Problem with Foreclosure House Purchase

[firedawg]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
Last summer I signed a contract to purchase a foreclosed house from a bank. The house was sold "as is". In Texas, the seller of a foreclosed house is not required to disclose any known defects because they never lived in the property and theoretically are not aware of any defects. Before I could close on the house a city building inspector was sent to inspect the house to receive a certificate of occupancy. The house had security bars on all the windows and doors. To get the house to pass inspection the city inspector told me that the security bars would have to be removed from two of the bedroom windows. I notified the bank to send someone to remove the two sets of bars. Unfortunately, the contractor hired to remove the bars removed ALL of the security bars from the windows. When the contractor was notified to inquire where the bars were he stated that got "lost". The bank was notified of the problem and reluctantly replaced all of the security bars. The problem is that the replacement security bars that were installed were of very poor quality as far as gauge of steel and craftsmanship. The bars that were erroneously removed were very ornate and were top quality material and workmanship. The contractor who removed the original bars severely damaged the bricks by leaving huge holes in the bricks and cracked many bricks and the mortar for several courses. This contractor used a large sledge hammer and a cutting torch. The main thing is that the replacement burglar bars on the bedrooms did not have an approved method of escape that are required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. I am afraid to let anyone use my guest bedrooms because of this. The bars are not as wide as the original ones and a strong person can actually bend the bars and could get into my house. As I said, the originals were much heavier duty. The bank is saying the house was bought "as is" and they replaced the security bars as a "courtesy". What is funny is that the bank keeps bringing up the "as is" clause but they replaced the water heater and installed a central new air conditioning system after closing. Do you think I have a good case to bring lawsuit against the bank?

 

[justalayman]

You most likely signed documents at closing stating you were taking the home "as-is". If so, since the bars were changed prior to closing, signing such a document precludes you from making a claim for them after closing.

 

[firedawg]

You most likely signed documents at closing stating you were taking the home "as-is". If so, since the bars were changed prior to closing, signing such a document precludes you from making a claim for them after closing.

Actually the bars were changed out two weeks after closing.

 

[justalayman]

Ok, given that, when you did this:

I notified the bank to send someone to remove the two sets of bars.

they should have told you to take a hike and be done with you but they didn't. They attempted to appease you. Unless you paid the bank to do the work, you need to go after the contractor that did the work.

 

[firedawg]

Ok, given that, when you did this:

they should have told you to take a hike and be done with you but they didn't. They attempted to appease you. Unless you paid the bank to do the work, you need to go after the contractor that did the work.

You actually believe that a contractor, hired by and under the control of a bank, has the right to remove a complete set of security bars worth $7500.00 when I asked for TWO bars to be removed, not ALL of them. The contract to remove the two bars was between the bank and the contractor. It seems the bank should have replaced the bars with a set that was of the same size and quality as the originals. The bars that were installed were not compliant with the state health and safety code. Are you saying the contractor hired by the bank doesn't have to follow health and safety codes for security bars? The bank should have made the contractor cough up the original set of burglar bars. They should have gone after the contractor to pay for the security bars. I did not hire the contractor and, therefore, had no control over his actions.

 

[firedawg]

Ok, given that, when you did this:

they should have told you to take a hike and be done with you but they didn't. They attempted to appease you. Unless you paid the bank to do the work, you need to go after the contractor that did the work.

What you stated does not make sense. I did not own the property therefore I could not legally remove anything from the property. The bank wanted to sell the property. Without the bars removed and a certificate of occupancy in hand the sale could not be completed. They were by no means trying to appease me as the house they were trying to sell me did not meet code. Why would I pay the bank to perform work on their property. When I purchased the home I expected it to be "as is" when I signed the contract not missing all of the security bars and 40 bricks cracked, burned and with huge holes in them. I am the one who should have taken a hike.

