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.
I deleted my previous post because I believe there may be a misunderstanding on how the OP's post is being interpreted.
Some (like me) are interpreting the OP's post as he discovering the leak weeks/months/etc. before selling the house, and then "forgetting" about it while failing to have it officially written into the Seller's disclosure.
Others are interpreting this as the OP having no clue about the leak until it was discovered by the buyer's inspector... and it was only then that the OP had become aware of the issue.
Now that I re-read the original post, I can see how one can make assumptions either way, so we would want the OP to clarify the actual chain of events.
So I just wanted to clarify my thoughts:
If the OP knew about this leak well before the inspection - I believe he is liable
If the OP did not find out about this leak until after the inspection - Then I do agree, that he should NOT be liable
I deleted my previous post because I believe there may be a misunderstanding on how the OP's post is being interpreted.
Some (like me) are interpreting the OP's post as he discovering the leak weeks/months/etc. before selling the house, and then "forgetting" about it while failing to have it officially written into the Seller's disclosure.
Others are interpreting this as the OP having no clue about the leak until it was discovered by the buyer's inspector... and it was only then that the OP had become aware of the issue.
Now that I re-read the original post, I can see how one can make assumptions either way, so we would want the OP to clarify the actual chain of events.
So I just wanted to clarify my thoughts:
If the OP knew about this leak well before the inspection - I believe he is liable
If the OP did not find out about this leak until after the inspection - Then I do agree, that he should NOT be liable
If he knew about the leak how is the new owner going to prove it?
If the OP knew about this leak well before the inspection - I believe he is liable
If the OP did not find out about this leak until after the inspection - Then I do agree, that he should NOT be liable
If the OP knew about the leak and it was not disclosed, he could be liable. If the OP knew that the leak created mold and did not disclose it, he could be liable. Neither of those circumstances are what happened here.
Seller's knowledge of the leak became irrelevant the moment that the BUYER'S (my emphasis) inspector reported that there was a leak under the sink. At that point the buyer could inquire about the seller's knowledge of the leak and/or damage, require the leak be repaired, inspect further to determine if any damage may have occurred (which would reveal any mold, as well as any other water damage), or continue with the purchase. The buyer opted to continue with no further action.
Seller has stated he had no knowledge of the mold. Assuming that to be true, that puts the buyer in the position of proving that the seller had prior knowledge of the mold. All those other comments about what people smelled or how long he knew are speculative and irrelevant because the leak was disclosed. So, my approach would be a bit different. If I was the seller and did not have knowledge about the mold, I would reply with a simple letter stating that I did not know about any mold. I would not be sorry or apologize or feel their pain, I would keep it to what I knew and didn't know. If this goes any further, that's what the seller is going to say, so he can say it now.
If he knew about the leak how is the new owner going to prove it?
That's the saddest part of it all... if he DID know about the leak previously and acted obliviously to the inspection report... then yes it will be hard to prove.
I have never said that the buyer would win out here... Only that if he knew and didn't disclose, he is liable.... and if he were to go in front of judge, he would be perjuring himself to say otherwise.
But hey, liars/cheaters get away with much more in this world... such is life...
Sounds like they just want some cash and are threatening with the hope you will just pay up and not say anything. The whole baby, mold situation is used as a fear tactic to get you to pay up without thinking twice.
That's the saddest part of it all... if he DID know about the leak previously and acted obliviously to the inspection report... then yes it will be hard to prove.
I have never said that the buyer would win out here... Only that if he knew and didn't disclose, he is liable.... and if he were to go in front of judge, he would be perjuring himself to say otherwise. But hey, liars/cheaters get away with much more in this world... such is life...
Quote:
Sounds like they just want some cash and are threatening with the hope you will just pay up and not say anything. The whole baby, mold situation is used as a fear tactic to get you to pay up without thinking twice.
The law requires that a seller list any water problem such as that leak, that can cause mold. Including plumbing leaks, roof leaks when it rains, among other things.
Being there was a leak (had to be long standing) and did not reveal it as required by law, is all the proof needed, the way the law is written.
Here are examples of what happens when seller does not reveal water leaks and mold.
Some of these suits, are what happens when a leak or other water source causes mold.
Some of you think it is not a serious problem, not to inform the buyer about a leak. By law, it is considered FRAUD not to reveal. And as the owner did not reveal about the leak, he will be unable to prove he did not know about the mold.
In fact a good attorney, can make the jury or judge feel that the owner knew about the mold, and did not reveal the leak and problem to sell the home without going to a great amount of trouble and money to solve the mold problem and repair it.
In fact the OP has stated that his girl friend told him about the smell of mold under the sink, but as he has a smelling problem due to nose being stuffed up, he could not smell it, or that is what he claimed.
OP says the new owner will not let his daughter and grandchild live on the property due to the mold. When the house is sitting empty like it is, and the buyer has sent a demand letter, which is the first step if you are going to sue someone and any good attorney would have recommended it before filing suit, the law suit is on the way. Reason for the demand letter, is to prove that the seller has no intention of solving the mold problem or even to discuss it. It strengthens the case for the buyer.
The seller did not reveal the leak which had to be long standing for the mold to grow, he does not have a leg to stand on in the court. He may very well be ordered to pay for the repairs, plus both attorney fees and court costs, and possibly cost to live somewhere else while the suit is going on and while repairs are done. Don't be surprised if the is also awarded punitive damages to punish the seller for not revealing the problem.
