Failure to Disclose- Remedy?

[Sleigher]

What is the name of your state? California
Hi,
we recently purchased a home which was being sold by people who bought it to flip.
They did not make any money.
In their disclosure paperwork they simply stated that the entire house had been remodeled.
"No leaks, no problems. New roof."
First rain, I have water pouring into the garage.
After a number of leak calls we finally find out that the roof had been mostly replaced but not entirely. The chimney area had considerable rotten wood.
When it was leaking inside the house (ruining drywall) I found places in the drywall where it had clearly been repaired.
The neighbor mentioned to me that there had always been problems in that area.
Problem #2: I called to arrange for cable services. There were brand new cable nipples all over the house (House is 3900 square feet, 4 bed 4.5 bath). The cable technician opens up the cover to find no co-axial wire?
They had pulled new electrical wire throughout most of the house but chose not to do the cable. There are 20-25 cable nipples, with nothing attached to them.
The seller has refused to supply any documentation for the remodel.
The seller had an attorney write us a letter telling us that it was her partner that handled all of that and that she had no liability for any issues. "Call your home warranty company."
There are some other small issues that someone definitely knew about but I won't go on.
We are probably talking about 5-10K to get things where we thought they were when we bought the house.
Do we need an attorney or is this doable in small claims?

Thanks,

P

 

[las365]

What did the home inspector you hired to inspect before you bought the home say about the roof and the chimney?

Why didn't you get the documentation on the remodel before you bought from a flipper?

Did you buy the house "as is"?

 

[Sleigher]

The home inspector was unable to see anything wrong with the roof or chimney.
The area was covered with tiles. It wasn't until we lifted the tiles that we found out that they had stopped short of the chimney area with their new roof. The plywood around the chimney was rotten.
Yes we bought the house "as is" but that means as is represented (to me).
We didn't anticipate any issues getting the documentation from the seller.
If they paid for the work why would they have an issue handing over warranties etc to the new owner?

Thanks.

 

[Wyldrush]

Sounds like you need to take the home inspector to court and the seller. Chances are the seller will not pay a dime. The inspector should have an insurance company which may pay a claim after a long law suit.
Regardless of the discliosure. the home is still sold "AS IS" so that means no warranty is provided. Many times rehabbers do not have warranties on roofs since they may do them themselves or hire out guys to do side jobs for them. An inspector should know how to check a roof correctly throughout the house. The chimmey area should have been checked good. No wiring for cable is more of less a screw up I bet where someone forgot and it was to late maybe. However, I doubt the contract mentioned anything about the cable nipples. and many people get satelite TV and can not use those outlets anyway.

My recommendation if buying a house from a rehabber. Ask him for referrences of other homes completed and addresses. Go buy the homes and ask the owners how the work was done and if any problems. Many guys skim on the work. Painting is the worse. They hate to spend money on primer for the outside so the house peels in about 6 months to 1 yr.

 

[IrishNodak]

The most they would get back from the home inspector is the price of the inspection.

In our contract with our home inspector, it clearly states they won't "lift up" and look under things like tiles, carpets, etc... For example, in our furnace room, the seller had left lots of extra materials like tiles, carpet, granite, lighting, etc.. Our inspector didn't look under the piece of carpet and of course it didn't occur to us. We later discovered a hole under there that looked like it might be meant for a sump pump or water overflow. We still have no idea. In our backyard, there was a piece of aluminum next to the house. Again, he did not lift and look under. When we did, we found a problem with the grade and erosion of soil and such. It also stated in our inspection contract that we agree to "mediation" but if we win, all we get is our inspection fee back. No recourse via the HI. That is pretty standard in most of the inspection contracts from what I hear.

I would go after the seller for them clearly stating new roof. At least file a claim and insist on seeing the documents of work done. However, as far as leaks inside, they are going to say, "I never LIVED there, thus I didn't have anything to disclose". You may be able to have recourse tho' for stating new roof.

Good luck. I feel your pain. We bought from a very dishonest "flipper" and I will never do that again. I recommend against it to everyone I talk to. I think the first thing fix and flippers learn is that they can screw their buyers legally by saying they didn't know since they didn't live there. Ours knew. We just couldn't prove it. I figure some day what goes around ya know?

 

[Sleigher]

The home inspector has outs by stating that items like the roof should be inspected by a roofer, electrical by an electrician etc. I wouldn't go after that guy anyhow.
The problem is with the seller misrepresenting the home. They can say that there are leaks and it is up to you if you want to go on. If they say there aren't or weren't any but there were and you can prove that they knew about them than they have intentionally defrauded the buyer. That's illegal based upon California Civil Code (commencing at Section 1102).
Our situation is very convoluted by the parties involved. The seller (whose name was on the deed) chose finishes and fixtures. The partner oversaw and contracted the work. The seller may not have paid the partner for their part of the work. Which is likely why we couldn't retrieve any documentation.
We found a punch list which listed "check for leaks" which shows that someone knew.
The cable nipples were a screw up. But they should have been disclosed as clearly they wanted the house to look "modern."
The bottom line is that disclosure requirements are clear cut.
You could say that was your partners area but of course then the question of the "partnership" comes up.
Either way, at this point it is all a moot point.
Rather than fight it any longer the parties have agreed upon a settlement.