seller did not disclose

Illinois

The seller did not disclose his water problems. Now we have water damage and the neighbors are telling us about all the problems the previous owner had. We are still within our first year and I am filing a breach of contract for non-disclosure.

Someone told me there is also protection as a first time home buyer that extends our rights beyond a year. They said it was something about bootstrapping laws or something like that.

[faithandhope]

What type of water problems are you having and from what source? Did you have a home inspection? Did you have a realtor? Did the seller fill out a seller's disclosure?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by juststupid

Illinois

The seller did not disclose his water problems. Now we have water damage and the neighbors are telling us about all the problems the previous owner had. We are still within our first year and I am filing a breach of contract for non-disclosure.

Someone told me there is also protection as a first time home buyer that extends our rights beyond a year. They said it was something about bootstrapping laws or something like that.

**A: bootstraping does not apply in your case.

[faithandhope]

The phrase "grandfathering", I have heard of and we deal with in the inspection business. Is "bootstrapping" similar to that concept? Just curious.

[HomeGuru]

I hope it was not the bootstraps on grandfathers boots.

The seller filled out a disclosure listing no problems. Then, after our bid was accepted, we were presented with two letters that were explained as providing access through the back of our yard for a neighbor's work. We were told it had nothing to do with this house. They were not presented as supplemental disclosure and now I find there was a letter dated between the two that was not shown to us that was more descriptive.

The seller is trying to say he disclosed and his own agent swears she was not told of any disclosure issues or she would have "walked away".

We have filed against the sellers for violation of the disclosure act and for fraud.

Now I just found a letter that my own real estate agent had in the file that we never saw. It was dated after we left town and were waiting for the closing. It was the seller attempting to get some sort of guarantee from the developer doing the work for the neighbor and he even states he needs it because he disclosed the drainage repair plan.

The drainage issue had been ongoing for over a year and we were not even aware of it. Our agent never showed us the paper because the work was completed before we signed. However, I have city officials and neighbors who have come forward to tell us the issue was more than just a drainage problem. This house might need to change from a walk-out basement to a closed in basement because of the location of the drain.

The seller left a trail of witnesses in his failed attempts over the years to get someone to fix the problem for him. Now he is trying to say those two letters we initialed were his disclosure.

I am just shocked that he thinks he can get away with this. I have letters he withheld, people willing to testify and his real estate agent says there were no disclosure issues. Still he says his attorney says he is not liable. I don't understand why he doesn't just come to the table since it will end up costing more for legal fees than the actual work if he fights this.

My question is about the supplemental disclosure. It is my understanding of Illinois residential real property disclosure act that the seller must disclose the current condition of the property. He shouldn't be able to withhold information based on expected repair....should he? Second, supplemental is for new issues that pop up. This had been ongoing for over a year and he was a jerk to his neighbor and wouldn't help with the legal fees but wanted to benefit.

It seems like a slam dunk case to me, but my attorney says it's possible a judge will view those two letters as disclosure. And now there's the letter my real estate agent did not show me from the seller to the developer that the developer refused to sign. Are sellers allowed to offer disclosure information in an encrypted style, or is it supposed to be presented as "this is part of the disclosure"?

Also, the Illinois act states that delivery to one is the same as delivery to all. Is my buyer's agent considered the same as delivering the information to me? She never showed us the letter, but she was unaware of the extent of the issues as well.

[Souix]

How come you are side stepping the question, "Did you have an inspection?"***

Yes, we had an inspection. It was required by the bank.

The issue is not former damage, but the fact that our basement is the same level as the nearby drain. I have discovered the seller had numberous failed attempts to get the city and developer to take care of the issue. He did not disclose the drain problem and then our basement flooded because the drain backed up. This is what happened to him and he was told the drain was too small for the development's water. He thinks it's a developer's problem, but I think it's a disclosure problem. I had a right to know all of this in considering my purchase.

I even have documents from a neighbor's litigation from the seller and to the seller about the issue that he withheld. Why would a seller show you two letters and withhold one dated between those two? I have city engineers that spoke with the seller about the issue on several occassions and it seems everyone in the neighborhood knew about the issue except for me!

My issue is with his claim that the work being done for a neighbor's yard was supposed to fix his problem. I don't think the Residential disclosure allows sellers to rely on expected repairs. The work was not even started until after our bid was accepted and we had left town.

I am wondering how strong my case is. Doesn't all disclosure information have to be presented as "this is disclosure" to count as disclosure? Can a seller try to slip in information about old issues after the buyer's bid is accepted?

Thank you.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by juststupid

Yes, we had an inspection. It was required by the bank.

The issue is not former damage, but the fact that our basement is the same level as the nearby drain. I have discovered the seller had numberous failed attempts to get the city and developer to take care of the issue. He did not disclose the drain problem and then our basement flooded because the drain backed up. This is what happened to him and he was told the drain was too small for the development's water. He thinks it's a developer's problem, but I think it's a disclosure problem. I had a right to know all of this in considering my purchase.

I even have documents from a neighbor's litigation from the seller and to the seller about the issue that he withheld. Why would a seller show you two letters and withhold one dated between those two? I have city engineers that spoke with the seller about the issue on several occassions and it seems everyone in the neighborhood knew about the issue except for me!

My issue is with his claim that the work being done for a neighbor's yard was supposed to fix his problem. I don't think the Residential disclosure allows sellers to rely on expected repairs. The work was not even started until after our bid was accepted and we had left town.

I am wondering how strong my case is. Doesn't all disclosure information have to be presented as "this is disclosure" to count as disclosure?

**A: No, they can just put the info in writing without saying " this is disclosure"
*****

Can a seller try to slip in information about old issues after the buyer's bid is accepted?

**A: yes, then at that point, the Buyer is free to proceed with the transaction, renegotiate or walk.
*****

Thank you.

**A: ok****************************...