Can/should we sue? Listing lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So it's okay for listing agents to say whatever the hell they want on the listing? And I'm at fault because I didn't bring a tape measure to the viewing (where I had maybe 10 minutes to look around the house)? Yes, I love the house, and no I don't want to back out. But when I looked at the house again (When I went with the painters), everything felt......... smaller. Much, much smaller.

And now the only way I can walk from the house is by losing a hundred grand? This is 25% smaller than they listed it as being!

Yes, pretty much.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

So you wanted it bad enough, after viewing it mind you, that you put down $100k and an escalation clause, and only later decided it "feels smaller." Sounds like buyer's remorse.

I second this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you provide a little more information about what they represented v. what is the reality?

So they represented the square footage to be 900 per floor. It's not.

My other question is - does the taxable living area EVER include the basement? It sounds like no. MY agent said no, but I'm thinking it might in this case because there is a certificate of occupancy.

No. People keep telling you the same thing over and over. Taxable living space does not include the basement. Is there a certificate of occupancy for the basement itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i would wait to see what the sq footage is for the appraisal.

Do they always measure the house for the appraisal? Also thanks for this advice.

[Anonymous]

i would wait to see what the sq footage is for the appraisal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you provide a little more information about what they represented v. what is the reality?

So they represented the square footage to be 900 per floor. It's not.

My other question is - does the taxable living area EVER include the basement? It sounds like no. MY agent said no, but I'm thinking it might in this case because there is a certificate of occupancy.

You seem really obsessed with this, and it's not at all relevant to the discussion.

The short answer is yes, you can sue. You will lose, but you can sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you provide a little more information about what they represented v. what is the reality?

So they represented the square footage to be 900 per floor. It's not.

My other question is - does the taxable living area EVER include the basement? It sounds like no. MY agent said no, but I'm thinking it might in this case because there is a certificate of occupancy.

No. People keep telling you the same thing over and over. Taxable living space does not include the basement. Is there a certificate of occupancy for the basement itself?

Yes I've been saying this over and over. And over and over, my question has been, "BECAUSE it has a Certificate of Occupancy, wouldn't they include it in the taxable living space?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the house was only smaller to you AFTER the painters told you so, correct?

You should have been able figure out how much sq ft the house had when you viewed it. This isn't some kind of rocket science to figure out. Also, ask for the floor plan and get the estimates off of there for room dimensions. Lastly, some real estate agents will count closet space and other dead space in the total sq ft when listing.

To back out, you don't need to lose money. Pick a flaw in the inspection report and back out based on that.

No, the second time I saw the house, it felt smaller. The painters only confirmed this. I said something to them like, supposdly this place has 2700 square feet, but it feels smaller right? They laughed and said, no lady, it's like 1800 square feet.

I have the floor plan, that allegedly works out to 2700 square feet. I think the floor plan was manipulated.

We waived inspection (got a pre offer inspection) to win the house. All the other contingencies have expired.

wow, well sucks to be you then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you provide a little more information about what they represented v. what is the reality?

So they represented the square footage to be 900 per floor. It's not.

My other question is - does the taxable living area EVER include the basement? It sounds like no. MY agent said no, but I'm thinking it might in this case because there is a certificate of occupancy.

You seem really obsessed with this, and it's not at all relevant to the discussion.

The short answer is yes, you can sue. You will lose, but you can sue.

How is the basement square footage not relevant to the discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the house was only smaller to you AFTER the painters told you so, correct?

You should have been able figure out how much sq ft the house had when you viewed it. This isn't some kind of rocket science to figure out. Also, ask for the floor plan and get the estimates off of there for room dimensions. Lastly, some real estate agents will count closet space and other dead space in the total sq ft when listing.

To back out, you don't need to lose money. Pick a flaw in the inspection report and back out based on that.

No, the second time I saw the house, it felt smaller. The painters only confirmed this. I said something to them like, supposdly this place has 2700 square feet, but it feels smaller right? They laughed and said, no lady, it's like 1800 square feet.

I have the floor plan, that allegedly works out to 2700 square feet. I think the floor plan was manipulated.

We waived inspection (got a pre offer inspection) to win the house. All the other contingencies have expired.

wow, well sucks to be you then.

I don't feel sorry for them. IT sounds like they have a million dollar house they can complain about as being too small. #richpeopleproblems.

[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, if this is you, I am going to conclude that you are crazy and therefore probably misinterpreting what the listing agent, painters, and everyone else said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you provide a little more information about what they represented v. what is the reality?

So they represented the square footage to be 900 per floor. It's not.

My other question is - does the taxable living area EVER include the basement? It sounds like no. MY agent said no, but I'm thinking it might in this case because there is a certificate of occupancy.

You seem really obsessed with this, and it's not at all relevant to the discussion.

The short answer is yes, you can sue. You will lose, but you can sue.

How is the basement square footage not relevant to the discussion?

This "certificate of occupancy" business is irrelevant. She's acting like that means something.

[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, if this is you, I am going to conclude that you are crazy and therefore probably misinterpreting what the listing agent, painters, and everyone else said.

How do you misinterpret anything? The square footage is listed incorrectly. And you seem to think it's my fault and the seller and LA shouldn't have to pay for lying on the listing.

I guess I must be crazy for relying on the MLS listing, what the LA said to me, and what the measurements of the house show. Yes that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you provide a little more information about what they represented v. what is the reality?

So they represented the square footage to be 900 per floor. It's not.

My other question is - does the taxable living area EVER include the basement? It sounds like no. MY agent said no, but I'm thinking it might in this case because there is a certificate of occupancy.

You seem really obsessed with this, and it's not at all relevant to the discussion.

The short answer is yes, you can sue. You will lose, but you can sue.

How is the basement square footage not relevant to the discussion?

This "certificate of occupancy" business is irrelevant. She's acting like that means something.

Actually, I think the question OP is asking is whether it means something.