Family dream house become nightmare

In my state, I am not required to disclose anything and pay 500 dollars fee, just to shut up and inform buyer that seller is selling at as-is. That would waive any lawsuits against sellers.
Laws really varies from state to state, even down to local laws could be varied as well, so dont expect its same everywhere.

I personally would just sell house, pay 500 dollar fee not to disclose anything. I rather lose 500 dollars than risk not informing that I may not be aware and get sued in lawsuit.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...rn-from-the-sellers-disclosure-statement.html
 
diehardbiker said:
In my state, I am not required to disclose anything and pay 500 dollars fee, just to shut up and inform buyer that seller is selling at as-is. That would waive any lawsuits against sellers.
Laws really varies from state to state, even down to local laws could be varied as well, so dont expect its same everywhere.

I personally would just sell house, pay 500 dollar fee not to disclose anything. I rather lose 500 dollars than risk not informing that I may not be aware and get sued in lawsuit.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...rn-from-the-sellers-disclosure-statement.html
Click to expand...
They got sick so whose fault is it?
 
How do you expect realtor knows? They have dealt with thousands of homes sold in the past. There is no way Realtor would know beforehand without seller informing them. Its easier to believe that realtor have no clue otherwise.

The only difference is that realtor is required to inform what seller disclosed to them, if seller didn't disclose to the realtor then realtor have nothing to disclose and can't be held liable for.

Tousi said:
Still, it is hard for me to believe that the realtor didn't know about this or should have known. If it was discovered that the realtor did know, then is he culpable?
Click to expand...
 
Remember, whose fault is it when somebody rents house and made meth and got bust, is it seller's fault? It is difficult to prove who is at fault. Often, nothing can be done for a damn reason... most meth users are already at the point of being broke though legal expenses (From drug bust). Court often bankrupts convicts to the point that nobody could sue them.

CrazyPaul said:
They got sick so whose fault is it?
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
How do you expect realtor knows? They have dealt with thousands of homes sold in the past. There is no way Realtor would know beforehand without seller informing them. Its easier to believe that realtor have no clue otherwise.

The only difference is that realtor is required to inform what seller disclosed to them, if seller didn't disclose to the realtor then realtor have nothing to disclose and can't be held liable for.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the realtor is required to know. Kinda hard, it seems to me, for a real estate broker to handle and process a property of ill-repute and criminal behavior so, having said that, I was asking WHAT IF.........
 
diehardbiker said:
In my state, I am not required to disclose anything and pay 500 dollars fee, just to shut up and inform buyer that seller is selling at as-is. That would waive any lawsuits against sellers.
Laws really varies from state to state, even down to local laws could be varied as well, so dont expect its same everywhere.

I personally would just sell house, pay 500 dollar fee not to disclose anything. I rather lose 500 dollars than risk not informing that I may not be aware and get sued in lawsuit.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...rn-from-the-sellers-disclosure-statement.html
Click to expand...

So you most likely will be selling your house that will have, at minimum, 500 dollars to get up to code?
 
No, you got it wrong. 500 dollars fee is to waive all liability and sell my house AS-IS meaning that buyers can't sue me for anything period. It does not have anything to do with up to date code.

Free: Seller must disclose all information or face liability, whether seller knew it or not.

$500 fee paid: Sellers don't have to disclose anything, face zero liability.

Thats the difference.

Tousi said:
So you most likely will be selling your house that will have, at minimum, 500 dollars to get up to code?
Click to expand...
 
whatdidyousay! said:
You are not getting what I am saying . That is not want I am saying ,if a seller and realtor decided not to tell a buyer there is something wrong with a house the buyer can sues both the seller and realtor. If a realtor KNOW t Yes, if I brought a car from a so called friend and they lied about it you bet my ass I will sues them to get my money back .
Click to expand...
No Im saying you couldnt sue your friend who had no knowledge of the car as they didnt own it....or know anything other than what the 3rd party told them.
 
diehardbiker said:
How do you expect realtor knows? They have dealt with thousands of homes sold in the past. There is no way Realtor would know beforehand without seller informing them. Its easier to believe that realtor have no clue otherwise.

