Home, Land, Property Buying and Selling - Disclosure dishonest

Hello....I bought a small house 6 months ago. Well...this Spring we have had heavy rains and the house foundation is sinking and has cracks and you can see water has been leaking into the dirt crawlspace for years.. My boss told me to check my disclosure paper work. Basically the seller just drew a line through the "Unknown" answers on the disclosure questions instead of yes or no....In other words the seller is saying they wern't aware of ALL the problems with this home, which is a lie....So I'm told to contact a lawyer.
Question:...have anyof you had to deal with a dishonest Seller Property Disclosure and what are my chances of getting my money back on the house?
Thanks.

are you asking about recission of the sale or compensation for the problems?


Did you have a re agent in this purchase?

Did the seller?

Did the seller actually live in the house?

... the house foundation is sinking and has cracks and you can see water has been leaking into the dirt crawlspace for years..

If you had an inspection beforehand and the inspector did not notice and report that, you might have some kind of recourse against the inspector.

Basically the seller just drew a line through the "Unknown" answers on the disclosure questions instead of yes or no....

You will likely be told you had an opportunity to challenge that report beforehand, and that you accepted it at closing.

what are my chances of getting my money back on the house?

Probably zero, and even a civil suit against the seller for repairs would likely be an expensive waste of time unless you can somehow actually prove the property and/or one or more of its improvements had been knowingly and intentionally misrepresented.

It should not be terribly difficult to steer storm water away from your foundation, and it is not uncommon for houses to settle over time.

Are you a DIYer? If so, you should be able to get some good advice and direction here.

are you asking about recission of the sale or compensation for the problems?


Did you have a re agent in this purchase?

Did the seller?

Did the seller actually live in the house?


No..the seller didn't live there, they had renters in it, I forgot to say I paid cash for the house also. The house was on the market for about a year.
It turns out that the area I live in has bad foundation dirt and other houses have similar problems, but my house sits on a hill, that's why my user name is bluff_house.
So I hope to get my monies back and extra if that is possible? I'm not very savy about these things.
I really wanted to keep this house but the problems ren't fixable.
Sorry if I can't provide the best info on this post, I'm a first time buyer....and it looks like I was taken advantage of, and I understand they have laws to protect people like me in this situation.
Thanks

a non-resident owner often is not aware of defects in a property .Tough to make a call concerning that.

Contrary to leejosepho's posts, it is not required to challange the disclosure prior to closing. Most defects are not discovered until later so why would you even need one. The truth is, if there is reasonable belief the owner should have been aware of the defect and did not disclose it, they may be able to be held to the false disclosure.
Now, as leejosehpo did state, if you had an inpspector inspect the house and he missed such a situation, he may possibly be liable for the damages. They often carry errors and omission insurance for things they missed they should have caught.

Again, contrary to leejosehpos advice, the defect does not neccessarily have to be known by the seller. If it should have been known by the seller, they can be held liable in many cases. Ignorance of the obvious is not an excuse.

and again, in agreement with le... this could be an expensive undertaking with no guarantee of you winning.

I would suggest setting down with an attorney that practices in the area of real estate and speak with them about the possibilities. If the seller does not have any attachable money, this would most likely be a losing proposition anyway but that is something I have no knowledge of from here.

The attorney would be able to look at the complete situation and facts and make a more specific determination.

Thanks, Nap.....I most likely will have to sit down with a local attorney. And yes...the problems are obvious...slant in bathroom, floors uneven,...jsut a walk in the crawl space shows the leaking water problem....there's even burned ood from a fire (i'm guessing) under the kitchen area....Noon of this was addressed in the disclosure. But then again I would hate to fight this and get nothing but headaches and a house with a short life span....sucks to be me some times...I hope the little guy can get some justice.
Plus the house wasn't inspected really, I just bought it as-is.
Also...the previous owners have other properties so they buy and sell alot from what I gathered and have money.
Thanks for the responses.

a non-resident owner often is not aware of defects in a property .Tough to make a call concerning that.

Contrary to leejosepho's posts, it is not required to challange the disclosure prior to closing. Most defects are not discovered until later so why would you even need one. The truth is, if there is reasonable belief the owner should have been aware of the defect and did not disclose it, they may be able to be held to the false disclosure.
Now, as leejosehpo did state, if you had an inpspector inspect the house and he missed such a situation, he may possibly be liable for the damages. They often carry errors and omission insurance for things they missed they should have caught.

