3 ms·

If updating to current code was required, a lot of homes would have to be torn down.

• dpkirchner 4y ago
  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.)
• edmundsauto 4y ago
  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.
  • nradov 4y ago
    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.