I'm in the market for a new house. After protracted search, we negotiate a price and make an offer. The owner's disclosure (suspiciously) claims no known defects in a 20 year old house. Now comes the inspection, which I attend. The heat will not come on, and the outside portion of the heat pump freezes up with ice. I check the attic and see a 12 foot portion of the main duct work is simply not there. There are buckets under soft spots in the roof. I inspect the siding, and a gentle push, in sections, causes rotted wood dust to fall through the cracks on the overlaps. I inspect the door frames, and a gentle push on the front frame gives in. I scrape with a knife and find a rotted frame. Follow up reveals flashing issues with the roof, channeling water where it should not be. I find a cap on the roof sewer (plumbing) vent which should have been removed upon completing the house. The list continues. My crude estimate for repairs, depending on what's revealed when shingles, etc come off, ranges from 30 to 50k. What the hell is wrong with people? You're not going to maintain a nice house, then try to sell it by lying about it? You can say you didn't know about the roof leaks, but I have photos of the buckets. Ditto with most of the rest. Is there not integrity at all out there? Yeah, I guess I answered my own question.
____________________________________________

Very strange. The seller has apologized profusely thru the agents. They are currently getting estimates from legitimate contractors for repairs with warranties. I insisted on, for example, a complete new roof with substructure repair, and photos of the progress as they go and the right to inspect as the work progresses. They agreed. We shall see. I will more than likely pay the inspector once it's done to verify all is well.

The small claims action would have been simply spite. I am THAT kind of guy who would. I simply hate and despise those who try to screw me. My wife says that means most of the world. I have a couple of file folders about my current house with receipts and contract from repairs and maintaining the property, so I can disclose and pass down the warranties. I don't expect that, but I do expect a little honesty. Such is life.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fredward,

Make sure any potential broker involved sees all of this. If it is not disclosed in the future, they may be liable.

Hope you're running away from that money pit.

Be proud of yourself for doing your due diligence properly, and walking away from a major problem.

Oh, and NEVER trust anyone in a business deal wpwho you can't properly vet.

I may file a small claims action for the cost of the inspection. Lying bastards!

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I may file a small claims action for the cost of the inspection. Lying bastards!

Just out of curiosity-why do you think you have cause to file a claim? An inspection prior to buying is in your best interest (have one or not-your choice) and in this case worked in your favor. Isnt there an old saying about buyer beware?

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I may file a small claims action for the cost of the inspection. Lying bastards!

I suggest purchasing that home inspection was an outstanding investment on your part.
Consider it money well spent.

A good inspector is worth his/her weight in gold.

When my wife and I were looking for a house, our inspector showed all the issues of what was wrong and needed to be fixed by the homeowners.

We did 4 inspections at four different houses over the course of a year, each one cost $500...the 4th one, the inspector felt bad and gave us a $200 discount. At the time, I was pissed about the money, and the fact that the homeowners didn't disclose these issues to us, and then wouldn't fix them. But looking back, I'm glad we spent that money.

The issues that came up in the homes were many: knob and tube, basement issues, foundation issues, the worst was a homeowner telling us that their septic system was legit, when it turned out, it was just an illegal cesspool that was installed and not documented 20 years ago. Their lie cost them over $30000 in mandatory remediation when the city found out.

^^^ Wisdom.

If it's an older home it may be worth also bringing in electrician, HVAC, roofer, plumber, and someone who knows about structural issues as well.

Interesting slightly related story:

Customer wanted 20 recessed lights installed in newly remodeled kitchen and dining room.

I looked at the span from living room to dining room and know trusses couldn't span that far without a support wall. No header visible below. Went in attic, no header installed above drywall. I asked if his architect said it was OK to remove the wall. His response what architect? I told him I'm not walking on those trusses without proper support, and he has a few months till all the drywall starts cracking. Told him to contact us when he has approved final building inspection for his remodel. He had no clue you can't just take down any wall you desire. Probably cost him $20,000 in the end to save $10,000. Idiot.

As I pulled out the driveway I could see the entire roof sagging from the missing supports. I wonder if he ever had it fixed or sold it to someone who had a bad inspector or bought "as is"?

I often go to houses and find $4-5k in electrical repairs that should have never got past home inspection.

