Borrower Suing Lender

[Brady12]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Mexico

I can't seem to find an answer to this anywhere and I apologize if I posted this in the wrong topic area. I will keep it as short and to the point as possible.

Buyer purchases house from seller. In order to obtain financing, buyer borrows from lender. In loan agreement, lender requires evidence of a recent termite inspection before closing. However, lender waives this requirement and proceeds with the loan. Borrower does not have a termite inspection done and subsequently finds significant termite damage in the home. Now buyer/borrower is suing lender for fraud, misrepresentation, etc. based on the waiver of this requirement.

Is there something out there that is legally binding (too bad it can't be simple common sense) that would keep the borrower from recovering in such a situation? Buyer beware, perhaps? Also, how could the borrower possibly hold the lender liable in such a situation? The lender did not advise borrower in any way. It simply did not require evidence of the inspection prior to closing on the loan.

Thanks!

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Mexico

I can't seem to find an answer to this anywhere and I apologize if I posted this in the wrong topic area. I will keep it as short and to the point as possible.

Buyer purchases house from seller. In order to obtain financing, buyer borrows from lender. In loan agreement, lender requires evidence of a recent termite inspection before closing. However, lender waives this requirement and proceeds with the loan. Borrower does not have a termite inspection done and subsequently finds significant termite damage in the home. Now buyer/borrower is suing lender for fraud, misrepresentation, etc. based on the waiver of this requirement.

Is there something out there that is legally binding (too bad it can't be simple common sense) that would keep the borrower from recovering in such a situation? Buyer beware, perhaps? Also, how could the borrower possibly hold the lender liable in such a situation? The lender did not advise borrower in any way. It simply did not require evidence of the inspection prior to closing on the loan.

Thanks!

Under what premise would the buyer have cause to sue the lender?

The lender waived the loan requirement for the terminate inspection prior to closing, but that didn't stop the buyer from having one done if they wanted to. It's NOT the lender's fault that the buyer chose NOT to get the inspection done. It is also NOT the lender's fault that the buyer's home would later reveal significant terminate damage, which would have been discovered had the buyer exercised due diligence and had the terminate inspection performed before they decided to buy the house.

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Mexico

I can't seem to find an answer to this anywhere and I apologize if I posted this in the wrong topic area. I will keep it as short and to the point as possible.

Buyer purchases house from seller. In order to obtain financing, buyer borrows from lender. In loan agreement, lender requires evidence of a recent termite inspection before closing. However, lender waives this requirement and proceeds with the loan. Borrower does not have a termite inspection done and subsequently finds significant termite damage in the home. Now buyer/borrower is suing lender for fraud, misrepresentation, etc. based on the waiver of this requirement.

Is there something out there that is legally binding (too bad it can't be simple common sense) that would keep the borrower from recovering in such a situation? Buyer beware, perhaps? Also, how could the borrower possibly hold the lender liable in such a situation? The lender did not advise borrower in any way. It simply did not require evidence of the inspection prior to closing on the loan.

Thanks!

Um...no...just; no.

Is there something out there that is legally binding (too bad it can't be simple common sense) that would keep the borrower from recovering in such a situation?

yes, there is. It is called justice. It is not the lenders responsibility to protect the buyers interest. For a buyer to prevail, they would have to show the lender had a duty to the buyer regarding the termite inspection. There is none because the lender is a lender. They are not an agent of the buyer, they are not an overseer of the sale, they are nothing other than a lender. Anything the lender requires is to protect their own interests. If the buyer wishes to take actions to protect their own interests for such matters, it is up to them to do so.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I don't know NM rules of Civil Procedure, but under the Federal Rules, the likely action would be a motion to dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted which is found in Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I would wager that New Mexico has a similar rule.

 

[Brady12]

I was thinking along those lines as well. Thank you for your help, guys.