Again, contrary to leejosehpos advice, the defect does not neccessarily have to be known by the seller. If it should have been known by the seller, they can be held liable in many cases. Ignorance of the obvious is not an excuse.

and again, in agreement with le... this could be an expensive undertaking with no guarantee of you winning.

I would suggest setting down with an attorney that practices in the area of real estate and speak with them about the possibilities. If the seller does not have any attachable money, this would most likely be a losing proposition anyway but that is something I have no knowledge of from here.

The attorney would be able to look at the complete situation and facts and make a more specific determination.

... it is not required to challange the disclosure prior to closing.

In court or wherever, that might be a good response to what I had actually said:

You will likely be told you had an opportunity to challenge that report beforehand, and that you accepted it at closing.

Again, contrary to leejosehpos advice, the defect does not neccessarily have to be known by the seller ...

Without giving any advice at all, that is not what I had said. Rather, I only said simply this:

... a civil suit against the seller for repairs would likely be an expensive waste of time unless you can somehow actually prove the property and/or one or more of its improvements had been knowingly and intentionally misrepresented.

Going to court several months later and saying the seller should have known something alleged to be noticable as having been happening for years will likely be countered with some kind of statement that the buyer or his inspector-agent should have therefore noticed it beforehand.

I paid cash for the house ...
....and it looks like I was taken advantage of, and I understand they have laws to protect people like me in this situation.

Paying cash pretty much leaves you out on your own as far as any legislative or judicial body is concerned. As long as the taxes get paid, the government does not care who pays them.

I really wanted to keep this house but the problems ren't fixable.

Why do you believe the problems are not fixable? There is almost always at least something that can be done, and even in unstable soil.

The attorney would be able to look at the complete situation and facts and make a more specific determination.

Attorneys do not make determinations. Judges and/or juries do that. And, be very skeptical of any attorney who lets you believe he actually believes you can win. As a general rule, attorneys do not care who wins. Rather, they know their first responsibility is to the court in making sure you exhaust all your options and that your legal rights are guarded so you are left with no further recourse once a determination has been made. Since morality cannot be legislated, courts are seldom moral.

Thanks leejosepho,....I've been told that even if I used concret piers or a profesional company (like Powerlift co) it would only be temporary as the soil is just to poor. To be honest I don't really want to do the court thing...they (the sellers) could turn around and sue me!.....I may just stick it out and keep adding jack post (tiger brand) and do what i can....the rainy season has passed for now, giving me the summer to get a handle on the problem maybe.
I will probly get Powerlift to come out and give me a free estiment and I'm sure they can shed some more light on just how ba the situation is?...and if it's not too expensive have them level and add their piers.
Hopefully everything will work out...if not, I only spent 36K on this place so it' not a large sum.
Cheers!

In court or wherever, that might be a good response to what I had actually said:





Without giving any advice at all, that is not what I had said. Rather, I only said simply this:



Going to court several months later and saying the seller should have known something alleged to be noticable as having been happening for years will likely be countered with some kind of statement that the buyer or his inspector-agent should have therefore noticed it beforehand.



Paying cash pretty much leaves you out on your own as far as any legislative or judicial body is concerned. As long as the taxes get paid, the government does not care who pays them.



Why do you believe the problems are not fixable? There is almost always at least something that can be done, and even in unstable soil.



Attorneys do not make determinations. Judges and/or juries do that. And, be very skeptical of any attorney who lets you believe he actually believes you can win. As a general rule, attorneys do not care who wins. Rather, they know their first responsibility is to the court in making sure you exhaust all your options and that your legal rights are guarded so you are left with no further recourse once a determination has been made. Since morality cannot be legislated, courts are seldom moral.

leejosepho, it sounds like you may have been on the short end of the stick at one time. I used to be a licensed real estate agent and a Realtor and do understand some of this just a bit.


without getting into a huge argument, let me simply say you misunderstand the laws behind this. In court is exactly where you would state the fact the sellers disclosure form was innaccurate. You do this when you are suing the daylights out of the person who misrepresented the property. You do not need to challenge the report at or before closing. It is a legal statement that the seller is required to fill out and it can be used today, tomorrow or next year if the defect is latent. The point being, it is a legally obligating document.

as to the attorney determining what can be done; yes, it is up to an attorney to advise a client as to the laws and the legal rights and remedies the client may have. The courts are the folks that agree or disagree with the claim. The courts will not make a claim for you. It is up to you and/or your attorney to make a claim.

