My house "lost" some square footage

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
patrickrenault
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:09 am

My house "lost" some square footage

Post by patrickrenault »

I bought a house that had X square feet. Years later I hired a different realtor to sell the place. The new realtor insisted on taking exact measurements (probably rightly so). I made no changes to the house, but now it has X-50 square feet.

Do I have any claim against the title insurance or homeowners insurance for 50 lost square feet?
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

To me, this is such a very, very small amount -- it is not worth trying to do anything.

Suppose, for example you have 2 levels and the square footage was 3,000 square feet. That would be 30 ft by 50 feet. To "lose" 50 sq ft, that would be 25 sq ft on each level. A mere reduction of 3.7 inches of each dimension would account for a "loss" of the 50 square feet.
familyperson
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:07 am

Post by familyperson »

No insurance claim, but you might enjoy the story "And He Built a Crooked House" by Robert Heinlein :D
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius »

If only you'd found it earlier, you might have been able to get your real estate taxes reduced.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
pshonore
Posts: 8205
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:21 pm

Post by pshonore »

You probably still can (and in most locales may be able to go back three yrs). That, of course, assumes there is a mistake in the assessment records, rather than in the Realtor's "method". A review of your assessment "card" is in order
maxfax
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:28 am

Post by maxfax »

The original measurement is probably the correct one. The measurements your realtor took probably only included 'from inside wall to inside wall'. Legally where I have lived, the measurement includes all or part of the wall itself. You will be surprised how many feet get added just by an additional 6 inches.
Allan
Posts: 966
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Houston

Re: My house "lost" some square footage

Post by Allan »

patrickrenault wrote:Do I have any claim against the title insurance or homeowners insurance for 50 lost square feet?
A realtor is the last person I would depend on to measure living area square footage. I would bet most houses square footages listed are off a bit, unless they are just simple, small rectangular boxes.

Then you get into stair wells, are they counted once, twice, or even 1-1/2. Brickledge is usually counted, even though a 5-1/2" brickledge reduces your living area. I've seen 3rd floors and even living areas over detached garages counted as only a portion.

Allan
SamB
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:17 pm

Post by SamB »

maxfax wrote:The original measurement is probably the correct one. The measurements your realtor took probably only included 'from inside wall to inside wall'. Legally where I have lived, the measurement includes all or part of the wall itself. You will be surprised how many feet get added just by an additional 6 inches.
The only person I would rely on is the architect drawing up the plans, and even then it is subject to the method used. Do you measure to the center line of a wall, or the boundary, and exactly where is the boundary? Is it usable space or does it include risers, or ducts, or a knee wall?

I am surprised that the difference was only 50 square feet, and I doubt you could ever get a tax rebate based on such a small difference. Note that tax assessors will show up with a tape measure, however, and they will play fast and loose with it.

I spent my career as a naval architect in early stage ship design. There is no more thorny an issue than arrangeable space and volume. You need a very clear definition of what is termed "molded lines" and a consistent set of rules, which make sense. For example, a location specified by a center line (inside a bulkhead) would never be used. You cannot measure to the inside of something, only a boundary. These are issues that your tax assessor or realtor never would consider, and 50 square feet is in the noise.

Sam
etarini
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:46 pm

Post by etarini »

There's actually an ANSI standard for measuring houses, though not all realtors and appraisers use it. It's ANSI Z765-2003, and you can see it here:

http://www.nahbrc.com/bookstore/bd1003w.aspx

I read it back in 2001 when I was designing my house, and as I recall there are a number of counterintuive rules about what gets counted and what doesn't, not that it really mattered to me. You might want to ask if this standard was followed in the most recent measurement.

Edit: Here's a little rant from a proud Chicagoland appraiser on proper measurement, and about not trusting blueprints and architectural drawings:

http://soapbox.millersamuel.com/?p=339

Eric
exigent
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:49 am

Post by exigent »

We had the opposite happen. When we bought our house, the builder listed it as being X feet. When we checked the tax records, it was X + 120 sq. ft. The difference was that the builder was measuring the inside room dimensions and adding them up while the tax assessors worked off of exterior dimensions (which was standard for the area). I doubled checked and the tax records were right.

This was a strange move (big mistake) on the builder's part because we lived in an area where property values were largely based on price per sq ft, without much attention to amenities. In other words, if they had an accurate measurement up front, they could've gotten more for the house.

