Can/should we sue? Listing lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Now with the Honey? I told you sweetheart made me gag. Stop trying to pretend you're different people.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only person you're going to "talk to" all day? Honey? Sweetheart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You're quite welcome. Just so you know, the reason I took the 4 minutes it took to do this research is because you didn't seem to be getting the point of what every other pp was trying to tell you, which is basically what most of the courts have found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much would you expect the litigation to cost? Maybe $50k? To maybe get you $50k? If the judge agreed or the other side settled. Or you could lose and then be out another $50k. Personally, I think you'd have a really hard time explaining to the judge how you viewed a home, liked it so much that you were willing to waive all contingencies and escalate the price, and now feel like the listing agent misrepresented something in the listing (on which as others have pointed out, there may be a very legitimate explanation, i.e., lack of intent on the LA's part).

You should be happy you got the house you wanted!

I'm quitting my job and becoming a listing agent.

I'm going to start listing every single house as 300,000 square feet. When someone says something to me, I'm going to call them a moron, ask them why they didn't measure the square footage with their eyes, and then say "well you're a fruitcake!" when they say, um no way that this is 300,000 square feet.

Would anyone be interested in purchasing a bridge in Brooklyn? Accepting offers now!

OP, go back and read all of your hysterical posts - I bet you'll be embarrassed. You sound like a bratty child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm still convinced the listing was right.... You are right - there is a huge difference between 2700 and 1800 and I truly think the OP would have noticed this. I am presuming they were looking at other equally sized homes at the time.

[Anonymous]

I love OP. She is super funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much would you expect the litigation to cost? Maybe $50k? To maybe get you $50k? If the judge agreed or the other side settled. Or you could lose and then be out another $50k. Personally, I think you'd have a really hard time explaining to the judge how you viewed a home, liked it so much that you were willing to waive all contingencies and escalate the price, and now feel like the listing agent misrepresented something in the listing (on which as others have pointed out, there may be a very legitimate explanation, i.e., lack of intent on the LA's part).

You should be happy you got the house you wanted!

I'm quitting my job and becoming a listing agent.

I'm going to start listing every single house as 300,000 square feet. When someone says something to me, I'm going to call them a moron, ask them why they didn't measure the square footage with their eyes, and then say "well you're a fruitcake!" when they say, um no way that this is 300,000 square feet.

Would anyone be interested in purchasing a bridge in Brooklyn? Accepting offers now!

OP, go back and read all of your hysterical posts - I bet you'll be embarrassed. You sound like a bratty child.

The funny thing about OP's story above is that she's not the person who says "no way that's 300K feet." She's the one who buys the house and says, "WHAT? It's not 300K feet? I'm suing!"

[Anonymous]

In Arlington your property tax record will show you both "base area", including unfinished basement, and "finished area."

So you have both to go by, even if the "finished" number is not always up to date (as with a partially finished basement, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Arlington your property tax record will show you both "base area", including unfinished basement, and "finished area."

So you have both to go by, even if the "finished" number is not always up to date (as with a partially finished basement, etc.).

OP is not in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You're quite welcome. Just so you know, the reason I took the 4 minutes it took to do this research is because you didn't seem to be getting the point of what every other pp was trying to tell you, which is basically what most of the courts have found.

Yeah, don't get too excited OP. Have you tried looking for the court cases in the state the house is in?

[Anonymous]

Suggestion?

Unless anyone just wants to continue to bait OP, suggest no further responses and let the thread die.

OP's been given lots of advice, some in thoughtful tones and some in snarky tones. She's still not happy but I don't know that she'll get a better answer.

9 pages devoted to this is enough!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Arlington your property tax record will show you both "base area", including unfinished basement, and "finished area."

So you have both to go by, even if the "finished" number is not always up to date (as with a partially finished basement, etc.).

OP is not in Arlington

I know but my point is simply that we have a bunch of people claiming that taxable SF, etc., never include basements, which is not correct, sometimes basements are included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone up for a game of Boggle? I'm sure the OP can be counted on to ensure the dice are in pristine condition.

I think I love you.

[Anonymous]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but has anyone pointed out yet that when painters measure, they are measuring wall surface area and not square footage?

[Anonymous]

OP, since you say the home is in DC, this link will be helpful to you. You can also look up your home in the DC database for free.

https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/PropertyDetailTips.pdf

This link defines terms as the tax assessor in DC uses them. Pay particular attention to the term "living area."