Pool leakage discovered after home purchase

[clara1160]

Hello, we just bought a house in Cocoa, Florida. This purchase was not "as is" purchase at all. Seller verbally confirmed the pool is 100% no leakage, great condition. Disclosure never spoke about any issue. Theregore we did not et a pool inspector. During home inspection pool was covered and seller was not there. Seller did not have pool service, she did all by herself. After we bought a house and scheduled our pool service, it was discovered, there is a huuuuge evaporation[3inches in 4days]and
did bucket test and called pool pros to look at it.After testing with red dye,pool is leaking at 10 spots-piping,crack down the drain,skimmer leak,seller dis"cheap"plumbing herself,painted pipes that shouldn't be painted,covered cracked spots in skimmer with silicone...We can't turn on the pump because of this huge water loss we don't want to burn it.We were told this is an ongoing issue and seller must have known this for months. Never disclosed.Any chance to get$8000repair cost paid by seller?

 

[Zigner]

If the seller won't pay this voluntarily, then you'll need to take her to court. The small claims limit in Florida is $5,000, so if you want to go after the full $8,000, you'll have to do it in "regular" court.
You are going to have to have some sort of expert testimony (in person, not just a written document) that the leaking must have been known to the prior owner.

 

[adjusterjack]

we did not get a pool inspector.

Now you know. Never trust anything anybody tells you when they are selling you something.

 

[xylene]

If the person is an idoit, its possible they were just not realizing it.

But with regards to the expense shocking you, I'm gonna add one big caveat to you as a pool owner:

Consider filling it in.

 

[FlyingRon]

Understand that despite your protestations, home sales regardless of what disclosures are made or what representations are made, are indeed AS IS.
To prevail here, you'd have to show that the seller knew that there was a problem with the pool. Disclosure doesn't mean there's not anything wrong, it's just that the seller is unaware of anything wrong. If the seller was a harry homeowner doing all his own work, it's quite possible they were unaware of problems.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Understand that despite your protestations, home sales regardless of what disclosures are made or what representations are made, are indeed AS IS.

I disagree. First of all, most NEW home sales are not as is and do indeed include warranties. Indeed, some states have laws mandating certain warranties for new homes. While the vast majority of prior owned home sales are as is, there certainly could be sales in which one or more warranties are made. So what is said in the purchase contract does very much matter.

 

[quincy]

Seller disclosure forms have disclaimers galore.

They almost always state something along the lines that information disclosed is correct "to the best of seller's current knowledge." They will advise a buyer to obtain a professional inspection. And they will include a statement that says that the disclosures are not intended to be, nor should they be considered, part of the seller-buyer contract for purchase of the property.

Standard disclosure forms will have check boxes where the seller can check off problems with property fixtures as "none/not included" or "defective" or "not defective" or "not known."

It is very difficult to hold a seller to what the seller says about the property if what was said is not reflected in the purchase agreement that is signed by both parties.

 

[justalayman]

the courts of Florida have ruled that even in an “as is” sale, the seller must disclose known defects. If you can prove the seller knew about the leaks, you have a shot at getting some satisfaction out of this.

There are a few situstion where disclosure forms become meaningless or nearly so. If this was not an owner occupied home, it becomes harder to prove knowledge of a defect. In situations where the seller is a flipper and never lived in the home it is very difficult to prove knowledge of a defect.

So, was this an owner occupied home? Any idea how long they owned it?

 

[clara1160]

the courts of Florida have ruled that even in an “as is” sale, the seller must disclose known defects. If you can prove the seller knew about the leaks, you have a shot at getting some satisfaction out of this.

There are a few situstion where disclosure forms become meaningless or nearly so. If this was not an owner occupied home, it becomes harder to prove knowledge of a defect. In situations where the seller is a flipper and never lived in the home it is very difficult to prove knowledge of a defect.

So, was this an owner occupied home? Any idea how long they owned it?

