Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They disclosed having a flood in their basement last year. There's no chance of a successful lawsuit.

Based on what OP described, they disclosed flooding and fixes in one area but not the area that flooded this time. So there is the possibility of a successful lawsuit.

But, does this distinction matter from a lawsuit perspective ?

Disclosing recent prior flooding is probably enough disclosure in this case.

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."

Very naive post.

Nothing, congrats on your new house with a basement pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They disclosed having a flood in their basement last year. There's no chance of a successful lawsuit.

Based on what OP described, they disclosed flooding and fixes in one area but not the area that flooded this time. So there is the possibility of a successful lawsuit.

How would they know that area would flood if it never happened during their time in the house?

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.

And you’re a dick. This kind of mentality is exactly part of what is wrong with this country. Litigious and grabby. That’s all you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They disclosed having a flood in their basement last year. There's no chance of a successful lawsuit.

Based on what OP described, they disclosed flooding and fixes in one area but not the area that flooded this time. So there is the possibility of a successful lawsuit.

We've been getting a lot more heavy rains. It's possible it was the first time. They fixed it, have documentation AND OP had an inspector.

This. Even if the seller lied by disclosing one area they can claim the other area is new even though it has flooded in the past.

Disclosure forms are useless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They disclosed having a flood in their basement last year. There's no chance of a successful lawsuit.

Based on what OP described, they disclosed flooding and fixes in one area but not the area that flooded this time. So there is the possibility of a successful lawsuit.

We've been getting a lot more heavy rains. It's possible it was the first time. They fixed it, have documentation AND OP had an inspector.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They disclosed having a flood in their basement last year. There's no chance of a successful lawsuit.

Based on what OP described, they disclosed flooding and fixes in one area but not the area that flooded this time. So there is the possibility of a successful lawsuit.

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.

They disclosed having a flood in their basement last year. There's no chance of a successful lawsuit.

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.

Op, I feel for you. I’m sorry this happened, and my advice is to try to stay calm and positive for right now. Get multiple well qualified diagnoses and cost estimates before you let your worries spiral. It might not be that bad in the end. Lots of houses have issues of one kind or another that end up costing money but are not devastating. Good luck!

A house near me has been flooding since 1975. It is elevation and pitch. It is a 6,600 total sf house with a 2,200 sf basement.

My kid is friends owners for 10 years. Total coincidence they bought it estate sale guy I worked whose parents lived the 30 years.

He said they bought house 10 years old and flooding was an issue every few years after major rainstorms.

All owners did best to fix and eventually a few years later get water again.

If seller told you of flooded, they fixed it, inspector said they fixed it. So what. No body wants a house that flood.

My old house my basement was 3 feet above sea level. I put in sump pump, had dehumidifier. We had everything sealed. When sold I not had water in 6 years. Did I fix it. To best of knowledge did at time of sale.

Welcome to home ownership!

Welcome to home ownership. It’s expensive and time consuming.

+1 And it's totally optional.