But it feels bigger

Quote: "How do you think that balance should be struck?"

Uh, how about by not lying? Square footage is a question of math, not of opinion.

Personally, I think a1% or 2% rounding up is okay, i.e. listing a 892sq-ft place as an even 900sq-ft, is okay -- you don't want to miss out on those refining their searches to 900+ sq-ft, and a buyer isn't going to feel duped when the place turns out to be only 8sq-ft less -- but calling 637sq-ft 700sq-ft is quite a stretch, no matter how big it feels.

On a related note, I've also seen agents list properties as 999sq-ft or 9999sq-ft and a bunch of 9's in other fields they don't have accurate data for or when they want a particularly small unit to appear in more searches.

Overstating the square footage is fraud. Listing agents who do this should be prosecuted.

Square footage is just the beginning of the fibbing that goes on in listing a house. As an appraiser, I often deal with the fantasy of the listing and the reality of the property. Often times, though, it only goes to irritate a prospective buyer when they realize the difference. In the end, the lying destroys credibility and erodes trust, two elements that are essential to the successful realtor. The lying and embellishment of a listing usually indicates an inexperienced realtor, or worse, a bad one.

It's fine as long as they accept my $350,000 bid to really only be 324,000.

How is it that someone is justifying lying?

Maybe next time I'm speeding I can just tell the cop that "it didn't feel like speeding" and he'll let me go.

just list the actual size of the place

stop being lying dirtbags

how about that option?

I had this happen to me when looking at a property. I found the true square footage by looking at a plan from the town hall. The realtor was including the basement and the porch. When I confronted her she just wised off about it and told me that she had plenty of other people who would purchase the property.
It is fraud and realtors that engage in this behavior she be punished for it. Hasn't the real estate industry done enough to discredit itself?

This is a very dangerous practice and a good way to invite a lawsuit. As a licensed real estate broker, I have had many deals almost fall apart because of accidental misrepresentations by seller's or their agent. Nothing erodes the confidence of a buyer more than finding out that what they thought they were buying is something else. The listing agent and the seller need to accurately represent the features of the property, including square feet, to potential buyers. If they don't know, they need to find out (via the master deed, tax records, or hiring a qualified professional) before the property goes on the market.

As a Realtor for 21 years I want to say that there is absolutely NO reason to have
the wrong square foot area on a condo. The listing agent only has to look at the condo docs for the correct figure. That is the only one that's acceptable. Period!
For years I've said the Board should get tough on the liars out there. It's up to the public to demand it. Those of us who give the truthful figures will stand out over time. Sellers should stop lies by their listing agents from happening also. If they lie about this what else are they lying about? Hmmm... something to ponder.

When will the Globe stopy cozing up to the realtors?? This article seems to justify it. How about writing an article that slams this practice instead?? Do you have to ask the question?? Dont you know that this is fraud????

What is wrong with you people??

Misrepresent the square footage and be prepared to be sued for fraud. It happens especially in new develpoments (ie Charlestown). What a joke the Globe has become regarding the real estate industry.

Justifying a total lie,as the article appears to do, is ridiculous- and slimy.

The next time I run an employment ad in the Globe, if it appears smaller because it is on a page with lots of other ads, I think I'll round down and pay them $800 or $900 less than the quote.

My wife, a native of Hong Kong, notes that sellers/developers there are notorious for inflating the living-space-area figure by including space you can't use, such as the exterior walls, which can be pretty thick.

Buyer beware, and make sure to bring a tape measure when hunting for apartment, condo, or house!

Broker who do that are idiots. I see it all the time. If a buyer is making their purchase decision based on comps selling at $500 per sqft and the property is overstated by 50sqft well that's $25,000. Can you say lawsuit? And remember E & O policies don't pay if it is considered a fraud claim.

“It's a tough thing because there's a balancing act between helping our sellers get the highest price and not giving off inaccurate information"
PRICELESS

"When will the Globe stop cozying up to the realtors?? This article seems to justify it. How about writing an article that slams this practice instead?? Do you have to ask the question?? Don't you know that this is fraud????

What is wrong with you people??"

Joe's post said it best. Fraud.

I have found that Coldwell Banker is the worst for this. Recently, I looked at a house that the town assessor listed as 1365 SF. At the open house, the listing sheet said that it was 1700 SF. When I asked the realtor about it, she lied and said, "Oh, they must not have counted the upstairs space right." That was BS because the entire above-ground space felt incredibly cramped - the realtor was counting the basement. A few days ago, I looked at another house where the city assessor listed it as 1100 SF. Once again, a CW broker called it 1500 SF - based on an UNHEATED "living room" in the basement. To me, this is fraudulent and obscene. I am glad that someone is pointing this out. Of course, real estate agents and car salesmen seem to have the same code of "ethics"...

You have got to be kidding! How can you even ask that question? It is not only fraudulent, it is simply stupid. On the other hand, not that surprising.........