The only difference is that realtor is required to inform what seller disclosed to them, if seller didn't disclose to the realtor then realtor have nothing to disclose and can't be held liable for.
Click to expand...
Curious...where do realtors get info about a house like what year it was built, sq feet, etc if the sellers don't know the answers?
 
CrazyPaul said:
Yeah, that's understandable as it says if a real estate agent is aware of it, s/he must tell a buyer about it. So isn't it possible that s/he knows about it but doesn't tell a buyer about it because s/he needs a commission so badly? In post #4, you said it's not a realtor's job. Yes, it's a realtor's job to disclose it to a buyer honestly. In other words, a buyer can sue a realtor for not telling the truth if the realtor knows about it in the first place.
Click to expand...
Possible as its hard to prove if they actually knew.
 
Its pretty much surface information, when house is built, type, etc can be found on public record. But when it comes to damages, contaminated, etc there is no information in public record UNLESS insurance company paid and covered the damages. Other than that, nobody knows but sellers does... not always.

CrazyPaul said:
Curious...where do realtors get info about a house like what year it was built, sq feet, etc if the sellers don't know the answers?
Click to expand...
 
CrazyPaul said:
Curious...where do realtors get info about a house like what year it was built, sq feet, etc if the sellers don't know the answers?
Click to expand...
Recorder of deeds office for that county.

I asked the broker I was buying my house from if drugs were involved here? They didnt know so I went to the local police office to check, it only had domestic disputes, no drug involvements so it was good to go as no owners or tenants who lived here ever had a drug violation...win !
 
Right, if previous owner before this owner knew but didn't tell current owner, then current owner may not be aware of and selling house unaware of what happened before them. Its difficult to prove in the court.

In the court, judges and jury tend not care about verbal witness, they care more hard documented evidences, most of the time homeowner don't document anything so the burden of proof weakens at this point due to the fact that most attorney would object as "What ifs" Once there is "What ifs" proved to be possibility then the case goes dead without hard documented evidence.

sonocativo said:
Possible as its hard to prove if they actually knew.
Click to expand...
 
Still, cops may not be aware that there was drug activities that have come and gone. Sometimes addict would get paranoid, pack up and move before getting bust, then how would you know for certain?

sonocativo said:
Recorder of deeds office for that county.

I asked the broker I was buying my house from if drugs were involved here? They didnt know so I went to the local police office to check, it only had domestic disputes, no drug involvements so it was good to go as no owners or tenants who lived here ever had a drug violation...win !
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Remember, whose fault is it when somebody rents house and made meth and got bust, is it seller's fault? It is difficult to prove who is at fault. Often, nothing can be done for a damn reason... most meth users are already at the point of being broke though legal expenses (From drug bust). Court often bankrupts convicts to the point that nobody could sue them.
Click to expand...
If there was a drug bust, I am sure cops report it to an owner of the rent house as well as a city hall, therefore if the owner wants to sell the house, I believe s/he is required to inform a realtor or buyer because meth is chemically dangerous and can cause deaths of the new buyer and family as well. In other words, the owner is responsible to clean it up before selling.
 
Now you see, you just used term "IF".

Term "Ifs" in court room generally don't carry much value of evidence.

CrazyPaul said:
If there was a drug bust, I am sure cops report it to an owner of the rent house as well as a city hall, therefore if the owner wants to sell the house, I believe s/he is required to inform a realtor or buyer because meth is chemically dangerous and can cause deaths of the new buyer and family as well. In other words, the owner is responsible to clean it up before selling.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Now you see, you just used term "IF".

Term "Ifs" in court room generally don't carry much value of evidence.
Click to expand...
OK, can I change "if" to "when"? For example, "when there was a drug bust..." Would that make a difference to you? :hmm:
 
I didnt read that one. did they have inspector to check the house before they bought a house?? sorry if i ask you all about that one. LOL
 
Back
Top