TimStudiesLaw
Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois
I have been reading here for a while, and have a question about a situation my mom has. This is not a homework assignment, it’s a real life situation.
My mom bought a rental house just over a year ago. It was $1,200 shy of a full price offer with no contingencies, her money was good, and they closed in 30 days. The seller’s wife was the real estate agent, she lived in the house with him for several months. Mom had the house inspected prior to closing so she could educate herself on its condition before any tenants move in.
Tenants move in, and the very first night, one of them takes a shower in the basement bathroom. The drain fails, and the bathroom ends up with approximately 5 gallons of water on the floor. Upon inspection, it is discovered the shower unit is improperly installed. The base of the shower unit was placed over a small circular floor drain, but the drain was never properly attached to the drain pipe, the water simply drained into the floor drain. The floor drain was plugged with hair, and would not allow the volume of water produced in a normal shower to drain quickly enough. As a result, the space beneath the shower unit filled with water and that water seeped under the shower unit out into the bathroom.
She notified the seller, and they claimed they didn’t know the problem existed. They told her since she "got a discount," had the home inspected, and agreed to the as-is clause on the disclosure they provided, she was SOL, and would have to eat the $2,800 plumbing bill.
I did some research, and found a case (Bauer v. Giannis, 350 Ill. App.3d 897, 834 N.E.2d 952, 269 Ill. Dec. 147) whereby the appellate court sided with the buyer, and among other things, agreed with a previous ruling that: “The form defines an "as is" agreement as one "for the sale of the property subject to any or all material defects disclosed in this report." (Emphasis added.)”
There is more in Bauer v. Giannis that I believe to be relevant, but in effort to shorten the post, I’ll stop here for now, and pose these questions:
1) Since this condition was discovered the very first time the shower was used, is it reasonable to believe the previous owner knew of this defect and willfully remained silent?
2) Since this was an "agent related" sale, should the seller/realtor be held to a higher standard of care with respect to disclosure than a “regular person”?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Tim
I have been reading here for a while, and have a question about a situation my mom has. This is not a homework assignment, it’s a real life situation.
My mom bought a rental house just over a year ago. It was $1,200 shy of a full price offer with no contingencies, her money was good, and they closed in 30 days. The seller’s wife was the real estate agent, she lived in the house with him for several months. Mom had the house inspected prior to closing so she could educate herself on its condition before any tenants move in.
Tenants move in, and the very first night, one of them takes a shower in the basement bathroom. The drain fails, and the bathroom ends up with approximately 5 gallons of water on the floor. Upon inspection, it is discovered the shower unit is improperly installed. The base of the shower unit was placed over a small circular floor drain, but the drain was never properly attached to the drain pipe, the water simply drained into the floor drain. The floor drain was plugged with hair, and would not allow the volume of water produced in a normal shower to drain quickly enough. As a result, the space beneath the shower unit filled with water and that water seeped under the shower unit out into the bathroom.
She notified the seller, and they claimed they didn’t know the problem existed. They told her since she "got a discount," had the home inspected, and agreed to the as-is clause on the disclosure they provided, she was SOL, and would have to eat the $2,800 plumbing bill.
I did some research, and found a case (Bauer v. Giannis, 350 Ill. App.3d 897, 834 N.E.2d 952, 269 Ill. Dec. 147) whereby the appellate court sided with the buyer, and among other things, agreed with a previous ruling that: “The form defines an "as is" agreement as one "for the sale of the property subject to any or all material defects disclosed in this report." (Emphasis added.)”
There is more in Bauer v. Giannis that I believe to be relevant, but in effort to shorten the post, I’ll stop here for now, and pose these questions:
1) Since this condition was discovered the very first time the shower was used, is it reasonable to believe the previous owner knew of this defect and willfully remained silent?
2) Since this was an "agent related" sale, should the seller/realtor be held to a higher standard of care with respect to disclosure than a “regular person”?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Tim
Last edited: