Zigner
Well-Known Member
Agreed - it's off (but only by 2 years) on my house.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Seller failed to disclose
- Thread Starter rivamonzter
- Start date
- Status
Agreed - it's off (but only by 2 years) on my house.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
rivamonzter, do you have appropriate contingencies in your contract that will allow you to back out of the sale?
There were no insults made to you on this thread. Telling you that you made a mistake is not insulting.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Agreed - in fact, the OP is the only one who has insulted anybody here. I get it, though. There's a lot of money at stake and that's enough to put anybody on edge.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
If the MLS, the sellers and the realtors relied on the county property card then nobody "lied" to you.
It's unfortunate that you didn't catch the error until you paid $625 for the inspection. That's the risk you take when you make an offer without first seeing the property.
Your original question was
That's up to you. Seems to me that the options are (1) walk away from the deal, or (2) negotiate for a lower price if you still want the house.
rivamonzter
New Member
I only get 5 posts a day apparently.
This is turning out to be a quite interesting situation. We now have the written copy of the home inspection. It also has the home aged as 1987. Though it thoroughly describes 2 prong and non-grounded outlets throughout the house, as well as the original Zinsco panel. It does not directly say in writing the house was built pre 1978. Despite this being what the inspector told us.
We have independently confirmed the age of the home.
The notice of termination that the realtor sent us has the reason listed as "all deficiencies noted in home inspection". Which isn't accurate since the home inspection doesn't head on address the discrepancy of the age of the home.
At this point the contract has been terminated via docusign on our end though.
Though we had to provide credit card info to receive the home inspection, we have not actually been charged the $625 fee yet. Seems odd.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Then add something to the notice of termination that the age of the house is also the issue.
rivamonzter
New Member
Quick response. And I positively did just that.
"though not reflected in his report, the inspector told us in person the home was built in the 1960's, likely by his co-workers family. Not in 1987 like the listing says."
Last edited:
Zigner
Well-Known Member
The listing is irrelevant, as you have been told.
rivamonzter
New Member
Comprehension is completely relevant.
The quote is what we added to the notice of termination. Which documents the discrepancy between what the inspector said versus what is actually in the written report.
While at the same time bringing it directly to the attention of the sellers and their realtor that they should reasonably know the house pre-dates 1978. The information wasn't that difficult to confirm in a town of under 200 dwellings 5 minutes from where my wife was raised. (We asked Karen)
We were 100% certain of when the home was built, and who built it before making that written statement. The owner has actually owned the house since 1983, and lived on the same block since the neighborhood was developed in the sixties.
Not sure why you keep being my antagonist. I would much rather be running my business and catching Spotted Bass in SoCal. Instead of being here in a hospice situation for my MIL in frigid Illinois. Unexpectedly dusting off the old compiled statutes preparing for litigation to recover $625(which strangely has yet to actually be charged to my card). While also White Knighting for Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
I agree. Please re-read EVERYTHING to try to comprehend it better.
If you are ever charged the $625, then feel free to protest it to your credit card (easiest route) and, if that is not successful, then sue the bad guy in small claims court. Best of luck to you!
army judge
Super Moderator
The year a house was built is not a defacto determination that there is a lead paint hazard in the house. For one thing the house may have been renovated or portions have been renovated. Old lead paint may have been encapsulated with latex acrylic and is not exposed. It is only when work is to be done in the home that underlying lead paint becomes a concern.
You are making much more of this than is necessary. You should read the EPA RRP statutes.
Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules | US EPA
rivamonzter
New Member
I am unable to post to the original thread I started. I wanted to update the situation, especially the information I contributed that was incorrect.
Previously I had posted that the current owners had owned the house since 1983, and had lived on the block since the 60's. That is not correct, I misunderstood my wife(surprise). They bought the house in 1993, and we have no knowledge where they lived previously. We are hearing through my wife's recently re-established social circles that the current owners legitimately believed the house was built in 1987.
This is where we are now. The house was re-listed at the same list price. The construction date changed from 1987 to 1968. We electronically signed the notice of termination and release of earnest 2 days ago. We gave the inspection company our payment info 4 days ago.
