Old disclosure used at closing

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? AL

We purchased a home in January of 2004. The seller's disclosure was first filled out in October 2001 (they had the house on and off the market for a while). On the original disclosure the seller did not indicate any known leaks or problems with the roof. At closing, the sellers certified that nothing had changed on the disclosure form, and they and my husband signed the form at closing. However, the inspection had turned up evidence of roof leaks, which the sellers told our agent verbally had been recently fixed. According to the sellers, they just hadn't had time to strip the water stained wallpaper and they left us several lengths. The leak in fact is still active, and there is a hole the roof at a second location which left a huge stain on the wall, which the sellers had covered by a picture during the inspection. So now, we are left with several thousand dollars worth of roof damage which was not disclosed, but which was verbally acknowledged to have existed and to have been repaired. One note - the sellers maintained that they had had the leak repaired within the prior six months, and when I called their roofer a few months after we moved in he said it had been 2-3 years.

So, with all of that, my understanding is that the law of real estate in AL is basically Caveat Emptor...do we have any recourse against the sellers for not disclosing and/or for hiding evidence and lying about the length of time that had elapsed? Or against the real estate firm for not requiring the sellers to fill out a new disclosure form at the time that we made our offer? or are we just caveat emptored up the you know what, and we just have to scrape up the cash to fix it? I have spoken to an attorney, but he needs us to come up with a consultation fee which is out of our reach at the moment.

thanks in advance

Stellazz

It sounds as if the sellers set out to deliberately defraud you. You should be able to recoup from them or go after the home inspector who's job it was to move that picture and see the water marks. The home inspector might even have insurance to cover such a mistake.

Alternately, check with your county's small claims court, if the damages are under their maximum (around $5000 in some states) and the court will hear a real estate despute, you can sue the sellers yourself. If you want/need more money then hire an attorney.

If you go the small claims route you will be responsible for gathering evidence of the damages to you and presenting it at court yourself. Get everything in writing, get dates of the repairs that weren't disclosed, take clear and obvious photographs of the damage, and collect afidavits from the roofer and others who can prove the damage was known to the sellers (check with the court and see if afidavits are acceptable or if they need the witness to show up in person). Don't rely on the judge simply believing you over the other party. If you come with nothing you have no case. Dismissed.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Stellazz

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? AL

We purchased a home in January of 2004. The seller's disclosure was first filled out in October 2001 (they had the house on and off the market for a while). On the original disclosure the seller did not indicate any known leaks or problems with the roof. At closing, the sellers certified that nothing had changed on the disclosure form, and they and my husband signed the form at closing. However, the inspection had turned up evidence of roof leaks, which the sellers told our agent verbally had been recently fixed. According to the sellers, they just hadn't had time to strip the water stained wallpaper and they left us several lengths. The leak in fact is still active, and there is a hole the roof at a second location which left a huge stain on the wall, which the sellers had covered by a picture during the inspection. So now, we are left with several thousand dollars worth of roof damage which was not disclosed, but which was verbally acknowledged to have existed and to have been repaired. One note - the sellers maintained that they had had the leak repaired within the prior six months, and when I called their roofer a few months after we moved in he said it had been 2-3 years.

**A: so what did your home inspector say about the roof? And why did you not investigate fully by having a roof inspection completed and request copies of the work invoices indicating that the roof was repaired?
**********
***********

So, with all of that, my understanding is that the law of real estate in AL is basically Caveat Emptor...do we have any recourse against the sellers for not disclosing and/or for hiding evidence and lying about the length of time that had elapsed? Or against the real estate firm for not requiring the sellers to fill out a new disclosure form at the time that we made our offer? or are we just caveat emptored up the you know what, and we just have to scrape up the cash to fix it? I have spoken to an attorney, but he needs us to come up with a consultation fee which is out of our reach at the moment.

thanks in advance

Stellazz

**A: what did your Realtor tell you?

Real estate agent is sticking with caveat emptor. Home inspector did not go up on the roof, as it is a very very tall house. Our contract with him states that he doesn not do a roof inspection nor does he move furniture, pictures etc. We moved into a small town and so I think the prevailing attitude here is just one of acceptance - meaning when they said it was fixed our realtor just said ok. We also just found out that we never had a termite treatment, which we thought we'd asked our realtor to put in the contract. There are some other issues going on with this seller that our agent's boss is working on - items that definitely were in the contract that they haven't fulfilled (worth about $5500) and the broker is going to make up the difference on whatever the sellers lie cheat and steal their way out of paying on this. But the roof seems to be a gray area - they did say that they'd had it fixed even though they lied about when, we never (stupidly) got proof ...but the disclosure is all wrong and the roof is leaking. They claim to be unaware that the leak opened up again. We think we can get it fixed for about $2500. I know we were stupid, so save that comment, but do we have any legal recourse or is this our responsibility to fix?

BTW we can file pro se in district court up to $10,000 which is the one free piece of advice the attorney offered us.
Thanks!!!

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Stellazz

Real estate agent is sticking with caveat emptor.

**A: then your Realtor is an idiot. Although your state of Alabama is one of the last backwoods states with respect to seller disclosure and caveat emptor, if the Seller knew of the problem and lied about it, then the Seller is guilty or misrepresentation. If the roof leaked and the Seller knew about it, caveat emptor will not protect the Seller.
*******

Home inspector did not go up on the roof, as it is a very very tall house. Our contract with him states that he doesn not do a roof inspection nor does he move furniture, pictures etc.