When it came time to sell, this discrepancy made a fairly big difference. At a prevailing sales price of ca. $115/sq ft, our "extra" 120 sq ft was worth close to $14k. In other words, we rode the market up from 2002-2006 and then got a "bonus" 120 sq ft on top of that.

We ultimately rolled everything forward into our next house and have since paid it off entirely.
User avatar
stratton
Posts: 11085
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Puget Sound

Post by stratton »

Realtors measuring homes?

How strange. Everyone in Washington will only use tax assessor square footage so I'm guessing it may be a state requirement. We have state mandated forms too.

Paul
littlebird
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Valley of the Sun, AZ

Post by littlebird »

I bought a former model home. When it came time to replace the original floor coverings, I was surprised to discover that each room in my house was 6 in. to 1 ft larger in each dimension than the dimensions shown on the floor plans distributed to potential buyers of the houses to be built from the model. That way the rooms in the model looked large to potential buyers, but anyone moving into one of the subsequently-produced homes would find his smaller dimensions matched the dimensions shown in the plan. And this was considered one of most ethical builders in the area.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

littlebird wrote:I bought a former model home. When it came time to replace the original floor coverings, I was surprised to discover that each room in my house was 6 in. to 1 ft larger in each dimension than the dimensions shown on the floor plans distributed to potential buyers of the houses to be built from the model. That way the rooms in the model looked large to potential buyers, but anyone moving into one of the subsequently-produced homes would find his smaller dimensions matched the dimensions shown in the plan. And this was considered one of most ethical builders in the area.
Interesting.

I had heard (and seen in a few cases) that model homes are furnished with small furnishings (such as beds, chairs, tables) to appear larger. There is also use of furnishings such as mirrors and striped wallpaper.
polaar
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:59 pm

Post by polaar »

littlebird wrote:I bought a former model home. When it came time to replace the original floor coverings, I was surprised to discover that each room in my house was 6 in. to 1 ft larger in each dimension than the dimensions shown on the floor plans distributed to potential buyers of the houses to be built from the model. That way the rooms in the model looked large to potential buyers, but anyone moving into one of the subsequently-produced homes would find his smaller dimensions matched the dimensions shown in the plan. And this was considered one of most ethical builders in the area.
My childhood home (1960s) was a model as this. My Mom used to say that our house was a little bumped up than most when we moved in but that we got bigger rooms since it was a model. How that could be allowed is beyond me.
jack1719
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:43 pm

Post by jack1719 »

maxfax wrote:The original measurement is probably the correct one. The measurements your realtor took probably only included 'from inside wall to inside wall'. Legally where I have lived, the measurement includes all or part of the wall itself. You will be surprised how many feet get added just by an additional 6 inches.
Square footage is "actual living space"..you can"t live inside the walls..

thats also why bathrooms,laundry rooms,unfinished basements etc..are not included in square footage.
Allan
Posts: 966
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Houston

Post by Allan »

jack1719 wrote:
maxfax wrote:The original measurement is probably the correct one. The measurements your realtor took probably only included 'from inside wall to inside wall'. Legally where I have lived, the measurement includes all or part of the wall itself. You will be surprised how many feet get added just by an additional 6 inches.
Square footage is "actual living space"..you can"t live inside the walls..

thats also why bathrooms,laundry rooms,unfinished basements etc..are not included in square footage.
All conditioned area (baths, laundry rooms, closets) are counted as living area. Walls are also included. In fact, if you have brick or stone, the ledge they sit on (5-1/2" brickledge) is also counted.

Allan
Topic Author
patrickrenault
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:09 am

Post by patrickrenault »

Allan wrote: All conditioned area (baths, laundry rooms, closets) are counted as living area. Walls are also included. In fact, if you have brick or stone, the ledge they sit on (5-1/2" brickledge) is also counted.

Allan
Depends on the state. Different states count area differently. In some states, it's whatever is heated and cooled. Some states included heated/cooled parts, but exclude bathrooms.

My problem is that the house existed in the same state both times it was measured.
Ziggy75
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:24 am

Post by Ziggy75 »

Depends on where the lost 50 square feet are.

If they are from the kitchen or bathroom I would care.

If they are from the back yard where I bury the dogs poo; I wouldn't care.

If people think you own less land; wouldn't the insurance and taxes be less???
Topic Author
patrickrenault
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:09 am

Post by patrickrenault »

Ziggy75 wrote:Depends on where the lost 50 square feet are.
Not a factor. Appraisals don't discriminate. The price per sq. foot is the same for every square foot being counted.
Post Reply