We have not received back signed copies of the release form and our earnest money, yet. Since the house has been re-listed with a different construction date, we have no doubt that we will. The only thing we have at risk now is the $625 inspection+radon fee that we have yet to actually be charged for. We still think that that is odd, but until we are charged we have not incurred a financial injury.
Since we are pretty well out of the weeds. What are your thoughts on the listing agents obligations here? His clients are in their 80's. To me it seems like he has a responsibility to make certain his clients fully understand and comply with disclosure.
Why do you think the inspection company has yet to charge us for the inspection they released to us 4 days ago? Is it because the report does not directly conflict the age of the house?
Previously I had posted that the current owners had owned the house since 1983, and had lived on the block since the 60's. That is not correct, I misunderstood my wife(surprise). They bought the house in 1993, and we have no knowledge where they lived previously. We are hearing through my wife's recently re-established social circles that the current owners legitimately believed the house was built in 1987.
This is where we are now. The house was re-listed at the same list price. The construction date changed from 1987 to 1968. We electronically signed the notice of termination and release of earnest 2 days ago. We gave the inspection company our payment info 4 days ago.
We have not received back signed copies of the release form and our earnest money, yet. Since the house has been re-listed with a different construction date, we have no doubt that we will. The only thing we have at risk now is the $625 inspection+radon fee that we have yet to actually be charged for. We still think that that is odd, but until we are charged we have not incurred a financial injury.
Since we are pretty well out of the weeds. What are your thoughts on the listing agents obligations here? His clients are in their 80's. To me it seems like he has a responsibility to make certain his clients fully understand and comply with disclosure.
Why do you think the inspection company has yet to charge us for the inspection they released to us 4 days ago? Is it because the report does not directly conflict the age of the house?
army judge
Super Moderator
5 common lead poisoning myths explained: Toxic Neglect!
5 common lead poisoning myths explained: Toxic Neglect
Testing for and removing lead based paints!
Testing for and Removing Lead Paint
5 common lead poisoning myths explained: Toxic Neglect
Testing for and removing lead based paints!
Testing for and Removing Lead Paint
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
No liability at all.
There was compliance with disclosure. It just had a mistake in the build date.
Here's why you will LOSE if you sue for $625. Note that I am using your own words:
I can only lead you to the truth. I can't make you believe it. But a judge can. Go ahead and sue if you want to.
This is the original thread you started.
rivamonzter
New Member
No liability at all.[/QUOTE]
I think they share the responsibility with the seller according to Title X
You are essentially shifting the legal burden of the sellers to disclose; on to the buyers to know IF the sellers fully disclosed prior to investing hundreds to potentially thousands on inspections and appraisals. This would be in direct conflict with the purpose of disclosure in the first place.
That statement is completely comical. Forecasting the outcome of civil litigation as fact without even knowing whether we are going after the sellers or the inspection company for the $625.
How narcissistic does one have to be to value their own opinion as fact so strongly that they can predict Judicial rulings, without even knowing the case being presented?
You think since I so readily was able to confirm the build date that it somehow negates the responsibility of the sellers to know the same information. I think it only strengthens my position that the sellers did not perform their duties to ensure compliance.
I think they share the responsibility with the seller according to Title X
You are essentially shifting the legal burden of the sellers to disclose; on to the buyers to know IF the sellers fully disclosed prior to investing hundreds to potentially thousands on inspections and appraisals. This would be in direct conflict with the purpose of disclosure in the first place.
That statement is completely comical. Forecasting the outcome of civil litigation as fact without even knowing whether we are going after the sellers or the inspection company for the $625.
How narcissistic does one have to be to value their own opinion as fact so strongly that they can predict Judicial rulings, without even knowing the case being presented?
You think since I so readily was able to confirm the build date that it somehow negates the responsibility of the sellers to know the same information. I think it only strengthens my position that the sellers did not perform their duties to ensure compliance.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. There's nothing more anybody can do for you here.
Thread closed.
Thread closed.
- Status
Share this page
