Am I hosed?

[myhousemystuff]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I recently purchased a house that had a water softener installed in it when we looked at it and still when we took possession of the property. A month and a half after moving in a water softener company comes by and says my house has their water softener and they want it back. Sellers property disclosure has an entire section for water softeners/systems in which they ask the standard questions such as "Does property come with water softener, is it owned, leased, monthly lease amount" with Yes, No, and NA as options....NA is checked for all options.

Long story short, the water softener company took me to small claims after I repeatedly told them to take up their issue with the previous owner of the property. I thought "no big deal, I have nothing to do with these guys" In small claims it came out that they do not even have a written lease agreement with the previous owner of the property. However, I was floored when the magistrate said that a verbal contract was sufficient as it was "the nature of the business" and since he stated under oath that he had a verbal contract with the previous owner that was sufficient. He ruled that they had a right to come get "their" softener from my house. The water softener company also admitted that they knew the house had been vacated 3 months before we even looked at this house. They said that they were just waiting for the house to become occupied so that they could attempt to continue a lease with the new owners. I continuously stated that they did not even have evidence proving it was even their water softener.

The magistrate said that this whole problem was really between the seller and myself.

Is this how the justice system seriously works? Could someone please shed some light on this situation? Maybe offer some key points I have completely missed? At the end of the hearing, I mentioned my intent to appeal, but I figure that will probably go nowhere. My next step would be to sue the seller. Do you think I need to get the water softener company in there for that as well just to settle this thing?

I still cannot understand how something can be sold with my house and left in there and then ordered to be taken without any written evidence that it someone else's property.

Thanks in advance.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by myhousemystuff

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I recently purchased a house that had a water softener installed in it when we looked at it and still when we took possession of the property. A month and a half after moving in a water softener company comes by and says my house has their water softener and they want it back. Sellers property disclosure has an entire section for water softeners/systems in which they ask the standard questions such as "Does property come with water softener, is it owned, leased, monthly lease amount" with Yes, No, and NA as options....NA is checked for all options.

Long story short, the water softener company took me to small claims after I repeatedly told them to take up their issue with the previous owner of the property. I thought "no big deal, I have nothing to do with these guys" In small claims it came out that they do not even have a written lease agreement with the previous owner of the property. However, I was floored when the magistrate said that a verbal contract was sufficient as it was "the nature of the business" and since he stated under oath that he had a verbal contract with the previous owner that was sufficient. He ruled that they had a right to come get "their" softener from my house. The water softener company also admitted that they knew the house had been vacated 3 months before we even looked at this house. They said that they were just waiting for the house to become occupied so that they could attempt to continue a lease with the new owners. I continuously stated that they did not even have evidence proving it was even their water softener.

The magistrate said that this whole problem was really between the seller and myself.

Is this how the justice system seriously works? Could someone please shed some light on this situation? Maybe offer some key points I have completely missed? At the end of the hearing, I mentioned my intent to appeal, but I figure that will probably go nowhere. My next step would be to sue the seller. Do you think I need to get the water softener company in there for that as well just to settle this thing?

I still cannot understand how something can be sold with my house and left in there and then ordered to be taken without any written evidence that it someone else's property.

Thanks in advance.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

**A: I agree with the court.

[Some Random Guy]

I still cannot understand how something can be sold with my house and left in there and then ordered to be taken without any written evidence that it someone else's property

.

If the previous owners don't own it, then theu don't have the right to sell it.

Go after the people who sold you the house for the cost of installing a new softener.

[12345672]

I doubt that the evidence presented by the company was limited to their testimony of a verbal contract. Unless they failed to present any other evidence that the former owner was leasing the equipment (such as paying to lease the equipment), I see nothing to indicate that the court was wrong.

It looks like an improper disclosure issue.

When you found out you were being sued and asked the former owner if they had purchased the equipment, what did he say?

[myhousemystuff]

When you found out you were being sued and asked the former owner if they had purchased the equipment, what did he say?

He said that he was aware of the water softener, but did not know if was rented/purchased or what the deal was with it. Evidently he was renting the property prior to when I looked at it the first time and his "tenants" had it installed.

A major issue I have is that the water softener company said they were aware the property had been vacated 3 months before I took possession, why don't they have to either remove their water softener or insure that another lease contract will exist with the new owner before the new owner actually takes possession?

[Some Random Guy]

why don't they have to either remove their water softener or insure that another lease contract will exist with the new owner before the new owner actually takes possession?

Because
1. It costs money to install and remove a water softener
2. People are far more likely to rent a water softener from them if its already installed
3. They don't have to since they can always get their equipment back later.

[nextwife]

On the "inclusions & exclusions" section of the offer, did the sellers state they were including a water softener in this sale?

If they did not include a water softener in the contract, you are not entitled to get one from them.