 

[justalayman]

What you stated does not make sense. I did not own the property therefore I could not legally remove anything from the property. The bank wanted to sell the property. Without the bars removed and a certificate of occupancy in hand the sale could not be completed. They were by no means trying to appease me as the house they were trying to sell me did not meet code. Why would I pay the bank to perform work on their property. When I purchased the home I expected it to be "as is" when I signed the contract not missing all of the security bars and 40 bricks cracked, burned and with huge holes in them. I am the one who should have taken a hike.

make up your mind. You said the bars were removed after closing (2 weeks in fact). That means YOU owned the property at that time. Now you argue the sale could not be completed until there was a cert of occupancy which would not be issued until the bars were removed which you state was a couple weeks after closing. Since you cannot keep your timeline and claims straight, I really don't care to bother any more with this. If you think the bank owes you something and they refuse to pay, sue them.

and I don't know where you live but there are houses bought and sold every day all across the country that do not meet occupancy requirements, especially foreclosures that have sat for a long time. They are often bought "as is" and the purchaser is required to bring them up to code and obtain the C of O.

 

[firedawg]

make up your mind. You said the bars were removed after closing (2 weeks in fact). That means YOU owned the property at that time. Now you argue the sale could not be completed until there was a cert of occupancy which would not be issued until the bars were removed which you state was a couple weeks after closing. Since you cannot keep your timeline and claims straight, I really don't care to bother any more with this. If you think the bank owes you something and they refuse to pay, sue them.

and I don't know where you live but there are houses bought and sold every day all across the country that do not meet occupancy requirements, especially foreclosures that have sat for a long time. They are often bought "as is" and the purchaser is required to bring them up to code and obtain the C of O.

You don't read too well. My timeline and claims are straight. I said the bars were replaced two weeks after closing. The bars were removed before closing in order to get the certificate of occupancy. I did not know ALL of the bars had been removed before closing as it was done the day before closing. Nobody asked you to "waste" your time on this. I came to this site asking for some legitimate advice. So far, you have provided none. The purpose of an inspection for issuance of a certificate of occupancy is to ensure all codes are met. I am pretty sure if someone was asleep in a bedroom with illegal security bars installed by a bank and a fire broke out and the occupant of the bedroom perished I am sure there would be some major negligence found.

 

[justalayman]

You don't read too well. My timeline and claims are straight. I said the bars were replaced two weeks after closing. The bars were removed before closing in order to get the certificate of occupancy. I did not know ALL of the bars had been removed before closing as it was done the day before closing. Nobody asked you to "waste" your time on this. I came to this site asking for some legitimate advice. So far, you have provided none. The purpose of an inspection for issuance of a certificate of occupancy is to ensure all codes are met. I am pretty sure if someone was asleep in a bedroom with illegal security bars installed by a bank and a fire broke out and the occupant of the bedroom perished I am sure there would be some major negligence found.

Ok, this is real easy:

your purchased the house without the bars and with the burns, holes, etc. That was the condition of the house AT closing. That makes all of the holes, burns, etc. yours and your problem. The bank had no obligation to replace the bars with anything so you have no claim against anybody. If you want different bars, you will have to purchase them yourself.


btw: it was your erroneous statement that caused the misunderstanding:

Actually the bars were changed out two weeks after closing.

changing out something is generally seen as remove and replacement. The removal apparently took place at least 2 weeks prior. The replacement was the only thing that took place after closing.

 

[justalayman]

I am pretty sure if someone was asleep in a bedroom with illegal security bars installed by a bank and a fire broke out and the occupant of the bedroom perished I am sure there would be some major negligence found.

ya, with you. Especially since you are aware, or at least believe, the bars are illegal, leaving them in place will make you liable. If you were not aware of them being illegal, the situation might be different but since you know of the problem, your failure to correct it makes you liable.

 

[firedawg]

Ok, this is real easy:

your purchased the house without the bars and with the burns, holes, etc. That was the condition of the house AT closing. That makes all of the holes, burns, etc. yours and your problem. The bank had no obligation to replace the bars with anything so you have no claim against anybody. If you want different bars, you will have to purchase them yourself.


btw: it was your erroneous statement that caused the misunderstanding:

changing out something is generally seen as remove and replacement. The removal apparently took place at least 2 weeks prior. The replacement was the only thing that took place after closing.