And, be very skeptical of any attorney who lets you believe he actually believes you can win. As a general rule, attorneys do not care who wins. Rather, they know their first responsibility is to the court in making sure you exhaust all your options and that your legal rights are guarded so you are left with no further recourse once a determination has been madeYou just do not understand the legal system apparently. An attorney that you hire IS legally required due to his fiduciary duty to act on his clients behalf. I would not go to court with an attorney that did not at least believe I had a fighting chance. That would simply be foolish. Most will not tell you you will win. The courts are too fickle to promise much of anything. They will tell you you should win though if they believe you should win based on the facts and situation.

Going to court several months later and saying the seller should have known something alleged to be noticable as having been happening for years will likely be countered with some kind of statement that the buyer or his inspector-agent should have therefore noticed it beforehand.believe it or not, that may actually be irrelevent. The fact is you would sue for an inaccurate disclosure and what you know, or should have does not alter the fact the seller lied. That is why the seller may be liable. BTW; there are cases where the suit was filed years later and were successful. I would surely no fret over a couple months. As a matter of fact, a few months to a year would tend to show the buyer was totally unaware of the defect so by your argument, longer would be better.

Sellers and real estate agents are required by law to disclose what is wrong with a property. It is important that the buyer know what the state's disclosure law is. Some have time limits on how long the buyer has to sue a seller. An attorney would know the disclosure law and would be able to advise whether or not it would be worthwhile to sue. The laws give the buyer the right to sue to get the problem fixed or, in this case, a return of money.

The city or county building inspector can inspect the property for structural integrity and assess the situation. Any changes to the structure would require a permit.

The health and safety of the homeowner is most important. In addition to foundation failure, there may be mold issues if there has been water in the crawl space for years.

A home inspection could have prevented the buyer from making the error. But, hindsight is 20-20.

http://www.therealestatelibrary.com/disclosure.html

You left off the "required to disclose things are are *known* to be wrong", the seller can't inform you of something they know nothing about. It's entirely possible they've never gone in the crawl space. Repairs may have been performed by others who didn't bother to say 'hey, did you know you have water under the house?', much less document it in a fashion that you could obtain.

Point being, from the document you describe, you bought the home 'as is'. Even the seller was telling you they don't know if this is good or bad, hence the 'unknown'. We didn't look, don't care to look, buy at your own risk.

there is only one state that I am aware of where a house can be bought totally "as is" which is Louisiana but even there, there is a unique form that is filled out for the purpose.

A defect does not need to be known for it to be reported. If it reasoanbly SHOULD be known to a seller, they can be held liable for the defect. In this situation where the owner was not the occucpant, the possibility of this claim is greatly reduced since they did not occupy the building so they actually may not have been aware of some problems. Others, they are still expected to be aware of. If any of the tenants state they informed the seller/LL of the defect at aany time, then that is proof the seller should have known of the defect.


It isn't as easy as selling a car as-is. You cannot simply claim," I didn't know" as certain things would be known to a reasonable person and that is the standard to which the law holds them. Again, the absent owner situation does reduce the possibility that all defects were known but does not totally remove the possible liability.

I remember when I did go to school for my license. In the midwest, things were much more lax than the two coasts, especialy the west coast. We were taught that, regarding certain defects, the proof of
reasonably should have known" was so light it made it near impossible to escape liability in certain situations by anybody that had ever walked through the house, let alone lived in it. We were taught to specifically look for "red flags" that would alert us to certain problems and if we observed those "red flags", the seller would most assuredly be held liable for those defects whether they were actually aware of them or not.

Like I said," closing your eyes and saying I didn't see it" is not a legal defense to liability.
Specifically in this situation, I would suspect that the main structural problems will be considered to be defects the seller should have reasonable known unless they can state they have never walked through the house and never had it inspected. The clues are too obvious.

So no, I did not leave off the :

"required to disclose things are are *known* to be wrong", because that is not what the law typically holds a seller to. Reasonably should have known is more correct.

without getting into a huge argument, let me simply say you misunderstand the laws behind this.

No argument of any size is necessary -- I do not know the laws at all.

You do not need to challenge the report at or before closing.

No one had said you do.

as to the attorney determining what can be done; yes, it is up to an attorney to advise a client ...

That is not the same as making a determination.

An attorney that you hire IS legally required due to his fiduciary duty to act on his clients behalf.

Sure, but his first duty is to the court whether or not his client has a winnable case ... and at least some attorneys play on that simple fact and do their jobs exactly as expected even when they very well know they are just going through motions to please the court.

