sellers disclosure

[matthewh]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in Florida. I bought a house for an investment in 2008. I have since sold the house. Now the buyer is coming back and taking me to court because he says the septic system was bad and it needed to be replaced. He says I had knowledge of that and did not disclose that. The first day I bought the house the nieghbor next to me told me the septic system needed to be redone . I said I would look into it. I was in the house everyday for two months fixing the house up. I flushed the toilets 5 to 6 times a day and ran all faucets purposely to see if it would backup. There was no backups in the system for that 2 months. I saw no other evidence of there being any problems with the system. So I didnt think I was obligated to disclose that since I saw no evidence.

Do I have any liability in this case to pay for his new septic system?

Thank You for you advice,

Matthew H

[Cedrus]

Did your buyer have the septic system inspected ? Were there weeds/grass growing over the leach field and not in adjacent areas ? What was the reason your neighbor told you, on your first day there, that the septic system "needed to be redone"? Odor?

Do you have a mound system? Is there a fluctuating water table under your old property?

Does the lawsuit ask that the tank and leach field be replaced ? Were the leach lines ever cleaned out, before the sale or after?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by matthewh

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in Florida. I bought a house for an investment in 2008. I have since sold the house. Now the buyer is coming back and taking me to court because he says the septic system was bad and it needed to be replaced. He says I had knowledge of that and did not disclose that. The first day I bought the house the nieghbor next to me told me the septic system needed to be redone . I said I would look into it. I was in the house everyday for two months fixing the house up. I flushed the toilets 5 to 6 times a day and ran all faucets purposely to see if it would backup. There was no backups in the system for that 2 months. I saw no other evidence of there being any problems with the system. So I didnt think I was obligated to disclose that since I saw no evidence.

Do I have any liability in this case to pay for his new septic system?

Thank You for you advice,

Matthew H

**A: yes you do have liability as you did not complete due diligence before your bought the property and then after your neighbor gave you the information.

[latigo]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: yes you do have liability as you did not complete due diligence before your bought the property and then after your neighbor gave you the information.

Matthew:

Even if you were required to rely on the unconfirmed “opinions” of neighbors as to the condition of the property, how the hell would this neighbor know if the toilets and sewage system were ever out of order?

This joker that is suing you has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence (if not clear and convincing evidence) that you knowingly and purposely concealed from him a material defect in the condition of the property. And that you withheld such knowledge in order to induce him into making the purchase.

NOW how does he expect to prove that the system is so shot that it needs replacement? Because some clown in “Red Green” chest waders looking for business told him so – MUCHLESS prove that you were aware that it was in need of replacement – and not now, but at the time of the sale!
_______________

It is common knowledge that septic tank systems are at best prone to periodic malfunctioning.

Here your buyer knew the system had been in place for some period of time and is charged with that general knowledge. If he wanted the system inspected before the purchase that was his prerogative.

You had no reason to suspect that it was malfunctioning. And his lawsuit hinges and will fail on that vital point.
________________________________

You “didn’t complete due diligence” (sic) What a joke! What a sophomoric expression!

For your much-needed enlightenment GURU, for centuries upon centuries the term “DUE DILIGENCE” has been defined as:

WHAT A REASONABLY PRUDENT MAN WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES!

Does due diligence require bringing in a backhoe and tearing up the lawn, shrubbery, trees, decking, etc., all because someone suggested that there might have been problems in the past?