Could you imagine if corporate buyers were required to upgrade everything to meet current code before selling? It'd likely kill the process dead, of course, but if not then at least we'd see improved homes as an outcome.
It's really just daydreaming, but in any case, I'm not convinced that corporate buyers of used houses increase the quality of housing stock. Corporations building new houses likely do, and that's where their money would go if they are truly interested in real estate investment.
Given that a lot of flippers/corporate buyers use corporations as a liability shield in case of something going wrong, they have less skin in the game than potentially negligent previous owners. It generally seems reasonable to treat individuals and corporations differently in terms of legal expectations, in part because of that.
There is no difference in legal expectations. Any negligence by previous owners is legally irrelevant. The previous owners are in the clear regardless of what they did to the property, provided they follow state disclosure laws. They would only be liable in the case of actual fraud.
New construction is a bit different in that some states have a mandatory warranty period for major construction defects. So the new homeowner may have several years to make warranty claims against the property developer or contractor for negligent or non-compliant construction work.
Sure, agreed. And I figure a corporate buyer would only go through with that is the home is bad enough that it's worth replacement. Most probably aren't, so they'll be left available for humans. It's win-win.
(I fully acknowledge this is an unrealistic proposal.)
- Net reduction in quality of housing stock
- Reduces capital investment in housing during a shortage
A+ 10/10 no notes