Golfgar4
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Messages
- 4,383
- Location
- Janesville, Wisconsin
- Tractor
- None -yet. Until then FunBuggy (EZ-Go) will have to do!
I'm preparing to put my house up for sale. Last fall, I discovered that my 30 year shingles that were in the house specifications when we built it are in fact only 15 year shingles. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif And we are in the 16th year of living in the house.
The builder has long been out of business, but ironically not due to shoddy building practices. He just couldn't manage his personal life and so his marriage and business comletey fell apart. Don't even know where the guy is now. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Anyway, we've been debating what our options are. We could 1) put on a whole new roof (major bucks!), 2) just put on a new layer of shingles, which is approved by inspection department (fewer major bucks), or 3) not do anything and reduce the asking price of the house for the cost of re-shingling (maybe the potential buyers don't even ask about it /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif).
Regarding #3, I've not yet determined if we would be required to mention the situation with the roof as part of the sale or not. I know, for example, we would have to divulge any water infiltration problems, but I don't know if the same thing applies to a worn roof. I would certainly not lie about the condition of the roof if a buyer were to ask about it. But is it one of those things that must be mentioned even if not asked?
Does anyone have an idea of what the general cost difference would be of doing a completely new roof versus just a re-shingling job? What kind of percentage savings can a person expect with the re-shingling? Say 25% the cost of the new? 35%?
To be honest, I guess I would feel more comfortable doing the re-shingling just because we can then say that we did it, which should make it more attractive to a potential buyer. I've been told that by doing a job like this as part of the preparation of selling a house, a person could expect to get 135% - 140% return on the cost of the job. That wouldn't be too bad.
So has anyone done this? Anything else to consider?
The builder has long been out of business, but ironically not due to shoddy building practices. He just couldn't manage his personal life and so his marriage and business comletey fell apart. Don't even know where the guy is now. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Anyway, we've been debating what our options are. We could 1) put on a whole new roof (major bucks!), 2) just put on a new layer of shingles, which is approved by inspection department (fewer major bucks), or 3) not do anything and reduce the asking price of the house for the cost of re-shingling (maybe the potential buyers don't even ask about it /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif).
Regarding #3, I've not yet determined if we would be required to mention the situation with the roof as part of the sale or not. I know, for example, we would have to divulge any water infiltration problems, but I don't know if the same thing applies to a worn roof. I would certainly not lie about the condition of the roof if a buyer were to ask about it. But is it one of those things that must be mentioned even if not asked?
Does anyone have an idea of what the general cost difference would be of doing a completely new roof versus just a re-shingling job? What kind of percentage savings can a person expect with the re-shingling? Say 25% the cost of the new? 35%?
To be honest, I guess I would feel more comfortable doing the re-shingling just because we can then say that we did it, which should make it more attractive to a potential buyer. I've been told that by doing a job like this as part of the preparation of selling a house, a person could expect to get 135% - 140% return on the cost of the job. That wouldn't be too bad.
So has anyone done this? Anything else to consider?