What are our options? Issues 1 month after closing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can file a suit for the cost of the new damage. They may go 1/2 of the cost if they are decent people to avoid further stress.

Op, I know how you feel. We moved to Seattle 25 years ago, within two months, the sewage leaked all over the basement! It was an older home 1926. We just sucked up and paid for a new pipe around $10K.

If I am in your situation now, I would work with a lawyer!

If I were them, I'd say no as it was disclosed as past water issues that they remediated and OP had an inspector who should have caught any issues and asked for repairs prior to closing if the house wasn't being sold as is.

Its their house. It happens with old houses.

You should have done a better inspection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's your house now.

You people don't really how silly you sound. If you bought a $1500 iphone and it stopped working on day one, would you say, oh well "it's my iphone now" so I have no recourse? Truly astounding idiocy.

Did you inspect the phone before buying it? And did you buy it without a warranty?

It sounds like you've never bought anything second-hand before.

This is not comparable. OP had an inspection. Its an older used house. Things can pop up at any time even if you think things are fine. They disclosed what they knew and fixed it recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's your house now.

You people don't really how silly you sound. If you bought a $1500 iphone and it stopped working on day one, would you say, oh well "it's my iphone now" so I have no recourse? Truly astounding idiocy.

Did you inspect the phone before buying it? And did you buy it without a warranty?

It sounds like you've never bought anything second-hand before.

This is not comparable. OP had an inspection. Its an older used house. Things can pop up at any time even if you think things are fine. They disclosed what they knew and fixed it recently.

Same as buying anything used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's your house now.

You people don't really how silly you sound. If you bought a $1500 iphone and it stopped working on day one, would you say, oh well "it's my iphone now" so I have no recourse? Truly astounding idiocy.

Did you inspect the phone before buying it? And did you buy it without a warranty?

It sounds like you've never bought anything second-hand before.

Regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it, there is a potential lawsuit here depending on what the OP discovers. The fact that there were certain disclosures, and the house is used, does not mean that the seller is off the hook. As a seller, be honest and you'll be fine. But if not, just know that a lawsuit may be coming your way after the sale. It's not complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's your house now.

You people don't really how silly you sound. If you bought a $1500 iphone and it stopped working on day one, would you say, oh well "it's my iphone now" so I have no recourse? Truly astounding idiocy.

Did you inspect the phone before buying it? And did you buy it without a warranty?

It sounds like you've never bought anything second-hand before.

Regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it, there is a potential lawsuit here depending on what the OP discovers. The fact that there were certain disclosures, and the house is used, does not mean that the seller is off the hook. As a seller, be honest and you'll be fine. But if not, just know that a lawsuit may be coming your way after the sale. It's not complicated.

The seller did disclose.

You can always file a lawsuit, but the issue is whether you have any chance to prevail. Regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it, the chance of a successful lawsuit under these circumstances is incredibly small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seller may have lied and his more extensive problems. But they were smart in disclosing "something". They covered themselves so any litigation will cost you money. This why these disclosure forms are frankly useless. I wish people just ignore anything the seller says. It's critical for prospective buyer to have separate inspections for electric, foundation, and plumbing.

I know someone who supposedly bought a house and few days later ended up finding a $250k foundation damage. He tried to sue the seller but was not successful.

Hey, moron, OP said they had the place inspected and "confirmed the fixes." They DID "ignore" the seller. So what the hell are you talking about?

It isn't clear they had an independent inspector. People often just let their agent set that up, who obviously doesn't want to do anything to kill the sale.

This is bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A buyer's agent isn't going to recommend a shitty or unscrupulous inspector just to not "kill the sale."

You are adorable.

NP. And you are a cynical, gullible idiot if you think this is how things are done.

No agent is going to use an inspector who would hide information to avoid killing a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the PPs, there could be a legitimate lawsuit here. It really depends on what you learn and what exactly was disclosed. If you or your spouse is a lawyer, or can otherwise obtain low-cost or contingency representation, it might be worth your time to sue. It's doubtful a case would go all the way to trial because the sellers would probably cut you a check to make you go away.

Too many sellers believe they can be cute or cagey on their disclosures and get away with it, probably including many of the PPs. Maybe the sellers did nothing wrong here, but I wouldn't rule out a lawsuit.

Not in Virginia. Or any other caveat emptor state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seller may have lied and his more extensive problems. But they were smart in disclosing "something". They covered themselves so any litigation will cost you money. This why these disclosure forms are frankly useless. I wish people just ignore anything the seller says. It's critical for prospective buyer to have separate inspections for electric, foundation, and plumbing.

I know someone who supposedly bought a house and few days later ended up finding a $250k foundation damage. He tried to sue the seller but was not successful.

Hey, moron, OP said they had the place inspected and "confirmed the fixes." They DID "ignore" the seller. So what the hell are you talking about?

It isn't clear they had an independent inspector. People often just let their agent set that up, who obviously doesn't want to do anything to kill the sale.

This is paranoid bullshit. A buyer's agent isn't going to recommend a shitty or unscrupulous inspector just to not "kill the sale."

An inspector that regularly kills sales is going to stop getting referrals. Come on. You know that.

And an agent in this fantasy of yours is going to suffer reputationally and stop getting clients.

You’re really not very smart, are you?

[Anonymous]

Are there real estate lawyers shilling on this thread, hoping that fools and their money are easily separated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seller may have lied and his more extensive problems. But they were smart in disclosing "something". They covered themselves so any litigation will cost you money. This why these disclosure forms are frankly useless. I wish people just ignore anything the seller says. It's critical for prospective buyer to have separate inspections for electric, foundation, and plumbing.

I know someone who supposedly bought a house and few days later ended up finding a $250k foundation damage. He tried to sue the seller but was not successful.

Hey, moron, OP said they had the place inspected and "confirmed the fixes." They DID "ignore" the seller. So what the hell are you talking about?

It isn't clear they had an independent inspector. People often just let their agent set that up, who obviously doesn't want to do anything to kill the sale.

This is bullshit.

Definitely not. Lots of people let their agent arrange an inspector. It's great you apparently didn't, but that is uncommon these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there real estate lawyers shilling on this thread, hoping that fools and their money are easily separated?

Lots of scammy agents, too.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe this thread is still going. You closed. You own the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A buyer's agent isn't going to recommend a shitty or unscrupulous inspector just to not "kill the sale."

You are adorable.

NP. And you are a cynical, gullible idiot if you think this is how things are done.

No agent is going to use an inspector who would hide information to avoid killing a deal.

Stop lying to us agent. We are not your clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seller may have lied and his more extensive problems. But they were smart in disclosing "something". They covered themselves so any litigation will cost you money. This why these disclosure forms are frankly useless. I wish people just ignore anything the seller says. It's critical for prospective buyer to have separate inspections for electric, foundation, and plumbing.

I know someone who supposedly bought a house and few days later ended up finding a $250k foundation damage. He tried to sue the seller but was not successful.

Hey, moron, OP said they had the place inspected and "confirmed the fixes." They DID "ignore" the seller. So what the hell are you talking about?

It isn't clear they had an independent inspector. People often just let their agent set that up, who obviously doesn't want to do anything to kill the sale.

This is bullshit.

Definitely not. Lots of people let their agent arrange an inspector. It's great you apparently didn't, but that is uncommon these days.

+1 I’ve seen/heard of this many times - an agent referring an inspector with a contingency in place.

Of course agents are here denying this, because agents ( most / too many) cannot be trusted.