done by a licensed inspector.

The code of ethics then says that you can not inspect a house you are going to have a financial interest in. You can look around all you want, but you can not perform an inspection.

Jerry's example is really semantics. I did an inspection for a friend of a friend in North Carolina. I'm not licensed in NC to do inspections. So he hired me to be his building consultant. Both of the agents understood and agreed to me coming to the house and do the "consulting", but there was an understanding that my report would not be accepted as a "home inspection report".

I have to say the North Carolina agents were very nice and even took my wife to lunch with them (I took her with me since it was a 3+ hour drive).

Ducks aside, it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Jack, I've already agreed with some of your points in my first reply in this thread. If I'm "Inspecting" a house FOR an Investor and will have no other interest in the property other than the Inspection itself, then I am a Home Inspector and will charge a fee for my services.

If I am inspecting the property as a buyer/investor or a partner of of a buy/ivestor, then I'm not a Home Inspector, I'm a buyer/investor, why is that such a difficult concept for some to understand?

[Jerry Peck]

If I am inspecting the property as a buyer/investor or a partner of of a buy/ivestor, then I'm not a Home Inspector, I'm a buyer/investor, why is that such a difficult concept for some to understand?

Lewis,

Not Jack here, but I think the problem is that the original poster was thinking of doing the Home Inspection as a Home Inspection AND getting paid for it ... THEN becoming a partner with the investor ...

Therein lies the problem (in my opinion).

[Lewis Capaul]

Lewis,

Not Jack here, but I think the problem is that the original poster was thinking of doing the Home Inspection as a Home Inspection AND getting paid for it ... THEN becoming a partner with the investor ...

Therein lies the problem (in my opinion).

I totally agree Jerry!