Well, that is your opinion. Law is basically based on common sense. To win a case in court you have to prove two things: 1.) That you have been damaged and 2.) How much are the damages. It is apparent the bank must have felt responsible for the loss of the security bars or they wouldn't have replaced them.
The original bars that were erroneously removed would have been covered under a "grandfather" clause. Since they were replaced after the codes were enacted they must comply with the code. Under your theory, it seems you could go down to a new car dealership in the morning and sign a contract to purchase a new car. After signing the contract the dealer says they will get the car ready for you by washing it and make sure it is good to go. You ask if they can tint the windows. They say sure, but they will have to take it to a tint shop across town. When you come back later in the afternoon to pick up your new car you see the right rear fender has been dented and the spare tire is missing. You complain, but the dealership just shrugs. After all when you signed the contract the car's fender was perfect and the spare tire was in the trunk. The dealer states that since you signed the contract in the morning and the car was perfect you are bought the missing spare tire and the dented fender. You should have checked to see if there was a spare tire in the trunk. And, oh yeah by the way, you need to sue the window tinter since he must have dented the fender and stole the spare tire.

 

[ecmst12]

Law is basically based on common sense.

What EVER gave you THAT idea???

To win a case in court you have to prove two things: 1.) That you have been damaged and 2.) How much are the damages.

Actually that is only about half the things that you have to prove. You also need to prove DUTY and BREECH OF DUTY.

 

[firedawg]

What EVER gave you THAT idea???



Actually that is only about half the things that you have to prove. You also need to prove DUTY and BREECH OF DUTY.

Glad someone else decided to reply. Can you elaborate on what you mean by DUTY and BREECH OF DUTY in relation to my issue?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Well, that is your opinion. Law is basically based on common sense.

Damn. I guess I wasted three years in law school for nothing.

To win a case in court you have to prove two things: 1.) That you have been damaged and 2.) How much are the damages.

Actually, you must prove that you have you have been damaged by the defendant.

It is apparent the bank must have felt responsible for the loss of the security bars or they wouldn't have replaced them.

Feeling responsible is not the same thing as being liable.

Under your theory, it seems you could go down to a new car dealership in the morning and sign a contract to purchase a new car. After signing the contract the dealer says they will get the car ready for you by washing it and make sure it is good to go. You ask if they can tint the windows. They say sure, but they will have to take it to a tint shop across town. When you come back later in the afternoon to pick up your new car you see the right rear fender has been dented and the spare tire is missing. You complain, but the dealership just shrugs. After all when you signed the contract the car's fender was perfect and the spare tire was in the trunk. The dealer states that since you signed the contract in the morning and the car was perfect you are bought the missing spare tire and the dented fender. You should have checked to see if there was a spare tire in the trunk. And, oh yeah by the way, you need to sue the window tinter since he must have dented the fender and stole the spare tire.

Nope. In that case, you refuse delivery because the dealer is in breach of contract. You contracted to purchase a new car. The dealer is obligated to deliver a new car. If the dealer does not deliver a new car, s/he is in breach of contract.

That is why there is generally a final walk through the day of closing.

 

[firedawg]

Damn. I guess I wasted three years in law school for nothing.



Actually, you must prove that you have you have been damaged by the defendant.



Feeling responsible is not the same thing as being liable.




Nope. In that case, you refuse delivery because the dealer is in breach of contract. You contracted to purchase a new car. The dealer is obligated to deliver a new car. If the dealer does not deliver a new car, s/he is in breach of contract.

That is why there is generally a final walk through the day of closing.

Thanks for your reply. I understand feeling responsible is not the same thing as being liable. Then there is a question of doing the RIGHT thing. When I purchased the home I expected to receive it "as is", exactly the same as it was at the time I signed the contract as the day I closed. I did not expect the house to be damaged by the contractor the bank hired. I did not expect the nice security bars to be missing other than the two I requested to be removed. How can I control what happens between the time of the final walk-through and the time of closing? Irregardless, a person should not have been ripped off and the bank should have made things right for the customer and then sued their irresponsible contractor.