To my knowledge she lived there until she sold the house to us. Looks like more than 20years. This house was never vacant until we bought it...

 

[HighwayMan]

Honestly, I think your best bet at this point is to speak with the real estate attorney who handled your purchase. He/she would best be able to advise you if you have any options at this point.

 

[FlyingRon]

Yes TM, a warranty could have been expressed, but I suspect the poster is merely mistaken that a home has to be specifically declared an "as is" sale. Unlike other things, real estate sales are by default AS IS unless something specifically states a warranty. Disclosures being made or not doesn't change this.

With $8000+ in repairs, it would behoove the poster to speak to an attorney who can see what exactly were the conditions of the sale.
Chances are, unless you have some compelling reason to believe the seller KNEW the pool had a leak, it will be futile.

 

[justalayman]

Well, based on what op described I would say they have a decent shot at showing seller was aware of leaks

After we bought a house and scheduled our pool service, it was discovered, there is a huuuuge evaporation[3inches in 4days]and
did bucket test and called pool pros to look at it.After testing with red dye,pool is leaking at 10 spots-piping,crack down the drain,skimmer leak,seller dis"cheap"plumbing herself,painted pipes that shouldn't be painted,covered cracked spots in skimmer with silicone

So if the seller stated there were no leaks on the disclosure form, I would say they have a fighting chance of prevailing in the argument

 

[quincy]

Well, based on what op described I would say they have a decent shot at showing seller was aware of leaks

So if the seller stated there were no leaks on the disclosure form, I would say they have a fighting chance of prevailing in the argument

A fighting chance, perhaps. The cost for repairs seems to justify the cost of consulting with a real estate attorney, at any rate.

Although the recent post-sale inspection might show evidence of past leaks, it can be difficult to prove seller's knowledge of recent leaks. Seller's fixes to the pipes might have worked to stop leaks for the seller. It could depend on how long ago the pool was used by the seller.

The purchase agreement could have/should have included a contingency, making the purchase of the home contingent on a satisfactory pool inspection. It is pre-sale that a prospective buyer has the best chance of having a seller agree to take on the costs of repairs (or reduce sales price to reflect buyer's costs to repair).

 

[justalayman]

Past leaks?


The large amount of loss suggests either a catastrophic event or long term leaks. (That’s a lot of water loss) That can be determined by an inspection.

The diy repairs suggest seller has a knowledge of plumbing and a need to employ it suggesting the seller would have known if it needed repairs.

The poorly patched cracks suggest a knowledge of leaks and the attempts (seemingly unsuccessful) attempts to repair leaks

Given the house was never vacant, it reduces the possibility the leaks were unknown.

I’m not arguing it’s ya Quincy, merely pointing out that the issue, as described, strongly suggests the seller was aware of issues that would likely need to be disclosed. The biggest issue not known, in my mind, is what was stated on the disclosure form.

 

[quincy]

Past leaks?


The large amount of loss suggests either a catastrophic event or long term leaks. (That’s a lot of water loss) That can be determined by an inspection.

The diy repairs suggest seller has a knowledge of plumbing and a need to employ it suggesting the seller would have known if it needed repairs.

The poorly patched cracks suggest a knowledge of leaks and the attempts (seemingly unsuccessful) attempts to repair leaks

Given the house was never vacant, it reduces the possibility the leaks were unknown.

I’m not arguing it’s ya Quincy, merely pointing out that the issue, as described, strongly suggests the seller was aware of issues that would likely need to be disclosed. The biggest issue not known, in my mind, is what was stated on the disclosure form.

Oh. I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I can see what the seller would argue, though, and I think they are good arguments - absent any additional facts.

It really is on the purchaser to inspect the property prior to purchase. The failure to inspect was a mistake that could be a costly one for Clara. If the disclosure form indicates "not known" or "defective" or left blank, Clara is unlikely have a claim against the seller that will be successful.