Did the seller do his part

TheLandLord

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
I bought a rental property with tenants already in it and decided to keep the tenants. House was sold as-is, it has a few issues which i was willing to deal with because the price was right. In the disclosure they mark yes on C1 and in the explanation they refer to the inspection report they gave us which does point out various minor things on the roof that may be or become an issue. I had my own inspection done which found a few other things but still looked like a good deal.

Now fast forward to the first rain of this year. Tenant gets a hold of me about a roof leak. Well i come to discover its more then just a leak it looks like a waterfall is coming down. The tenant makes a comment about it has been an issue. So that raises my eyebrows I ask them for more information and it turns out it has been an ongoing issue since before i bought the house and the previous owners sent someone multiple times to fix the problem and it was never resolved and in fact was made worse the last time it was "fixed". During the sale of the house(which they were unaware of at the time) they asked again to have it fixed but where ignored.

Now to me that feels like they should have specifically disclosed that but i have no idea. Do i have any recourse or did they legally do enough and i am just going to have to eat this cost.
 
Now to me that feels like they should have specifically disclosed that but i have no idea.

Some people who purchase real estate are content with "waiting" for the seller to disclose.

I take another path, my friend.

I am an attorney, but always retain the services of an attorney before I begin my property search.
The attorney ensures that leaks never become waterfalls, for example.

I always retain my independent property inspector to perform a property inspection that assists me in making a decision to buy or walk away.


Now to me that feels like they should have specifically disclosed that but i have no idea. Do i have any recourse or did they legally do enough and i am just going to have to eat this cost.


I suggest you seek a free consultation from a real estate attorney.
During the consultation you can receive answers to all your questions, as well as plot your next steps.

I hope everything turns out well for you.
 
I can't imagine how such a significant problem escaped detection when the home was inspected. What does the home inspector have to say about this?
 
In the disclosure they mark yes on C1

Might have been nice if you explained what "C1" refers to, as opposed to giving folks the choice of responding without knowing or taking the time to look it up.

Now to me that feels like they should have specifically disclosed that but i have no idea. Do i have any recourse or did they legally do enough and i am just going to have to eat this cost.

First, we don't know exactly what the seller did, so we can't opine intelligently about whether the unknown things that the seller did were sufficient. Second, no one who doesn't know all of the relevant facts and hasn't seen the disclosure that was given can opine intelligently about the sufficiency of the disclosure.

All anyone here can intelligently tell you is that you've described a situation where you might have a valid claim such that it might be worth your while to have a local attorney review the matter and advise you.

"mightymoose" also makes a very good point.
 
Now to me that feels like they should have specifically disclosed that but i have no idea.

Depends on the state's statutory requirements for disclosure. You can look that up just as easily as anybody here.

But my common sense tells me that interviewing the tenant during the inspection period is a must when buying a tenant occupied rental.
 
Most "home inspectors" couldn't find a major defect if it bit them in the rear during the inspection. They serve as little more than a nuisance negotiation tool late in the purchase process.

If you suspect something might be wrong, you need to bring in someone skilled in that particular field rather than the "master of none" that markets himself as a home inspector and weasels his contracts so he's not responsible for his inevitable omissions.
 
Back
Top