BobbyTheLee
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? KY
I was in the process of purchasing a home that was exactly what I had been looking for. I visited the home twice and reviewed the sellers disclosure. Everything looked good so I signed a contract on it. There was nothing negative on the seller's disclosure and the homeowner told me that the home had just been rebuilt above the foundation just before she bought it six months prior. My realtor setup an inspection but the inspector wasn't able to come out in the time frame listed on the contract so my realtor sent the seller's realtor an e-mail letting her know about the inspection date. During the inspection there was a bit or rain; not a flood by any means. When the home inspector and the termite inspector tried to go into the cellar, there was about 1' of water at the entrance (which means about 2 feet in the middle of the cellar). The sump pump wasn't working and the water-heater was partially submerged and not working. The termite inspector told me that his company had been there before to treat the home for termites a few months back and they had found damage to the structure of the home and notified the former homeowner about it. The inspector found several other issues including mold, plumbing, and electrical issues. Needless to say I was floored. I loved the home and looked at having it repaired but the homeowner said no because I had missed the inspection period. Later they said they would fix some things but not all. I tried to work with them but after looking at the damage myself I saw the real extent of the damage (I'm an engineer) and knew that it was way too extensive. I told them I wanted out of the contract and they said they'd sue me if I didn't buy it.
I have proof that they knew about many of the issues and didn't disclose them on the seller's disclosure. For one, the seller's disclosure from when the current owner bought the property, only a few months ago stated that the home had been treated for termites. Also, the contract has a contingency for property condition and risk of loss. It says that the property must remain in the same or better condition as the day the contract was signed. It says that risk of loss lies with the seller if the home is damaged. I consider 2 feet of water and a partially submerged water heater to be damage.
Also, I offered a price that was reasonable for the home in the condition listed in the sellers disclosure. No bank would ever loan that amount of money for the home in this condition. The contract does state that I must be able to get a loan for the purchase amount minus a set downpayment amount. The sellers lawyer (really the seller's agent's lawyer) sent me a letter telling me that if I didn't buy the home I would be sued for the difference in selling prices once the home does sell.
I called the homeowner to try to reason with her because I had met her before and she seemed nice. She told me that she had already sold the home to someone else. My assumption is that she signed a contract with someone else for a relatively small selling price and is planning on suing me to make up the difference.
Does anyone think that I have a case here? Didn't she commit fraud by not listing everything she knew about the house truthfully? She said it had never been treated for termite damage but I have proof that she knew it had been. Also, does the flooding constitute damage worth of breaking the contract? I feel like she, her agent, and possibly her attorney are trying to sucker me out of money. I signed the contract and put down a deposit on the understanding that the home had been described properly.
To make things worse, I'm currently recovering from surgery and my doctor has told me not to make any legal decisions while I'm still on pain medication. This is all causing me a lot of stress and I'm having to try to seek out legal advice and a lawyer but I'm not feeling well enough to sit in a lawyer's office.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
I was in the process of purchasing a home that was exactly what I had been looking for. I visited the home twice and reviewed the sellers disclosure. Everything looked good so I signed a contract on it. There was nothing negative on the seller's disclosure and the homeowner told me that the home had just been rebuilt above the foundation just before she bought it six months prior. My realtor setup an inspection but the inspector wasn't able to come out in the time frame listed on the contract so my realtor sent the seller's realtor an e-mail letting her know about the inspection date. During the inspection there was a bit or rain; not a flood by any means. When the home inspector and the termite inspector tried to go into the cellar, there was about 1' of water at the entrance (which means about 2 feet in the middle of the cellar). The sump pump wasn't working and the water-heater was partially submerged and not working. The termite inspector told me that his company had been there before to treat the home for termites a few months back and they had found damage to the structure of the home and notified the former homeowner about it. The inspector found several other issues including mold, plumbing, and electrical issues. Needless to say I was floored. I loved the home and looked at having it repaired but the homeowner said no because I had missed the inspection period. Later they said they would fix some things but not all. I tried to work with them but after looking at the damage myself I saw the real extent of the damage (I'm an engineer) and knew that it was way too extensive. I told them I wanted out of the contract and they said they'd sue me if I didn't buy it.
I have proof that they knew about many of the issues and didn't disclose them on the seller's disclosure. For one, the seller's disclosure from when the current owner bought the property, only a few months ago stated that the home had been treated for termites. Also, the contract has a contingency for property condition and risk of loss. It says that the property must remain in the same or better condition as the day the contract was signed. It says that risk of loss lies with the seller if the home is damaged. I consider 2 feet of water and a partially submerged water heater to be damage.
Also, I offered a price that was reasonable for the home in the condition listed in the sellers disclosure. No bank would ever loan that amount of money for the home in this condition. The contract does state that I must be able to get a loan for the purchase amount minus a set downpayment amount. The sellers lawyer (really the seller's agent's lawyer) sent me a letter telling me that if I didn't buy the home I would be sued for the difference in selling prices once the home does sell.
I called the homeowner to try to reason with her because I had met her before and she seemed nice. She told me that she had already sold the home to someone else. My assumption is that she signed a contract with someone else for a relatively small selling price and is planning on suing me to make up the difference.
Does anyone think that I have a case here? Didn't she commit fraud by not listing everything she knew about the house truthfully? She said it had never been treated for termite damage but I have proof that she knew it had been. Also, does the flooding constitute damage worth of breaking the contract? I feel like she, her agent, and possibly her attorney are trying to sucker me out of money. I signed the contract and put down a deposit on the understanding that the home had been described properly.
To make things worse, I'm currently recovering from surgery and my doctor has told me not to make any legal decisions while I'm still on pain medication. This is all causing me a lot of stress and I'm having to try to seek out legal advice and a lawyer but I'm not feeling well enough to sit in a lawyer's office.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