I feel it invalidates the local comps to lie about square footage. My next door neighbor just listed their house and when I first saw the listing I thought it must have been a mistake, but now I'm not so sure. They overstated the total square footage by quite a bit, the house is significantly smaller than mine. Now if they should happen to sell in this lousy market, it will look like a 2,400 sq ft house sold for X amount of dollars, when in actuality the house is really several hundred feet smaller.

It is just as bad to lump all real estate agents into one category as it is to knowingly adjust any information around a listing. There are those of us who do abide by the code of ethics and are honest and truthful. We sleep at night.

And what is the purpose of real estate agents? ahhh..... hmmmm.. oh, yes! To lie. Their economist's lie. And their realtor's lie.

It is a joke of an industry.

Sell your place on your own, honestly, then go buy a NEW car with the money you save.

Elite Boston Properties in the North End recently pulled this stunt on me. The unit is listed in MLS as 650+ feet. The actual size of the unit is 480 sq feet, hallway is 60 sq feet and the non-existing roofdeck is 125 sq. feet. The roofdeck wasnt built and wont be built before the unit is sold. The unit had a private roof so I suppose if I built a 500 sq foot roofdeck I could technically have almost half the voting rights for the association. Not only that but the condo fees are based on sq footage and include heat. If they are including a roofdeck as part of the living space does that mean I can run a heater up there and have a heated roofdeck? Crooks! Buyer beware....

Agree that it's math, not opinion. Our first house was listed as 1600 sq. ft. when we bought it. When we then went to sell our home, we found the town's official listing was just over 1300 sq. ft. The appraiser's measurements agreed with the town. Turns out the realtor who listed our house when we bought it thought the additional square footage in the UNFINISHED basement should be included in the living area.

An obvious question is, what are the areas of a house that are included in sq. ft. measurements? I assume this would include actual living space such as kitchen, dining room, living room, bed rooms, bathrooms and other rooms such as library, study, etc. Does this also include closets and storage space within the living space? What about hallways and stairways?

And what are the areas that are not included? Unfinished basements and attics? What if they are finished, or partly finished?

Don, I think I would agree with you that it is unfair to lump all real estate agents together, but how is that equivalent to committing fraud? At the very least, fraud and false advertising are illegal, but stereotyping is not. I would personally consider fraud worse than overly broad insults.

Doesn't anyone take a tape measure to a home viewing any more?

I ALWAYS measure every room and the foundation size as well... I've never believed a thing a realtor has told me. Not because I think they are liars, simply because it is my money I'm spending and I am ultimately responsible for making the decision.

Moral of the story: Stop being lazy and measure it yourself.

Perhaps BA or the realtors responding on this blog could educate us lay public bloggers regarding how area of a unit should be calculated by realtors (or assessors). One way might be to measure the square footage based upon the inner "foot print" of the floor plan. A second way would be to measure the actual size of the room flooring (this can be tricky if there are built out areas, kitchen islands, alot of closets, kitchen pantries, etc..) but might provide a more realistic sense of the actual space. Is the measurement used by the towns for tax purposes the number of record? Should the size include storage space (I would consider this a misrepresentation), balconies, enclosed porches? Does this require a formal "survey" (as with determination with property boundaries) and are there individuals who certify this measurement? Since the square footage is used to determine the condo fee, as noted by some above, this is more than a matter of aesthetics.

It appears that the majority of the public (or at least the representative blogging public who have responded) consider misrepresentation of the space of a unit to constitute fraud. Realtors and sellers take note. I am sure that the Lawyers will take notice.................

The standard is to measure the square footage based on the outside dimensions of the house (yeah, yeah, I know). Unfinished living spaces and basements don't count. The easiest way to see what was recorded as the square feet in the past is to check out zillow. Not sure how well it lists condos. Your town and/or county would also have similar records available in-person and online.

I've seen notes in the small print attached to most listings indicating that all measurements are approximation and should be verified by the buyer. It's like every other profession, there are the good guys and the sleezy characters. For the sleezy ones, Iguess they feel ok with lying becuase they disclosed that they may be fudging the numbers. You have to look out for yourself when it comes to these things. You cannot assume the sales people are telling you the truth.

As an attorney involved in both the creation of condominiums and in doing closings, I want to comment on some of the posts.

1. The percentage of common interest in a condo assn. is not based on square footage. State law says it needs to be based on market value. So if there are 4 units total and all are worth $250K each, then they should each have 25% of the area. If there were 2 townhouses worth 300K each, and 2 one bedroom units worth 200K each, each townhouse would have 30% and each 1 bedrm would have 20%. For the person who commented about the roof deck, the only way the roof deck increases the percentage of common interest is if the roof deck adds value as compared to other units in the building.

2. Whenever a condominium is created, the developer must record a plan drawn by an architect or engineer and a master deed that states the square footage of each unit. This must be recorded at the appropriate county Registry of Deeds. Any Realtor listing a property for sale is committing fraud by "fudging the numbers." However, any buyer who doesn't check the records for themselves or hire an attorney to prepare the agreement and check the records for them proves the P.T. Barnum quote to be true ... "there is a sucker born every minute."

