Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now the question is, if the inspector didn't find mold, then how do we know there was mold? The seller didn't know there was mold. Nobody seemed to know there was mold. How can the seller be liable for something they didn't know? They knew there was a leak, but then so did the buyers—the inspector told them.
If the buyers didn't know to look for mold, if the agent didn't know to look for mold, and if the seller's agent didn't advise the seller to look for mold, then why should the seller know either? It seems like nobody knew anything, but yet the existence of a leak (potential for mold) was made known, so the seller wasn't trying to lie or cover up the leak.
It seems kind of screwy to me. The seller would not have put the house of for sale if it had mold. Whether or not they "should have" known, it isn't like they willfully set out to pawn off a moldy house on the new buyers. This is the kind of stuff that SHOULD be sufficiently covered by the inspection. People should know to act upon what the inspector tells them. What else are inspectors there for?
Agreed. Buyers knew there was a leak, and nobody (including a trained certified home inspector) had any idea that mold was present. Buyers had the option to inspect for mold after discovering the leak and elected not to.
The fault rests squarely on the buyers' shoulders, which may include their agent and inspector but I doubt it. I'd definitely wait for something from a lawyer before paying a lawyer.
For the millionth time... the OP "had forgotten" about it.... which implies the leak happened "in the past"... which typically means "long standing" if it still hadn't been fixed.
He KNEW about it...... I don't know exactly how long it had been going on because that it is not detailed in the post.... but I'm willing to bet it was for a lengthy period of time.... The OP failed to answer me when I asked how long.
He also did NOT list this defect on the Seller's disclosure..... in fact, if the inspector "missed" it he would have been happy as a clam.
Yes, people buy houses "As-Is" with defects all the time.
Unfortunately in this case, they did not know the extent of it.... and the extent of that damage was caused by the seller's negligence.
Personally, I do hope the Seller is found to be at least partially culpable here.... yeah, yeah, yeah, put it on the buyers and their inspector, but I'm not sure how he in good conscience feels like he is in the right.
Yes, he forgot about it between the time he saw it in the inspection report and the time he was packing to move out. That doesn't mean it's a long term problem. In my experience, it's approximately 2-3 weeks between inspection and closing. Not long term to me.
Buyers under the law, are not expected to really understand potential problems. Telling them there was a leak, they would assume it was easy to fix. They are not expected to know the damage a leak can cause. The inspector did not find mold, as he is not authorized to tear into the wall, etc., to find it.
I agree with this which is why I think it would hard to prove the seller knew the house had mold or disclose there was potential mold. He is a consumer as well.
I agree with this which is why I think it would hard to prove the seller knew the house had mold or disclose there was potential mold. He is a consumer as well.
This is what I'm thinking too. Real estate agents, who are presumably trained to think of these things, didn't think of these things. So it's common for real estate agents don't know...but it's common that sellers do?
But we are to assume that the seller knew and willfully concealed it? Except they didn't, because the inspector revealed it? So basically everyone knew about the leak (aka mold possibility), but nobody "knew" to ask for info on mold, except for the seller, who supposedly did "know" and was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of all these professionals...
Mold is a serious problem, to the point that the Realtors magazine brought it to their attention, especially brought on by California making a new law concerning revealing mold way back in 2001.
The inspector brought to the buyers attention there was a water leak. Of course the mold is hidden, but the fact that it takes time for mold to develop, a new leak would not be causing mold, so the fact that mold was discovered means it was a long standing water leak the seller was well aware of, and his girlfriend even told him that there was the bad (mold) smell that he comply ignored. Apparently the buyer assumed it was a new leak easily repaired and if not from California would have not idea the damage even a small water leak can cause mold to develop in California.
Look at the legal judgement mentioned in Texas over a home sold with mold. There have been lots of them.
Here is a good legal article on what happens if there is a standing problem with property you purchased.
NOTE: I took some good legal classes at a major university, about real estate laws and problems. I was taught knowledgeable legal council will tell the injured party to send a demand letter. This is the first step before bringing in an attorney and filing suit. Exactly what the buyer has done, which so many of you seem not mean anything and the seller is ignoring. The fact that the attorney told the OP to just ignore it, indicates that the attorney is not a personal liability or real estate attorney. We were taught, that the demand letter being ignored strengthens the position of the one doing the suing. It says you wanted to make this painless as possible for both sides, but the one being sued would not make any attempt to discuss the problem with you and prevent it going to court.
You can count on, the buyer sent the demand, and is preparing to bring suit if the seller does nothing.
And as not revealing a problem that exists concerning Mold which is one thing that is required to be revealed in California, the buyer has a strong case.
Note: Mold removal can cost from $500 to tens of thousands of dollars, so $9,000 is not out of reason as some seem to think.
The seller did not reveal the long standing water leak, which in itself is required to be revealed according to their mold disclosure laws. Factors that could cause mold, includes if the roof has been leaking (which can cause mold) as an example, it must be revealed to the buyer.
The Realtors involved may also be included in the lawsuit. If they have any feeling that the seller hid the mold problem from them, when they get on the stand in the lawsuit they will throw the seller under the bus as they say every time to protect themselves and be left out of any judgement.
What, specifically, do you find to make the OP responsible here in any way? If he had no recollection of an earlier leak he could not have reported it in the disclosure form. No one has suggested that the OP had any knowledge, at any time, of a mold situation.
All the legal classes and real estate classes you've taken don't give you a superior understanding of any potential problem here and none of your links speak to any statute that points to the OP's liability, but rather seem to be largely from marketing sites for law firms.
So now the question is, if the inspector didn't find mold, then how do we know there was mold? The seller didn't know there was mold. Nobody seemed to know there was mold. How can the seller be liable for something they didn't know? They knew there was a leak, but then so did the buyers—the inspector told them.
The OP said at the start of the post, that he had forgotten he had a leak under his sink, when he was making out the disclosure statement. He knew he had a long time leak, and chose not to reveal it. The way the California law is, the seller is asked if there are water problems which range from leaks under the sink, and other places including a leaking roof that can cause mold. He did not reveal it. He also said that his girl friend told him, about the odor (mold) and he ignored it saying his nose is stuffy and he cannot smell. The answer is he knew he had a potential problem, but kept that knowledge to himself.
Quote:
If the buyers didn't know to look for mold, if the agent didn't know to look for mold, and if the seller's agent didn't advise the seller to look for mold, then why should the seller know either? It seems like nobody knew anything, but yet the existence of a leak (potential for mold) was made known, so the seller wasn't trying to lie or cover up the leak.
The California law, requires the notice to be given, if there is a water leak like existed. The seller by not making this known in his disclosure statement, was in effect trying to cover up his knowledge about the leak, which he admits he had the knowledge of. The Realtors, are also supposed to be knowledgeable enough to tell the buyer and the seller a mold inspector should be called in. They also did not do their job.
Quote:
It seems kind of screwy to me. The seller would not have put the house of for sale if it had mold. Whether or not they "should have" known, it isn't like they willfully set out to pawn off a moldy house on the new buyers. This is the kind of stuff that SHOULD be sufficiently covered by the inspection. People should know to act upon what the inspector tells them. What else are inspectors there for?
The inspector notified them of the leak. That was all he could observe. The Realtor is the expert on such transactions and should have suggested a mold inspector be called in. Especially the selling agent and his broker. Here is how a mold inspector finds mold. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohl3BD81KjA
Quote:
What, specifically, do you find to make the OP responsible here in any way? If he had no recollection of an earlier leak he could not have reported it in the disclosure form. No one has suggested that the OP had any knowledge, at any time, of a mold situation.
The problem is, the OP admitted at the start of this post, that he knew there was a leak, but said he forgot to list it, or did not do it on purpose you choose which.
He also admitted that his girl friend smelt the mold, but as he has a stuffed up head and no ability to smell he did not smell it or reveal it as required by California law.
He knew there was a disclosure problem, and failed to reveal it as required by law.
California Civil Code §1102 requires every person who sells or transfers title to residential real estate must disclose all facts that materially affect the value or desirability of the property. Individual sellers must comply with California Civil Code §1102, which requires the seller, the listing (seller's) agent, and the buyer's agent to complete and deliver to all prospective buyers a standardized form containing information about the property, commonly referred to as a transfer disclosure statement (TDS). One factor that is required to reveal, is there any water leaks, etc., that would cause mold, such as a roof that leaks when it rains, leaks in plumbing, etc. and if mold exists it must be revealed.
Real estate agents are also required to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale and to disclose to a prospective buyer all facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that an investigation would reveal.
The agents are also required to reveal problems that are discovered by inspectors, and any additional steps that need to be taken such as a mold inspector needing called in if there is a water problem.
Seller failed to reveal the water leak which was long standing, and when his girl friend smelt the mold problem, he again failed to reveal it.
And yes, the Realtors involved screwed up, and should have warned the buyer to bring in a mold inspector. That is their job to protect the buyer who is considered innocent as he is not an expert but relying on real estate professionals for advice.
Quote:
You can tear that wood out and replace it for 300 bucks tops.
This shows you have no knowledge of solving hidden mold problems. It can involve a lot of damage that is spread far beyond where it started. There are houses when they dig into the mold problem, they find it will cost several tens of thousands of dollars to do an extensive removal and rebuild. Some have even been condemned.
This shows you have no knowledge of solving hidden mold problems. It can involve a lot of damage that is spread far beyond where it started. There are houses when they dig into the mold problem, they find it will cost several tens of thousands of dollars to do an extensive removal and rebuild. Some have even been condemned.
Another believer in the mold remediation scam business?
This is what I'm thinking too. Real estate agents, who are presumably trained to think of these things, didn't think of these things. So it's common for real estate agents don't know...but it's common that sellers do?
Nope. Realtors are trained to do the Hogan's Heroes Sargent Shultz "I see nothing. I hear nothing. I know nothing." thing. If they know of an issue about a property and don't disclose it to the buyer, they can be sued over it.
Sounds like extortion. Have your attorney advise you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