It's funny what you see looking for a home. Some folks are absolutely above board, honest, and list everything they know on the disclosure. Others are hit or miss, and some as you have experienced, lie without a hint of shame. I went to look at a home, and upon arrival saw water literally dripping from the a long stained and degraded ceiling in several places into buckets... But the disclosure I viewed prior to the long drive up, had the "are you aware of any roof leak/water intrusion" section checked no. It was one of many lies for this home.

As an aside, when I sold my mom's home we went over the sheet with complete honesty, listing all issues we knew of, and probably too detailed/thorough... Our words means something, and some of these issues were high $$$ repairs. Second day the home sold for full asking price cash, their inspector noted everything we disclosed, and they only wanted minimal repairs totaling $1500. Like anything else, honesty pays, where folks think hiding will somehow pay-off.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I may file a small claims action for the cost of the inspection. Lying bastards!

Just out of curiosity-why do you think you have cause to file a claim? An inspection prior to buying is in your best interest (have one or not-your choice) and in this case worked in your favor. Isnt there an old saying about buyer beware?

Most as is contracts which have a sellers disclosure, will state that all systems such as roof are in working condition and free of leaks. Assuming this is there and he lied, which he did then the buyer is out money that an accurate disclosure would not have caused him to spend. In Florida this is 100% actionable.

The homeowner could tell me that God Himself created the home yesterday and I still would get it inspected.

Any home I ever bought I always went with my guy for the inspection. Never had a problem with the homes I bought. A person I worked with bought a home cash and refused to pay for the inspection. The addition the previous owner added had a bunch of electrical outlets that would spark when something plugged in. Investigation showed that he used chopped up extension cords to make the runs. If not long enough just twist tied 2 cords together and tape.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I may file a small claims action for the cost of the inspection. Lying bastards!

Just out of curiosity-why do you think you have cause to file a claim? An inspection prior to buying is in your best interest (have one or not-your choice) and in this case worked in your favor. Isnt there an old saying about buyer beware?

My law license expired right before I went to not law school, but I'm thinking if he paid for an inspection based on a disclosure sheet that was intentionally misleading, he can get the seller to refund him his costs and not have to be out of pocket for some liar's misrepresentation of the facts. Maybe that is simplistic, but it seems that the seller's misrepresentation is the only reason the OP would have to proceed with an inspection.

I could google it and find out, but the mood doesn't strike me.

I couldn't imagine dealing with the annoyance of going to court and trying to prove that the homeowner was knowingly being deceptive about the issues to try and get my inspection money back.

It's an inspection...it's a necessary thing to make sure the homeowner isn't lying or is unaware.

It's basically the first step of buying a house...whether it pans out or not, it's on the buyer.

I hope you walked. Even though Long and Foster said the house had been inspected and passed, I found things that needed to be fixed and told them to put them in the contract but it didn't happen.

When I found out at closing, I started to walk but was pressured to sign. Bad mistake. Turned out the owner was moving because of the bad neighbors which I learned from a co-workers daughter that worked with the guys wife. Said the neighbors were white trash. It will cost me $125K+ plus to fix the code violations since an inspector never looked at the house during the construction phase.

Run - don't walk.

quote:

Originally posted by slabsides45:

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I may file a small claims action for the cost of the inspection. Lying bastards!

Just out of curiosity-why do you think you have cause to file a claim? An inspection prior to buying is in your best interest (have one or not-your choice) and in this case worked in your favor. Isnt there an old saying about buyer beware?

My law license expired right before I went to not law school, but I'm thinking if he paid for an inspection based on a disclosure sheet that was intentionally misleading, he can get the seller to refund him his costs and not have to be out of pocket for some liar's misrepresentation of the facts. Maybe that is simplistic, but it seems that the seller's misrepresentation is the only reason the OP would have to proceed with an inspection.

This seems illogical. It was the inspection that resulted in the discovery of the misrepresentation. Therefore, how can the inspection be the result of the misrepresentation? It seems the inspection would have happened regardless of the presence of any misrepresentation; therefore, any issues identified by the inspection cannot be the causal reason for the inspection.

Consequently, there is no cause to sue to recover the cost of the inspection.

Sellers claimed no issues on the disclosure. The inspection revealed (and I have photos) overt efforts to conceal water leaks and damage. Whether that's a cause of action, I'm not sure, but I would think it may be. Moot point, I won't do it but it is tempting.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Run - don't walk.

This. I wouldn't care what they said, or what they claim to have had repaired. They've already demonstrated that they are liars and can no longer be trusted.