**A: ok, that is consistent with ASHI standards of practice.
*******
We moved into a small town and so I think the prevailing attitude here is just one of acceptance - meaning when they said it was fixed our realtor just said ok.

**A: did your Realtor verify the fix by requesting paid invoices indicated who did the work, when they did it and what actual work they did? Was there a warranty for the work and was the work completed by an experienced and licensed roofing contractor?
********
We also just found out that we never had a termite treatment, which we thought we'd asked our realtor to put in the contract.

**A: the roof repair verification and the termite completion documents should have been fowarded to you by your Realtor prior to closing.
*********
There are some other issues going on with this seller that our agent's boss is working on - items that definitely were in the contract that they haven't fulfilled (worth about $5500) and the broker is going to make up the difference on whatever the sellers lie cheat and steal their way out of paying on this. But the roof seems to be a gray area - they did say that they'd had it fixed even though they lied about when, we never (stupidly) got proof ...but the disclosure is all wrong and the roof is leaking. They claim to be unaware that the leak opened up again. We think we can get it fixed for about $2500.

**A: it appears that the broker knows that your agent messed up and is willing to make amends.
********

I know we were stupid, so save that comment, but do we have any legal recourse or is this our responsibility to fix?

**A: No you were not stupid, just ignorant. Your agent is stupid.
*******

BTW we can file pro se in district court up to $10,000 which is the one free piece of advice the attorney offered us.
Thanks!!!

**A: what attorney? What else did this attorney say?

I can't believe you're answering posts on the 4th of July!

We did call an attorney a few weeks ago who charges $165 an hour with no free consult, so we haven't wanted to go meet with him yet as we're putting our cash towrds the plumping leaks . He did tell me that I could break all the individual greivences down into separate small claims cases or, for one slightly higher filing fee, file up to $10K pro se in district court and be heard by the same judge who hears small claims. He also said that breach of contract and disclosure cases are usually up to the judge's discretion, so if I was smart and could get all my documents in order he thought it would be a waste of our money to retain him for what is a pretty straightforward case. That was useful information!

The problem is this - our realtor, who I think screwed up, has also become a real asset to us personally - we moved in from out of state and she's introduced us to a ton of folks, gotten me involved in community activities, and introduced me to someone who just made me a job offer. But, she worded the contract language in a very vague way, which has led us to our current troubles getting the contract completed - for example, draperies were to be replaced with some "of comparable quality and construction as the originals" - the seller has found all kinds of wiggle room in that and of course is trying to replace nice silk draperies with swags and frilly junk with cotton ones with no details. (this is the part the broker is going to step up and remedy), and she never asked for proof of roof repair or insisted on a termite treatment on a 150 year old wood house in formosa-ville. If we sued the agent and the broker, it would cost a lot in goodwill even if we won. So I'm just trying to gauge what should have happened to see if we can go solely after the sellers or whether we would have to also sue the brokerage. Or, at the end of the day, whether the issues are too vague to warrent the time and stress of pursuing legally.

Anyway...I really appreciate you taking the time to do everthing you do for this forum.

happy 4th!

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Stellazz

I can't believe you're answering posts on the 4th of July!

We did call an attorney a few weeks ago who charges $165 an hour with no free consult, so we haven't wanted to go meet with him yet as we're putting our cash towrds the plumping leaks . He did tell me that I could break all the individual greivences down into separate small claims cases or, for one slightly higher filing fee, file up to $10K pro se in district court and be heard by the same judge who hears small claims. He also said that breach of contract and disclosure cases are usually up to the judge's discretion, so if I was smart and could get all my documents in order he thought it would be a waste of our money to retain him for what is a pretty straightforward case. That was useful information!

The problem is this - our realtor, who I think screwed up, has also become a real asset to us personally - we moved in from out of state and she's introduced us to a ton of folks, gotten me involved in community activities, and introduced me to someone who just made me a job offer. But, she worded the contract language in a very vague way, which has led us to our current troubles getting the contract completed - for example, draperies were to be replaced with some "of comparable quality and construction as the originals" - the seller has found all kinds of wiggle room in that and of course is trying to replace nice silk draperies with swags and frilly junk with cotton ones with no details. (this is the part the broker is going to step up and remedy), and she never asked for proof of roof repair or insisted on a termite treatment on a 150 year old wood house in formosa-ville. If we sued the agent and the broker, it would cost a lot in goodwill even if we won. So I'm just trying to gauge what should have happened to see if we can go solely after the sellers or whether we would have to also sue the brokerage. Or, at the end of the day, whether the issues are too vague to warrent the time and stress of pursuing legally.

Anyway...I really appreciate you taking the time to do everthing you do for this forum.

happy 4th!

**A: how much are we talking here to take care of the roof?

First estimate was about $4700 but we think we can get a servicable repair on it for about half that (the roof is 70years old and first estimate was to exactly match shingles which are hard to find).

The broker is meeting with the seller, seller's agent (also her employee) and my agent on Thursday to put this to rest. I estimated that the total of all outstanding contractual items and non-disclosed damage came to about $8600. I talked to my agent an hour ago about the roof and she again told me that AL is a caveat emptor state, we had the right to get the roof inspected and didn't (maybe she could have suggested that at the time considering the age of the roof!) and that she thought it was best just to focus on the items that were there in the contract in black and white (which amount to about $5300 of the total) which haven't been fulfilled. If we end up suing the seller about the roof disclosure will we also have to name the broker as a party since they didn't make the seller do an up to date disclosure?

Thanks!