Like others said there's no freakin' "balance to be struck". There's honesty and lying. Black and White. If you want to say it feels bigger, say it in the text. But don't make the numbers lie any more than they often do already.

Anyone who is willing to look at a 950 sf place that feels like 1000sf should be looking to see if any 950sf places are airy enough. It's inane and a testament to this housing bubble that anyone who's looking for 1000sf currently has to scrutinize the pictures, google the address, come in with measuring tape and calculator, etc., to try to figure out what lies are in the listings by the 'unreal state' agents. I'm not lazy, but this is RIDICULOUS!

"The feedback the agent was getting suggested she wouldn't be able to steal her commission unless she lied."

Never shake hands with a realtor unless you have some Purell.

Um, if you use a buyer's agent, you'd know about this sort of stuff. So, stop your whining. A buyer's agent is gonna tell you about all the junk that goes on.

Sorry John K, not all buyers agents are on the mark either.

I get frustrated in the city, where agent just measure the building footprint, and include closets, stairwells and other 'illegal/ spaces in the square footage.

A few years ago I came to the realization that most CB brokers in Arlington list garage and unfinished basement in the total square footage. When I confronted them they said that this is perfectly fine! I never look at their listings anymore because they are simply fraudulent.

Not only is exaggerating the size of a unit deceitful but doing so also lowers the price-per-square foot which often is a measure of comparison one unit to an another and and/or a search criteria thereby creating even more inaccurate information. "Oh what webs we weave when at first we deceive". Don't recall who said it but sure fits here.

Peter Clark #30 ,

1. Your statement is correct, but the point I was trying to make is that square footage is certainly one important determinant of Market Value (among many). I do not think that anyone would dispute this.

2. At issue then is why the association of realtors allows any listing on the MLS that does not conform to a standard that assures legal and uniform disclosure. We certainly have this in many other retail spheres (ie we can compare gas mileage when we shop for cars, calories and fat content of food, etc...). The MLS, which acts as a bulletin board for listings (and much more), should undertake this responsibility. They need to assume more responsibility for content. Even if we questioned the methodology (as we have for gas mileage determination for cars), uniformity would at least enable us to reliably compare the size of housing units. "Consumers" should demand this.

3. Aside - personal commet: I read #22's comment about Elite Properties. I am surpised because in my dealings with them (they served me as a Buyer's Broker) I found them to be helpful, responsive, honest and professional. I would use them again.

I agree that intentionally misrepresenting the living area of a house/condo is fraudulent, but I think that many of us (I'm a Realtor) don't recognize that many of the public sites that feed off of MLS may not pick up some listing notes that explain a difference between a listing GLA and public record (and anyone can check public record, often online, in the local assessor's web page).

Some agents will include a finished basement in the GLA, for ex., and add a note that 400 sq ft are in a finished basement in the disclosure - which other agents can see and will look for, but which may not show up in a public site. Others will ignore the assessors info and use the owner's figures (these are noted in the GLA source field in the listing, BTW). I don't think these are cases of fraud per se, since we can't control the listing info that a public site chooses to extract from MLS (Some sites even make their own description from certain data elements in the listing - I had one house that I clearly described as in disrepair, yet a public site described it as "wonderful"). I generally default to the assessor's GLA, and note extra spaces in the description - and that's what most do.

As a standard, a finished basement with a walk-out (not bulkhead) may be considered in the GLA, as could a year-round porch. Unfinished and seasonal spaces - never. In any case, the agent should note all of this in the listing.

But if you talk to an agent and he/she doesn't care or admits to fudging the numbers - RUN - that's an agent who who hesitate to lie about other things. And file a complaint if you think it's warranted.

John K, that sounds dangerously like a protection racket. You are justifying your services by saying that you will protect people from your peers.

I disagree with number 30. I have lived in four condos over the past ten years in Boston. In every condo document the percentage of ownership has been based on square footage. How can one determine fair market value for the calculation of condo fees. In a self run association should we have an assessor come through and decide on each units value? Is a first floor worth 10k less than a 5th floor versus 20k less than an 18th floor and 22k less than a 22nd floor unit? This seems odd to me. The only fair way I would think would be actual ownership of the building, or square footage. With that said I dont see how a privately deeded space such as a roof (especailly one without the deck built) can count towards the units square footage for the calculation of condo fees - especially since heat is included in many condo fees.

Peter Clark #30 ,

In a large building condo, air space supersedes the market value in term distributing condo's fee and property tax. For example, a first floor unit has the exact layout, Sq.Ft, and market value to a unit in the fifth floor but the first floor unit gets lower condo's fee and property tax. The same rule will be enforced in case of special assessment; the higher your unit, the more you pay.

In MA, percentage of ownership is not based on square footage or on current market value, but on how this was decided when the condo association was created (and little can be done about this now). In our association there is a pretty wild difference between condo fees of different units - definitely not a perfect relationship with size, value, or air rights. The rumor has it that some first owners bribed the developer and had their % lowered so that their fees and assessments were smaller. Could be true.