Can/should we sue? Listing lies.

[Anonymous]

OP - seriously go get measurements done for your peace of mind. I really think that the listing was correct. If it was wrong - that would mean each floor is 600 sq feet which is NOT what the painters said.

[Anonymous]

SO I guess you can't brag about the sqrft without feeling fuily? WTF, who cares if it feels big enough to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, unfortunately you aren't liking the answers but they are pretty consistent. There is little you can do.

You didn't get 25% less than the home is worth. You made an offer that apparently was worth it to you, based on your assessment of the house. A house is worth what someone will pay for it.

I'm unclear why you only spent 10min there. Did you go home and write up the contract that afternoon? Typically a realtor will say "We're accepting offers until such & such a time/date", often 5pm the day after the open house which means you had time to see the house, think about, maybe even go back the next day with your realtor.

We did an addition a number of years ago that increased our house from 1100 to 2200 square feet. The difference of 1,000sf when you're talking smaller houses is huge. It appears that perhaps your impressions of sizing are off if you werent visibly aware of the difference between 1800 and 2700sf? What's important, I would think, is not whether it's bigger or smaller than you thought in terms of measurements, but that it's big enough to meet the needs of you and your family. And, since you put in a very aggressive offer, it appears that you believed it was big enough.

I'm sorry you are upset. It always feels bad to be misled or to have miscommunicated. But, I think you have little recourse here.

This. I also think OP wants leverage after the fact from her buyer's remorse. The LA may have been misleading, but OP did not do her due diligence on the property before buying. Why didn't you measure or get a survey? That was all done by my appraiser and home inspector. It should not come as a surprise that a house is a certain square foot and why would you leave it up to a LA to inform you of something so important. Do your own homework too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I keep repeating myself but again, why would anyone read what I write when they can instead busy themselves with thinking of names to call me? For the record: "moron", "fruitcake", "pleasant", and "confused" have been taken ladies and gentleman.

Again, the house is listed as having 2700 sq ft of living space - 900 per floor. The taxable living space is listed as 1800 sq ft total. Painters estimated it as being around 675 per floor, not 900. I was told by my agent that the taxable living space does NOT include basement. However, given that there is a cert of occupancy, I'm thinking he was wrong and it does. And if the tax living space DOES include the basement, the painters assessment of 675 makes sense.

SO my questions continue to be: does the tax living space take into account the basement when there is a cert of occupancy?
Second question - if we are getting 25% less house, what can we do?

Hi OP. Here is some information you might find helpful:

In Ex parte Leo, 480 So. 2d 572 (Ala. 1985), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted a fraud claim brought by a purchaser based on an error in the square footage in the MLS listing. The court held that the purchaser could not show that he had relied on the listing of the square footage, and that even if he could, reliance would not be reasonable because "When the means and sources are equally accessible to both parties, the ignorance of the purchaser is regarded as self-deception, unless art or artifice is employed to prevent investigation, or stifle information."

The court also relied on a North Carolina case with similar facts. In that case, the court stated, "It must be assumed that [the purchaser] possessed the necessary skills to make any measurements which he deemed material during the course of his investigation. There is no indication from the record on appeal that the plaintiff was any less able to make a determination as to square footage than [the seller] or that any representation was made to him which caused him to reasonably forego measuring the house and computing its square footage if he felt it was a material matter." Marshall v. Keaveny, 38 N.C. App. 644, 650 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Other cases appearing to hold the same thing include: Tres' Chic In A Week, L.L.C. v. Home Realty Store, 993 So. 2d 228 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008), Schnellmann v. Roettger, 627 S.E.2d 742 (2006), Cadco, LLC v. Barry, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2006).

However, in Pleasant v. Bradford, 260 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App. Austin 2008), the plaintiffs proved that the square footage was the "overriding factor" in their decision to purchase. They were awarded $2,600 in damages, the difference between the value they paid and the value of the home.

So you might have a chance if you can prove that the square footage was the main reason you decided to purchase, and if you can get the court in whatever state you're in to go against what appears to be the weight of authority from other courts. But even then, you're only likely to recover the difference between what you paid and the next highest bidder, which is pretty convincing evidence that the value of the home is at least that much (unless you can prove the next highest bidder was also unreasonably relying on the MLS square footage).

Note: I do not and cannot represent you in this matter, and you should not rely on this anonymous message as legal advice. You should see an attorney if you wish to receive legal advice on your specific situation.

[Anonymous]

Did the listing claim there was a pool too? Or a 3 car garage?

[Anonymous]

I'd love to see the proof of reliance on the sqft in the listing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you hope to win by suing? Money based on the square feet you are not getting?

Yes. I'd like a reduction of 25% of the purchase price. We escalated to win the house, thinking it was giant and we'd live there forever. Well, we're getting 1/4 less what we thought we were buying, and I'm thinking that long term those extra square feet will be missed.

