Job finished, but no permit: What to do?

Q: We hired a contractor to add a small room to our house, which he did without getting a building permit. As far as we can tell, things were done to code. Still, we wonder what kind of trouble we might find ourselves in. Also, what happens when we sell the house? We're in King County.

A: Every municipality has its own rules for building permits. Assuming you live in unincorporated King County, we posed your question to Stephanie Warden, director of the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. Guess what? Even now her office would like to hear from you — not to punish you, but to make you legit.

"The short answer is we require you to get a permit," she says, and the fact that you didn't doesn't preclude you from getting the necessary approvals today. However, it will cost you more. And depending on which permits are necessary, there may be inspections involved, too. Call 206-296-6797 for more information.

When you sell, you'll have to provide your buyer with a completed Real Property Transfer Disclosure Statement, otherwise known as Form 17. On it you must acknowledge any conversions, additions or remodeling, whether you got the proper permits and had final inspections. Obviously if you now get permits, you can answer in the affirmative. In any case, once you disclose this information it's then up to the buyer to decide what to do with it. So not having permits is not an automatic deal killer.

Q: My ex-girlfriend wants to buy me out, based on what we determined the cash-out for each of us would have been if we'd sold our house on the open market. (The house is in my name only.) Our thinking is she'd get the house for the outstanding loan amount, plus the buy-out money and I'd get what I would have received if the house had been sold to someone else. Does this make sense, and how do we go about it?

A: Attorney Richard T. Morse, owner of Escrow Network in Bellevue, brainstormed this one for you. The easy part is the how-to. Because the home is in your name only, your sale to your ex will be the same as selling it to anyone else. You need to draw up a standard purchase and sale agreement, which a lawyer can help you with, and have her sign it. (Morse recommends she also have her own lawyer review it.) Then she has to get her own mortgage, just as she would if she were buying any property. Your note is not transferable.

Trickier is deciding what's equitable. Here are some of the factors that could go into this equation. Who provided the down payment? How long did you each live there? How did you share housing costs? The answers to those questions will determine how the equity in the property will be split. Once you arrive at a just equity split, here's Morse's example of how you might carry it out. It takes into account both an "outsider price" — based on what your house would sell for on the open market — and an "insider price" or what your ex pays after her equity is considered.

Let's say the outside price is $200,000, and for example, you have $140,000 remaining on your mortgage, and you've shared all costs equally so you each deserve half of the proceeds. Selling a $200,000 property could generate up to 3 percent in closing costs for excise tax, escrow and title fees. Morse says your ex shouldn't have to pay closing costs on the whole amount, arguing "she shouldn't have to pay closing costs based on what she already owns." So he subtracts $6,000 (the 3 percent) from $200,000 to arrive at $194,000. The difference between what you owe — $140,000 and $194,000 represents your equity: $54,000.

Since you've shared expenses equally, you're each entitled to half, or $27,000. Subtract her $27,000 and this gives you an "insider" sales price of $173,000. This is what she actually pays for the house. You get $33,000, and this gives you enough to pay those closing costs. There may well be several hundred dollars left over; your last act will be deciding how to split it.

Q: My Seattle house backs up to an unfinished alley that's overgrown with vegetation. A nearby neighbor has decided to spray the alley near her with weed killer, which drifts over my property. I don't like it. Who is responsible for maintaining this alley, and how can I get the neighbor to stop spraying?

A: Alley maintenance usually is the responsibility of the owner. In your case, this alley could be owned by the city or by adjacent property owners. (The latter sometimes happens when the city decides it doesn't want the land anymore.) To discover who owns it you can call the Seattle Department of Transportation's street-use counter at 206-684-5283.

Department spokesperson Liz Rankin says that if the city owns it you can request an inspector assess the situation. "It's possible the city is responsible for maintaining it," she says. If so, that could take care of your spraying situation. If not, Rankin reports that Seattle's city arborist knows of no state or municipal laws that restrict an owner's application of nonrestricted pesticides, including insecticides or herbicides, on their property or the adjacent right of way.

Home Forum answers readers' real-estate questions. Send questions to Home Forum, Seattle Times, P.O. Box 1845, Seattle, WA 98111, or call 206-464-8510 to leave a question on a recorded line. The e-mail address is erhodes@seattletimes.com. Sorry, no personal replies. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists.