just bought a house with structural defects and more. (Huntington: sale, real estate)

[johnPW]

I bought a house one year ago. Its a small 1880 house. Most of the floors are sinking, and other small appearent defects that we did not mind, we accepted. We had the house inspected by a local PE and the report concluded that the house was STRUCTURALLY SOUND. The basement
was casually described as not adequately supported, but the building was SOUND.
After several months we noticed that the walls of the basement (a light cover of cement over soil) were gradually cracking and soil would come down.
We called a structural engineer to learn what was causing the cracking..
and we now know that we will need to put a "confining wall" against the "dirt existing walls"..and srtop the falling dirt..,and to run new supporting beams etc.. etc..
The first inspector that we used was suggested by the real estate. He really did not address the real problems in this house but described small problems such as humidity in the basement and plumbery to be brough to code..and single pane windows (that we have changed already).
What kind of liability a PE inspector has.. and what about the real estate who recommended this inspector...and how about the fact that a Certificate of Occupancy was not produced at closing saying that at the time the house was build they did not issue one.. (the attorneys said that)
I accepted these facts as my real estate agent and my closing attorney were there "I suppose" to help protect my interests...and they did not object.

Anybody can help me on this..? I am so very much worried..

[omigawd]

The real estate agent works for the SELLER not the buyer. Also, you should never, ever use a person "suggested" by someone trying to sell you something. No Certificate of Occupancy? Well, in 1880, I'm sure they didn't exist. However, this is 2008.......

Hope it's not going to cost you a fortune to fix (unless, of course, you got the house at an extremely low price)

[franaissance]

I think CO's are not needed for older structures, just a certificate of occupancy. How strange that the basement wall was not adequately supported, yet he his additional statement made it appear that it was not a big deal.

It can't hurt to bring this to a real estate attorney that has experience with litigation (not just your run of the mill buy/sell attorney which are everywhere). Your initial consultation should be free.

I know of someone very highly regarded in real estate in the Huntington area, let me know if you need it. I think he does this...If there is a cause of action, I am sure the sellers will want to settle rather than run the cost of litigation....and now they do have the money (your money)...

[omigawd]

Originally Posted by franaissance

I think CO's are not needed for older structures, just a certificate of occupancy.

I thought a CO is a Certificate of Occupancy?

[franaissance]

Originally Posted by omigawd

I thought a CO is a Certificate of Occupancy?

LOL. I just caught that. There is another thing...I can't recall the name now, obviously....

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by franaissance

LOL. I just caught that. There is another thing...I can't recall the name now, obviously....

You may have been thinking of a "Letter in Lieu"...

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by johnPW

I bought a house one year ago. Its a small 1880 house. Most of the floors are sinking, and other small appearent defects that we did not mind, we accepted. We had the house inspected by a local PE and the report concluded that the house was STRUCTURALLY SOUND. The basement
was casually described as not adequately supported, but the building was SOUND.
..

So sorry to hear you're having this problem.

Do you (still) have a written report? If so, does it have a disclaimer regarding the opinion given? With a disclaimer, I believe it'll be more difficult to sue successfully (but I'm not an attorney!). If you decide to go to an attorney, I'm sure s/he will ask for this.

Unfortunately, some RE agents may recommend inspectors that will do less than a thorough inspection, or at least not alarm the potential buyers for fear they'll kill the deal... Ideally, the buyer should be given more than one recommendation. As in other things, goes back to "ethics" and "trust"...

[llama8]

I'm confused, I thuoght you needed a Certificate of occupancy and a title to own a home. At least when I bought my home that was what I was told. Our seller had to go back and apply for any co's he didn't have for us to buy to the house. Can you sell without a co? I would look into that.

Also, in the future, never use anyone recommended by the seller's real estate agent. They are not working for you. They want to make a sale and if those defects were found, you probably wouldn't buy the home. The seller's agent tried to give us lawyers and inspectors he recommended and we made sure we got our own. You have to protect yourself. Unfortunately many people are not honest and trustworthy. Good Luck.

[totallyfrazzled]

Originally Posted by franaissance

LOL. I just caught that. There is another thing...I can't recall the name now, obviously....

You're thinking of a CC ... Certificate of Compliance. That's what's used for something that's already been built or installed, either prior to the existig codes or without the proper permits originally. It serves the same purpose of a C of O.

If you want to split hairs semantically, a Certificate of OCCUPANCY technically refers to the dwelling or structure as a whole; but most people just use the generic term CO to refer to COs, CCs, and anything else that a town issues to certify that the build or change was done "by the book".

As to the issue with the inspector, one of the major rules of house buying is to NEVER EVER use someone who is recommended by the seller's agent. Personally I would never even use someone recommended by ANY agent. Remember that famous line in "Jerry Maguire"? "Just follow the money." If someone stands to gain financially from a transaction, they have a vested interest in making sure that the transaction goes through; therefore they are going to do everything they can to avoid introducing a monkey wrench into the works.

As to whether a house can be sold without a CO or CC .... Yes it is possible but only under certain circumstances. If the buyer is getting a mortgage, the bank will (or should) want all COs or CCs to be in place. However if a buyer is paying cash, that factor goes away. I bought my last house (for cash) even though the seller did not have a CO for the patio that had been enclosed and made into a room. But I had to get a CC for it before I put the house on the market several years later.

When you say "without a title", there's a difference between a deed (which yes there must be) and "clear title". "Clear title" means that there are no legal entanglements that might come back to bite the buyer later on; this is why people get (and banks require) title insurance policies. But the deed and title have nothing to do with COs, CCs, or the physical condition of the property. You can have a house that's literally falling down around your ears and still have a valid deed and clear title.

[Arron]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but going into buying a house that old, knowing up front the floors were sinking, the fact that it was mentioned, even if 'casually' as you describe, that the basement was not properly supported... well these things should have raised some MAJOR flags. That is the time you should have called in the structural engineer.

Before trying to sue everyone remember that you have your own personal responsibility for the situation you are in. The RE agent, inspector, and attorney did not force you to close on this property. Did they disclose everything? Maybe maybe not but it's too late now. It was your responsibility at the time given the age and condition of the house to make YOUR decision.

And if you do decide to take legal action I fear that all the inspector has to say is that at the time (a year ago) it was his opinion that the structure was sound. It might even be the truth.