Seller did not disclose water damage and grading issues (stucco, disclosures, agent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We just purchased this house from a guy who was a realtor and represented himself in the transaction.
He did not disclose any "drainage or grading defects" on the property. nor did he disclose any prior water leaks.
I did have a home inspection done. The inspector told me I should look to one day fix the concrete slope at the back of the house but that it didn't appear to be an imment problem right now. He checked the inside with a moisture meter where it was accessible, but detected nothing
I closed escrow on the house 2 weeks ago. I went to the house 2 days after it rained (coincidentally, the day we closed). I noticed the carpet was wet in the corner of this room. This is also the room that shares the wall with the concrete slab that needs changed. The inside of the wall was soaked, mildew, moldy and the carpet was wet and obviously ruined. I was unable to inspect this entire wall while the seller lived there as it was his office and this whole wall was lined with desks, boxes and other junk.
The second problem with the house is 3 of the 4 bedrooms show water intrusion on the carpet as well. This is once again due to poor grading issues outside. The seller attempted to fix this issue as he added a few yard drains recently and he repainted the exterior of the house 6 months ago as well. However, I can already see the paint peeling from effervesence on the stucco in some arears. I still need to open those walls but the carpet tells the tale already. I don't expect them to be as bad but I have to fix it.
Thirdly, I have found evidence of a past water leak that occured in a bathroom as well. This bathroom is the only one that has a remodeled shower in it. That is the only thing that was remodeled in the bathroom (I suspect the leak came from there). You can see where they (someone) painted over mold in a closet next to the bathroom with spray paint and once again the carpet in the adjoining hall tells the tale.
I wonder if an attorney would take a case like this AND win it. I am sure one will take it. But does anyone with any experience in this type of issue think I will win it.
So far I am $5000 deep in fixing the grading issues and I will be about $5000 deep in drywall repair once all is said.
Any advice or comments are welcomed?
If I could post some pics I would but my computer acting up now for some reason.
Last edited by bryan_ugt; 03-17-2013 at 09:58 PM..
Reason: font was all messed up
The burden of proof is on you. So you have to prove that the seller's fixes weren't good and the seller knew about it. So when they replaced the shower is it reasonable to assume the seller thought it was fixed.
The bathroom appears to no longer be a water leaking issue. The problem is they never tore out the drywall once they discovered the leak in the bathroom. So it became moldy. hence the sprayed painted closet in an attempt to cover it up.
the same goes for the grading issues in the bedrooms. He did attempt to fix the grade problems. i will give him that. But he did not disclose the fact that water had leaked in and there is mold in those walls as well (I am tearing them out this week. But I assume they will look like the others)
When I did my walkthrough it had not rained so I did not know the carpet was wet. Walk through or not. My feeling is he still should have disclosed that the wall leaks water in from the outside concrete slab. He lived in the house for 15 years. He had to have known.
There is a certain procedure you must follow in order to possibly obtain a judgment for money damages due to (alleged) improper disclosure from an owner, let alone a realtor. You need to consult a RE attorney for specific advice for your situation and jurisdiction.
My guess is that you will pay more to an attorney than the repairs would cost. You bought a used house. If you are in NY or some other states, the seller probably paid you some money so he did not have to complete the otherwise-required disclosure statement. You saw that the seller had already dealt with some drainage issues. You saw the slope of the concrete. You got a warning from your home inspector. You should have brought in a drainage specialist to take a closer look before you signed the contract. I assume that the seller would have allowed you to perform all the inspections and tests you wanted, within reason.
Everyone has additional expenses and surprises after they buy a home, especially a used one. Get over it, finish the drainage project and move on with your life.
I agree that you should talk with an attorney if you want to pursue this but that the costs of pursuing action could be greater than what you might recover even if you won.
I'm not an attorney, but if you were in my state, the following two pieces of info would work against your winning:
1) you hired your own inspector and he didn't detect any current, imminent problems.
2) the owner made repairs, so he knew problems existed at one time, but he could have believed that the problems were solved, so therefore no disclosure was required.
Because your inspector didn't detect current problems, this would seem to support the owner's belief that the problems had been solved. This could instead mean you had a bad inspector, but that's not the seller's problem, at least in my state.
In my state the burden is on the buyer to prove that the owner knew there were problem at the time of the listing and failed to disclose them. That's a heavy burden.
That fact that the seller was the agent may enter into it as well. In my state, the wording for agent disclosures is "To disclose to the buyer/customer all adverse material facts actually known or which reasonably should have been known by the licensee" [Emphasis mine]. If the OP's state has similar wording, they may only have to prove that the damage/problem existed prior to the sale, and that the seller/agent lived in the house. If the disclosure form says "has there every been a water leak" and the seller has owned and lived in the house for 15 years and there were repairs done for water leaks in the last 15 years, he would be reasonably expected to have known that, and if he answered "no", that might be enough for a judge, without any further proof needed.
OP: Definitely consult a local real estate attorney. As I've shown here, all real estate law is local, so we can't really advise you on specifics here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
