• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Complicated disclosure and BUYER fraud issue.

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

AlexNotAttourny

Junior Member
What is the name of your state?State, Minnesota.

I recently sold a property in Minnesota. Closing occured over 2 months ago.

Last week I recieved a call from the buyers' agent saying that they were having problems with the sewage system. I was told that a blumber had come out and discovered that the clog could not be removed because there was a partial collapse in the sewer line blocking the pipe and that this break had occured excactly 58 feet from the house.

I initially agreed to pay for a patch of the broken pipe section and asked for bids to be sent to me. The next day the realtor talked to me and gave me a bid of some $6500. This was the only bid she game me and stated that she has worked with this company for 12 years and they are very honest. I insisted on getting 3 bids to find a more reasonable price, but she kept pushing me to accept this one bid as soon as possible, later telling me that the bid accidentally included $800 for a new waterline that is perfectly functional and we shouldnt have to pay for it so the bid is actually $5500.

I got a controctor to put in another bid after making the calls for other bids myself. They came in at 1700 dollars and conveyed to me that the owner had come out and asked the worker they sent to perform several other repairs besides what we were told was needed and to add them to the bid. The contractor informed them that they would assess the price of the repairs they were asked by me to perform and that anything else that thay wanted done independantly would not be added to my bill.

After hearing this I accepted their reasonable bid and told them to start the work ASAP since the owners had not been able to inhabit the house due to these problems. To my shock the owner of the house called my contractor and ordered them not to begin digging!

I recieved a call from his realtor. She was obviously flustered that I had gotten another bid and was stuttering manically. She said that there was a SAG in the line and that because of it the whole line needed to be replaced. Which is what her bid included.

As it turns out from her attournys letter to me, there was no break in the line as she had told me. The issue was over a SAG in it and I am liable bacause I knew there was a problem, namely a sag, before selling them the house.

I was aware of a sag that was once a problem and consulted 2 licenced plumbing firms about how to remedy the problem almost a year before selling the house. They told me to replace the small drain trap with a larger one and replace my water saver toilet with a larger one as well. This would increase flow so solids would have enough water to carry them past the sag.

I had the drain trap replaced and the toilet as well by one of those companies. After that, the drain functioned flawlessly for all 10 months preceeding the sale. Before the work was done, it had clogged every 2 or 3 months. I considered the problem solved as the plumbers had told me.

I disclosed the fact that we had issues with the drain clogging up and had replaced the trap to deal with the issue and no problems had occured since.

They are demanding settlement of $6500 dollars to complete the repairs or they will sue.

It seems to me that since they lied to me about what the problem was and tried to trick me into paying for repairs that I was not informed of and are now suing for the price of not only the repairs of the sewer line, but for the replacement of a fully functional water line that the realtor admitted I should not have to pay for, they are guilty of fraud.

I tried to be as honest and forthcoming as possible and out of my own kindness was willing to pay %100 of the cost of patching a break that never existed. Do they have a case against me? Did their actions constitute fraud? And if so what can I do?

Thanks.
 


pojo2

Senior Member
From the first paragraph I was trying to figure out why you felt you needed to do anything. Did you conceal this sewer problem? If not and you did not know about it then you have no obligation period in my view.
 

AlexNotAttourny

Junior Member
Liability

Essentially, I understand the hardships of homeownership. A broken line is only repairable by excavating the section that is broken and replacing it. And due to some of my relatives having experience in construction and excavation, I knew that 1500 to 2000 was about the most it could cost to replace a small collapse. Being a couple of new homeowners and new parents, I felt sorry for them.

But now they are suing for almost 4X the cost of the bid that I got from a contractor who actually bid on the work I was told needed to be done. This is almost 1/4 of my annual income. I simply wont pay that kind of money to people that have lied to me about more then just this as it turns out and tried, essentially, to steal my money.

As far as my disclosures...

About a year ago, I had some problems with recurring pipe clogs. I had Roto-Rooter out to assess the situation. The plumber they sent told me that it was their best guess that it was a sag in the line that is causing it.
I asked for two company's plumbers opinions about how best to solve the problem. They both said that replacing the trap with a larger one and installing a higher volume per flush toilet would cure the problem by increasing water flow and thus carrying the solid waste past any dip in the pipe, if that was truly the cause.

I got 3 bids to replace the trap as recommended and the toilet. The advice that I was given lead me to believe that this would solve the issue.
After the work was performed, the problem was no longer present from then till this time. Therefore, since the existence of the sag had never been officially established, I was not about to assert that one existed, as I am not a plumber, on the disclosures. Rather, I made note that there had been a problem with the pipe clogging in the past and I replaced the trap as advised and have had no further difficulty since then.

As stated, I was told explicitly, when I probed the realtor, that the problem was not a sag, but an actual break in the line. As it turns out, there never was a break as she lead me to believe, but the sag that still has not been confirmed has clogged again.

Therefore, I don't believe I have a legal obligation to pay for a repair of a defect that I believed was no longer an issue due to the advice of licensed professionals and which I disclosed as well as I could without making assertions that I was not in any way qualified to make. If there were any issues regarding the disclosed problems, or if they desired further official information regarding it, these things should have been addressed by their home inspector.
 
Last edited:

djohnson

Senior Member
If they bought it with your disclosures, then you weren't responsible anyway, just being nice. I think if this was your realtor, I wouldn't use them again and wouldn't recommend to anyone else. It's their problem now. You tried to be nice.
 

AlexNotAttourny

Junior Member
No, this was not my realtor. I had my own, as did they.
The grounds they are suing on are by claiming that I knew there was a sag in the line that I did not inform them of. Therefore, they believe I am responsable to pay for the lines repair.

I did not expressly state that there was a sag in the line. That is true. But from my perspective it would have been illicit to have done so, as none of the licenced plumbers I spoke to could say for sure that a sag was really the problem and stand by it. I am not a plumber, so how could I honestly assert what a licenced professional could not? Furthermore, I acted in good confidence of those plumbers expertice and had the work performed that I was lead to believe would remove the problem. Therefore, I saw it as a poor choice to disclose a speculative problem as though it was a fact and decided rather to inform them that we had problems with the trap clogging and had it replaced as advised by those who are licenced to deal with such issues.
 

djohnson

Senior Member
Because you didn't use the word 'sag' doesn't matter. You disclosed the problem you had and what had taken place. If they wanted more information they should have had it checked out.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top