Let's give a little hypothetical story here:
Let's say you come into some money, and you buy that nice 3 bedroom house on the lake. You buy it through a real estate agency, and of course there's a lawyer there to supervise the paperwork. You live there happily for about 3 1/2 years.
One of you becomes older, maybe has hit a decline in health and is finding the 40 minute drive to work/town strenous on a daily basis. So you put the house up for sale and decide to move back into town where the drive will be shorter, and medical provisions will be closer.
You go to the same real estate agency you bought it from and they list it but as a 1 bedroom house. "What's up with this" you say? Well it seems the house has only been approved for a one bedroom septic, and has always been this way. You have two good offers on the house, but both fall through when the parties learn of the one bedroom septic. Now you have a one bedroom house where you should have a three.
So ya get mad after the second deal falls through and you call that lawyer who was there at the signing, and you say, "hey remember when I bought the house, and you said if anything should ever come up that wrong here to give you call? Well I'm calling you" The lawyer goes on to babble something about soomething and says to call someone else. You remind the lawyer about that money you paid them at the signing, and they give a cop out. Totally uninterested in the story now.
If the house is listed as a three bedroom, and bought as a three bedroom, but can only be sold as a one bedroom, is this illegal?
sounds like you got screwed in the first deal but maybe you can
prove neglegence on the original inspector. If you can't you are left
with having to upgrade the septic system, then go back to the
three bedroom thing. Of course that will eat into your equity.
Tough call. Maybe you can sue the original lawyer, he should have
known about the substandard condition. Of course he doesn't want
to know you, he screwed up and only the exchange of money from
his hands to yours will fix the issue. But lawyers have this idea money
should only go one way, from you to them.
Originally posted by sonhouseIs it false advertising?
sounds like you got screwed in the first deal but maybe you can
prove neglegence on the original inspector. If you can't you are left
with having to upgrade the septic system, then go back to the
three bedroom thing. Of course that will eat into your equity.
Tough call. Maybe you can sue the original lawyer, he should have
known about the substandar ...[text shortened]... will fix the issue. But lawyers have this idea money
should only go one way, from you to them.
Originally posted by NyxieI would suggest that the hypothetical home buyer/owner's wrath is misplaced; they should be complaining to the real estate company, not the lawyer. Lawyers don't physically inspect houses in real estate transactions, they get the information from the buyers, sellers, brokers, title companies, etc. and incorporate that information into the necessary legal documents. Most standard real estate contracts in New York have "as is" clauses which mean that the buyer agree to take the property "as is"; it is generally their responsibility to have whatever inspections they want done done. If the seller or broker deliberately mirepresented something about the house or failed to disclose a hidden, material defect the hypothetical home buyer might have legal recourse against the seller or broker.
Let's give a little hypothetical story here:
Let's say you come into some money, and you buy that nice 3 bedroom house on the lake. You buy it through a real estate agency, and of course there's a lawyer there to supervise the paperwork ...[text shortened]... e bedroom, but can only be sold as a one bedroom, is this illegal?
Originally posted by no1marauderI was talking about the real estate agency. I wanted the lawyer to help me go after them, after all that is why we payed him I thought. He did say call him if....
I would suggest that the hypothetical home buyer/owner's wrath is misplaced; they should be complaining to the real estate company, not the lawyer. Lawyers don't physically inspect houses in real estate transactions, they get the information from the buyers, sellers, brokers, title companies, etc. and incorporate that information into the necessa ...[text shortened]... erial defect the hypothetical home buyer might have legal recourse against the seller or broker.
The real estate agency hid the septic only being approved for a one bedroom from me, they or the sellers.
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo, title insurance is to make sure that there no defects in the title to the property; it does not deal with the physical conditions of the premises.
is that what title insurance is for? ....
I don't think the same lawyer is legally or ethically bound to represent you in a later action against the real estate company for a defect that he had no reasonable way of knowing. "Call me if you have any problems" is a standard way for a lawyer to say "adios"; the phrase does not require a lifetime commitment.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm such a literalist.
No, title insurance is to make sure that there no defects in the title to the property; it does not deal with the physical conditions of the premises.
I don't think the same lawyer is legally or ethically bound to represent you in a later action against the real estate company for a defect that he had no reasonable way of knowing. ...[text shortened]... a standard way for a lawyer to say "adios"; the phrase does not require a lifetime commitment.
But botom line here : If they hid this fact from me, and it has caused me a hardship in my attempts to resell the property. Is it a litigation issue?
It might depend on the state. I recently bought an old honda
and THEN found out about carfax which showed it had twice the miles
as the speedo said. Then the engine went out, I had already pumped
2000 bucks into other repairs and now about 1300 more for an
overhaul. I talked to a lawyer and he said if I had gotten it from
a car dealer I would have a case but buying it from a private party,
the private seller is held to lower standards than a dealer and the
old title said "odometer except"
That meant it didn't matter if the the guy said it had 3 miles on it and
the odometer said 3 miles but it really had 300,000 miles,
tough luck. I have no case. In other words I got legally screwed.
I had even worse problems than that if you can believe it.
The idiots I (another idiot) bought it from butchered the brakes.
I mean literally. They chopped the central nut almost in two pieces
trying to get it off but were not successful. The other one they got off
and changed the rotor. So I had one new rotor and one terrible rotor
in front. He told me it had "New Brakes". Well it was worse than that
even. They replaced the brake fluid with what we think was power
steering fluid. The brakes were ok for a couple of days but
then when my mechanic got the chopped up nut off and replaced that
rotor, the next day he looked at it and it was blue! this comes from
heat. It turned out the power steering fluid did a number on the master cylinder and caused it to stick in the braking position.
In other words when you hit the brake pedal it stuck in the braking
position. When they found that they said you better not drive it
home or you are libel to get into an accident, the brakes could fail
catastophically. So I stayed in a hotel in another state almost 100 miles from home, for 2 days, total cost just for the hotel, near 200 bucks, till the brakes were fixed. Telling all this to the lawyer he
says I really feel for you but it will not sway a judge if the title says
odometer excempt. So it was a case of Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware. The lawyer said if I tried and even won, I would be lucky
to get 500 bucks back and of course there would be the lawyers fee so I would end up with mostly nothing for my trouble. So in your case it
might depend on the local ordinances and any fine print in the title.
Like the other guys said, you may have a case against the original
inspector. You need to consult with an independent lawyer on this, not
the one who handled your case, maybe you can get a free half hour with a couple three lawyers. I certainly would not let it rest there.
For instance, you say it is 'zoned' for one bedroom. Was there an
upgrade from the time it was first built? Did the previous owner build it
himself? Can you check the whole history of the house, when was it
first buit, was there additions added on to make it 3 bedrooms. If
so, was it inspected then? If not, maybe you have a case against the
original owners. But you need a good lawyer not our spouting off!
Originally posted by Nyxie
I'm such a literalist.
But botom line here : If they hid this fact from me, and it has caused me a hardship in my attempts to resell the property. Is it a litigation issue?
surely yes
do you guys have negligent misstatement in the states?
that's what the claim would be in the uk, so i assume you have some similar...