Two different claims associated with the purchase of a home - can i split up?

[Craig Stevens]

Jurisdiction

California

Very simply - we purchased a home using the standard California Realtors Association Agreement.

I want to use small claims vs. using Mediation/Arbitration.

Two Issues.
- Issue #1 - Costs associated with necessary repairs on items that should have been disclosed.
- Issue #2 - Costs associated with re-repairing work initially done by a licensed contractor. The repair was called out in a termite report. This licensed contractor was hired by the seller. Though there was a termite clearance on the property, the work was inproperly done and this was not identified until 2 months later during a rain storm.

The two issues total more than $10K.

By splitting them I can try and get the full out of pocket costs. Aprox. $15K.

Can this be one? Or will the small claims court say NO since both issues are technically part of the purchase of this property. Or can you NOT sue the licensed contractor since I did not actually hire them or pay for their services.

Thanks

 

[army judge]

Very simply - we purchased a home using the standard California Realtors Association Agreement.

I want to use small claims vs. using Mediation/Arbitration.

Two Issues.
- Issue #1 - Costs associated with necessary repairs on items that should have been disclosed.
- Issue #2 - Costs associated with re-repairing work initially done by a licensed contractor. The repair was called out in a termite report. This licensed contractor was hired by the seller. Though there was a termite clearance on the property, the work was inproperly done and this was not identified until 2 months later during a rain storm.

The two issues total more than $10K.

By splitting them I can try and get the full out of pocket costs. Aprox. $15K.

Can this be one? Or will the small claims court say NO since both issues are technically part of the purchase of this property. Or can you NOT sue the licensed contractor since I did not actually hire them or pay for their services.

Thanks

Does the agreement you signed allow you to take any action outside of arbitration/mediation?

Small claims courts generally disallow bifurcated issues in the manner you suggest. Hence, your issues are moot.

 

[Craig Stevens]

Agreement specifically allows small claim vs mediation/arbitration.

On the issue of splitting the cases; why not if the reasons are so different.

One case on repairs due to not disclosing. That is all seller

The 2nd is poor workmanship against the contractor.

If I could get s bit more clarification

 

[army judge]

Agreement specifically allows small claim vs mediation/arbitration.

On the issue of splitting the cases; why not if the reasons are so different.

One case on repairs due to not disclosing. That is all seller

The 2nd is poor workmanship against the contractor.

If I could get s bit more clarification

Try reading this link:

Small Claims - small_claims_selfhelp

If the contractor didn't do the work for you, under what legal theory can you sue her or him?

Answer: You can't as the contractor (successfully, that is) owes you no legal duty, and had no contract with you. As far as vicariously, forget that, too.

The issue of disclosure involves due diligence.
If you act upon the alleged representations of others, how do you the hold the seller to be responsible for your actions?
That, mate, becomes a seller said, buyer believed.
That's going nowhere in small claims which awards money based on losses proved.

You're always FREE to file a million small claims lawsuits.
Ultimately the jurist presiding over the court decides.

Frankly, I see nothing upon I could prosecute any civil actions.
If you disagree, have at it, mate.

 

[Craig Stevens]

Regarding disclosures. I thought California had strict disclosures law. The seller is asked to disclose defects in all major areas even if repair. If they don't list it then how can you know to inspect it. I would think the reason for disclosing is to then allow the buyer to accept or further inspect. For example when we sold our home we disclosed a leak from the upstairs bathroom into the living room ceiling. It was all repaired and there would be no way to ever know we had an issue. We disclosed it and then the perspective buyer decided to conduct a mold test. Had we not disclosed it and indeed there was mold; I would think the buyer might have a case to come after us. I'm confused on what you are saying. If we use my example; it sounds like you are saying the buyer would have the responsiblity to conduct a mold test even if I never disclosed the leak. If they didn't....too bad for them. Maybe you can clarify a bit more.

Thanks

 

[army judge]

Regarding disclosures. I thought California had strict disclosures law. The seller is asked to disclose defects in all major areas even if repair. If they don't list it then how can you know to inspect it. I would think the reason for disclosing is to then allow the buyer to accept or further inspect. For example when we sold our home we disclosed a leak from the upstairs bathroom into the living room ceiling. It was all repaired and there would be no way to ever know we had an issue. We disclosed it and then the perspective buyer decided to conduct a mold test. Had we not disclosed it and indeed there was mold; I would think the buyer might have a case to come after us. I'm confused on what you are saying. If we use my example; it sounds like you are saying the buyer would have the responsiblity to conduct a mold test even if I never disclosed the leak. If they didn't....too bad for them. Maybe you can clarify a bit more.

Thanks

We've helped you all we can.
We don't provide step by step instructions.

On the issue of disclosure, how do YOU prove what the seller knew, and when it was known?

Answer, you can't.

You're discovering a truth.
What truth?
The law is NOT the refuge our "leaders" would have you believe.