WTF? Did you buy this house sight unseen? Clearly not. So you knew EXACTLY how big it was and now you're regretting what you paid for it and looking for some piss-ass reason to "sue" or back out of the contract. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

This thread is amazing. OP where is your house located?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you think the painters are experts. Maybe they are stupid and you are getting a discount for painting services.

I am going to have my painters do the home inspection, repair my car and provide marriage counseling.

This. My mom told me that her house wasn't underwater because her mechanic told her. True story... Mom. I love you, but your dementia is getting worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I keep repeating myself but again, why would anyone read what I write when they can instead busy themselves with thinking of names to call me? For the record: "moron", "fruitcake", "pleasant", and "confused" have been taken ladies and gentleman.

Again, the house is listed as having 2700 sq ft of living space - 900 per floor. The taxable living space is listed as 1800 sq ft total. Painters estimated it as being around 675 per floor, not 900. I was told by my agent that the taxable living space does NOT include basement. However, given that there is a cert of occupancy, I'm thinking he was wrong and it does. And if the tax living space DOES include the basement, the painters assessment of 675 makes sense.

SO my questions continue to be: does the tax living space take into account the basement when there is a cert of occupancy?
Second question - if we are getting 25% less house, what can we do?

Hi OP. Here is some information you might find helpful:

In Ex parte Leo, 480 So. 2d 572 (Ala. 1985), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted a fraud claim brought by a purchaser based on an error in the square footage in the MLS listing. The court held that the purchaser could not show that he had relied on the listing of the square footage, and that even if he could, reliance would not be reasonable because "When the means and sources are equally accessible to both parties, the ignorance of the purchaser is regarded as self-deception, unless art or artifice is employed to prevent investigation, or stifle information."

The court also relied on a North Carolina case with similar facts. In that case, the court stated, "It must be assumed that [the purchaser] possessed the necessary skills to make any measurements which he deemed material during the course of his investigation. There is no indication from the record on appeal that the plaintiff was any less able to make a determination as to square footage than [the seller] or that any representation was made to him which caused him to reasonably forego measuring the house and computing its square footage if he felt it was a material matter." Marshall v. Keaveny, 38 N.C. App. 644, 650 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Other cases appearing to hold the same thing include: Tres' Chic In A Week, L.L.C. v. Home Realty Store, 993 So. 2d 228 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008), Schnellmann v. Roettger, 627 S.E.2d 742 (2006), Cadco, LLC v. Barry, 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 37 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2006).

However, in Pleasant v. Bradford, 260 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App. Austin 2008), the plaintiffs proved that the square footage was the "overriding factor" in their decision to purchase. They were awarded $2,600 in damages, the difference between the value they paid and the value of the home.

So you might have a chance if you can prove that the square footage was the main reason you decided to purchase, and if you can get the court in whatever state you're in to go against what appears to be the weight of authority from other courts. But even then, you're only likely to recover the difference between what you paid and the next highest bidder, which is pretty convincing evidence that the value of the home is at least that much (unless you can prove the next highest bidder was also unreasonably relying on the MLS square footage).

Note: I do not and cannot represent you in this matter, and you should not rely on this anonymous message as legal advice. You should see an attorney if you wish to receive legal advice on your specific situation.

OP here. THANK YOU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amazing. OP where is your house located?

DC. Georgetown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said the house was 2700 square feet, but it looks like it's closer to 1800 square feet.

How could YOU not notice this huge difference.

How does this comment help anyone? Don't you have something better to do?

I like how everyone here is jumping on my back instead of saying yeah, the listing agent lies. Here's what you can and can't do.

Seems like a lot of out of work realtors are on the website. Go find some listings.

Honey, I don't think the agent lied. I think you didn't do your due diligence and/or you don't understand how to read listings or contacts, so whose fault is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think the painters are experts. Maybe they are stupid and you are getting a discount for painting services.

I am going to have my painters do the home inspection, repair my car and provide marriage counseling.

This. My mom told me that her house wasn't underwater because her mechanic told her. True story... Mom. I love you, but your dementia is getting worse.

\

This is SO HILARIOUS! Attractive AND Funny! It's NOT weird AT ALL that you spend all your time on anonymous forums.

[Anonymous]

Did you enter this house and look at it before signing a contract?

Are you unable to tell the difference between an 1800 sf house and a 2700 sf house that you've actually been in? That's hard to believe.

Try to get the deposit back if it's that big a deal but I think a lawsuit here is fruitless and a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I know, basement footage is not usually included in the tax records. So the listing may say X sq ft, the above-grade plus basement is X, the tax record will be X less basement. The actual living space is X. I don't think anyone cheated you. Your painters accurately told you what the above-grade footage was.

+1. The CofO has nothing to do with how the tax records assess property. Your house is 2700 square feet, including the finished basement. No one lied to you. Also, measurements of square footage can vary WIDELY depending on the method used. You are a fruitcake.

+2