Seller Lied in His Disclosure

[ImUpPoopCreek]

What is the name of your state? California

We closed escrow/moved in to our relatively new (1991-built) home about 4 to 5 months ago. In the "continuation of disclosures" the seller stated that there had been a problem with water coming in through windows during wet winters due to improper lapping of paper. The seller stated that around 1994 they had a contractor come and replace the paper/stucco and some windows in the area of the house that had the problem. In the disclosure, the seller concluded by saying that "in the ten years since, we've had no problems".

We, the new owners, have concluded this to be a lie, since water still comes in through one of the windows in the same area of the home where the problem was worked on. Also, we discovered that when it rains long and hard enough against that same side of the house, water begins to seep up through our upstairs carpet in the master bedroom. A neighbor is willing to testify that he saw the seller "in the ten years since" place rags in his window every time it rained. Would this be enough evidence for a successful lawsuit against the seller? If so, would an attorney be willing to take the case on a "pro bono" or "contingiency" basis? We don't have the cash right now to pay an attorney up front. Any advice would be appreciated.

[RanchLady]

I had a very simler thing happen to me.( by the way Im a horriable speller)

Rather then go through the ordeal of litagating.(Use the money to get it fixed.) Get a good contractor to come out and fix it!!!!...once and for all!!. You are right! ... they lied... but.. it still needs to be fixed. You own the property now... and all the weirdness, so.... if you ever wanted to sell.... YOU would be the Lier... if it is not fixed.
It sounds like you like where you live.. go fix it... and then worry who is a lier.. later and if you still want to go after them... you check satutes of limitaions.
I believe it's 5-6 years Right, Home Guru? ....he knows!!!

Thats My 2 cent$$$$

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by ImUpPoopCreek

What is the name of your state? California

We closed escrow/moved in to our relatively new (1991-built) home about 4 to 5 months ago. In the "continuation of disclosures" the seller stated that there had been a problem with water coming in through windows during wet winters due to improper lapping of paper. The seller stated that around 1994 they had a contractor come and replace the paper/stucco and some windows in the area of the house that had the problem. In the disclosure, the seller concluded by saying that "in the ten years since, we've had no problems".

We, the new owners, have concluded this to be a lie, since water still comes in through one of the windows in the same area of the home where the problem was worked on. Also, we discovered that when it rains long and hard enough against that same side of the house, water begins to seep up through our upstairs carpet in the master bedroom. A neighbor is willing to testify that he saw the seller "in the ten years since" place rags in his window every time it rained. Would this be enough evidence for a successful lawsuit against the seller? If so, would an attorney be willing to take the case on a "pro bono" or "contingiency" basis? We don't have the cash right now to pay an attorney up front. Any advice would be appreciated.

**A: did you have a home inspection and a separate engineer type inspection specifically investigating the leak problem to verify that it in fact had been resolved?

[faithandhope]

Except that you can't fix it first and then try to recoup costs having destroyed proof of existing problem. The seller's attorney will have wanted to get several estimates and statements from contractors, engineers, inspectors,etc. If it is stucco, it sounds like drainage curtain, flashing problems and you need someone who specializes in stucco.

[ImUpPoopCreek]

Thanks for the replies. In response to the poster who stated I should "use the cash" to get it fixed properly and forget about litigation: My wife having found out 4 weeks after we bought this place that her pay was being cut drastically, we have no extra cash. My pay is still the same, but her's being cut has suddenly made things tight. Hence the question of whether or not this might be enough of a cut and dried case to convince a lawyer to take it on contingiency.

In response to the question about whether we had a structural engineer inspect the house: No, we have not yet. We did have a general non-invasive inspection done prior to signing because this was a relatively new home built in the early nineties, and our thought, as well as the advice of our realtor, was that invasive inspections would not have been needed. We were wrong, but I doubt that releases the seller from his liability for lying on a disclosure. We will need to sue or receive a large settlement from him if we're to make the repairs needed, barring a crateload of millions (well, some tens of thousands, anyway) dropping into our backyard from the sky.

[faithandhope]

Stucco houses are a problem in the industry because few builders do them properly and inspectors do not like to inspect them (personally speaking). Some materials used for stucco are also involved in class action law-suits and are very prone to mold buildup. A seller/buyer/inspector may not be aware of the larger problem going on due to just a few leaks here and there. Not all inspectors are aware of the full problem due to non-invasive inspections limited to a visual inspection. You need one who specializes in stucco to see if the problem is larger (such as a drainage curtain issue) and all the ramifications that implies. Do some research and see what comes up. Best of Luck.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by ImUpPoopCreek

Thanks for the replies. In response to the poster who stated I should "use the cash" to get it fixed properly and forget about litigation: My wife having found out 4 weeks after we bought this place that her pay was being cut drastically, we have no extra cash. My pay is still the same, but her's being cut has suddenly made things tight. Hence the question of whether or not this might be enough of a cut and dried case to convince a lawyer to take it on contingiency.

In response to the question about whether we had a structural engineer inspect the house: No, we have not yet. We did have a general non-invasive inspection done prior to signing because this was a relatively new home built in the early nineties, and our thought, as well as the advice of our realtor, was that invasive inspections would not have been needed. We were wrong, but I doubt that releases the seller from his liability for lying on a disclosure. We will need to sue or receive a large settlement from him if we're to make the repairs needed, barring a crateload of millions (well, some tens of thousands, anyway) dropping into our backyard from the sky.

**A: ok, good luck and next time be more of a CSI investigator.

[ImUpPoopCreek]

**A: ok, good luck and next time be more of a CSI investigator.

Thanks, and yes, lesson definitely learned.

Also, thanks to the other poster for his insights on stucco. This is a stucco exterior. I'm looking into this "elastomeric" paint my neighbor is recommending. It supposedly acts like a rubber seal around your home once it dries.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by ImUpPoopCreek

**A: ok, good luck and next time be more of a CSI investigator.

Thanks, and yes, lesson definitely learned.

Also, thanks to the other poster for his insights on stucco. This is a stucco exterior. I'm looking into this "elastomeric" paint my neighbor is recommending. It supposedly acts like a rubber seal around your home once it dries.

**A: yes, that's good stuff but 3-4 times the cost of paint.