Bluff_House: A little over three years ago, my wife and I unknowingly got in on the seductive sub-prime movement and bought a house with no money down, no inspections, no survey or whatever else. We knew it needed some work and I was prepared for that, and I still have no complaint even though it still needs more than I can physically do or financially afford. The single-mom seller was close to foreclosure, and I made sure she walked away with $1000.00 for her own pocket even though we had borrowed more than this place is worth.

It could easily be argued we each made a mistake buying what we did, but at least we have places to call "home" ... for as long as we can pay the taxes anyway.

How is storm water getting into your crawl space? Do you need some landscaping, gutters, perimeter drains ...? Surely something can be done to at least reduce the erosion or whatever.

we are closer at least but I will argue this point 'til the cows come home (and I don;t have any cows so that could be a long time):

Sure, but his first duty is to the court whether or not his client has a winnable case ... He has a duty to the courts to act in an ethical manner. He has an absolute and legally supported duty to represent his client. It sounds like you got burned by an unscrupulous laywer somewhere. They are legally bound by contract and ethically bound by bar rules to represent their client. Their duty to the courts, beyond remaining ethical, is subordinate to the duty they have to their client.

That is not the same as making a determination.this is merely a misunderstanding of the terminology. I spoke to the attorney making a determination of the viability of any legal proceedings. You are speaking of not a determination but a ruling, finding, or order from the court.

No big deal, just a lack of understanding amongst us.

So, to continue with what leejosepho started:

drainage around a foundation is often successful with the use of a french drain system. My understanding of your situaiton is this is a dirt crawl space with a simple footer foundation; correct?

Not that it is cheap, but a foundation can be replaced if neccessary and this type is about the easiest to do so.

You might consider speaking with (hiring) an engineer to research the soil and determine if a suitable repair or replacement is possible. Other than that, the french drain system may reduce any subsequent damage as it would prevent the build-up of water on the high side of the house, which I presume is the problem.

If the problems are so obvious that a walk around shows them how come you didn't see them before buying the house?

If the problems are so obvious that a walk around shows them how come you didn't see them before buying the house?

I did notice some problems and fixed those with jack posts, but the real problems started this Spring with 2 to 3 times the normal rain fall and that has excellirated the problem. I probably should have passed on this house but didn't understand how bad the situation was...especially when the disclosure (seller) had nothing to contrbute...they acted dumber then me....I guess it was dumb and dumber, I just wonder how a judge or jury would see it?

I probably should have passed on this house but didn't understand how bad the situation was...
I just wonder how a judge or jury would see it?

Sadly, and after noticing the purchase price, they would probably just say you got what you paid for.

I will argue this point 'til the cows come home ...
[An attorney] has an absolute and legally supported duty to represent his client ... legally bound by contract and ethically bound by bar rules to represent their client. Their duty to the courts, beyond remaining ethical, is [second] to the duty they have to their client.

There is no difference between the attorney's duty to the court and to his or her client. They are the same, and just as you have described: "to represent his client".

More times than not, the attorney is little more than a highly-paid clerk who is at least supposed to know all the rules, and his job is to be sure his client receives every due consideration and opportunity available within the judicial system. You might argue that he does that with his client's best interest in mind, and I do not doubt there are some attorneys who do that. However, I argue that the court has the attorney there to "re-present" a client (who is usually right there and able to speak for himself), for the sake of convenience and expediency within the court. And no, I have never been burned by an attorney or disappointed by a judge's decision.

I am sorry to hear your opinion on this. All I can say is you must know some pretty crappy attorneys. Glad to say everyone I have dealt with with one exception does not fall within your description of what an attorney does and how they act.

I have been represented quite well. An agressive and well educated attorney is so much more than an overpaid court clerk (who cannot dispense legal advice btw)

a court does not care if you win or lose (generally, although I have seen a few cases where the judge most definately did prefer one over the other).

and yes, there is a world of difference between what an attorney is legally obligated to a client for over the courts. Do you understand fiduciary duty? An attorney has no such duty to the courts. Their breach of their fiducuiary duty to a client is grounds for disciplanary actions, including disbarment and depending upon the situation, could reach into criminal actions as well.

I am sorry to hear your opinion on this. All I can say is you must know some pretty crappy attorneys.

Nope, not a one.

Okay, I think everyone has had their two cents worth and the subject has been well and truely covered from all sides.

Thread closed.