In California the two most important things that the seller must reveal are: 1: Water leaks that can cause mold and/or mold. 2: Termite damage and infestation.
Some of you think it is not a serious problem, not to inform the buyer about a leak. By law, it is considered FRAUD not to reveal. And as the owner did not reveal about the leak, he will be unable to prove he did not know about the mold.
The OP knew he had a leak. He said he forgot about it as it was a small leak and he only kept a couple of things under the kitchen sink so he never opened it. When the inspector found it then he remembered about the leak. So the issue is...if someone forgets to disclose, which happens A LOT in my experience, and then the inspector catches it, does it relieve the seller of any disclosure issues? The seller didn't intentionally not disclose the leak. Fraud requires a deliberate deception with the intent to deceive at the time it was made. The OP doesn't sound like he was deliberate, just forgetful like 90% of sellers out there are. I just don't see that here, but that would be up to an arbitrator to decide.
I have also never seen a leak that was small that would cause $9k in mold damage without having signs of wall cavity penetration. Either the cabinets are soft/warped/really badly stained indicating that the leak was going on for a while. You see black coming through the vinyl flooring, etc. So I'm a bit stymied by that number without having other warning signs. I also don't get that his girlfriend smelled the mold but neither the buyer, agent, nor inspector smelled it?
It isn't okay that the seller didn't properly fill out the forms, but fraudulent misrepresentation? Not seeing it based on what the OP said so far. Now if he cleaned it with bleach before the inspection or something to conceal it, then I'm with you. Unless the OP gives out more facts, I think the buyer has an uphill battle.
Yes I knew about the leak but I didn't remember to disclose it because it wasn't that bad and that is why I HAD forgotten about it. If it was a bad leak I WOULD have remembered. Like I said I don't get under my sink very often only to get a tablet for the dishwasher as I don't use a lot of chemicals to clean my house with. I live alone so it takes a long time to fill up that dishwasher. I have allergies and don't smell really good so I never smelled anything. But there is no way I would have even put my house on the market if I had known it had MOLD. I would have had it cleaned up first. I do feel bad for the new family coming in but the inspection says there is a leak and they should have had me repair it. Why aren't they going after the inspector? He knows what to look for. He had a flashlight under neath my sink. I don't use a flash light looking under my sink.
AS others have already said you should ignore all letters/requests and have no contact whatsoever with the buyer. The only time you need to respond is if/when you are served papers for a lawsuit. If that happens you need to "answer" the suit by the deadline.
IF this case actually went to trial it would probably take at least 2 years to reach the docket. Most US courts are backed up. You can double check by calling the court clerk in the jurisdiction where the suit would be filed and ask them what the average time is for a case to reach the docket.
Even if you are at fault $9,000 is way out of line. You should also consider that your agent and the buyer are working in cahoots for some reason. The fact your agent was trying to say your at fault is a huge red flag. He is supposed to be working for you.
Yes I knew about the leak but I didn't remember to disclose it because it wasn't that bad and that is why I HAD forgotten about it.
When it gets to court, you saying you forgot about it is not a legitimate excuse for not reporting it on the disclosure. It will make you look like you did not list it, to cover up the possibility of having mold. Just telling you what I have observed over the last 40 plus years when someone fails to disclose a required item. Your not having a good ability to smell is not a valid excuse, as you knew about the leak and did not report it.
Quote:
Why aren't they going after the inspector? He knows what to look for. He had a flashlight under neath my sink. I don't use a flash light looking under my sink.
He did his job, and revealed there was a leak. The mold will not be visible in the majority of the cases, and if it was, he would have reported it.
Quote:
Even if you are at fault $9,000 is way out of line.
You have never seen what it takes to solve mold problem. $9,000 is not a lot of money for mold problems. It is often tens of thousands of dollars to get rid of all of it, and replace the parts of the house that are effected. Mold from that leak can spread through the wall, and spread a considerable distance.
Here is an article that explains costs.
It can cost $1,000 to $3,000 just to determine the extent of the problem. That is the first step of he process.
Then comes the actual cost to get rid of the mold and the repair to the building. It is not just wiping it down, etc., as effected wood most often has to be replaced. The remediation costs on an average $2,000 to $10,000 and can go as high as $30,000 or more. In some cases, it will end up the building will be condemned and torn down, and the building itself will be treated as a hazardous material.
You should also consider that your agent and the buyer are working in cahoots for some reason. The fact your agent was trying to say your at fault is a huge red flag. He is supposed to be working for you.
The sellers agent is working for the seller, and the buyers agent is working for the buyer, and each owes their allegiance to their client. The agents are often named in the suit if they did not do their due diligence.
If this goes to court, the seller could end up paying for all the mold remediation costs, the buyers attorney and court costs, and even be forced to pay the additional living costs that the buyer paid, while unable to live in a mold infested home, and even a punitive damage award.
It might best to request a mediation hearing officer be appointed and get it over quickly. Much less costly than going to court, and it does not take long to get a mediation hearing. Last time anyone in my family (my daughter) went this route, she recovered just over $40,000. Took less than 2 months, and cost very little to set up. It was real estate related.
Hearing officer was a retired judge. To fight a law suite, can cost you more than the $9,000 they are asking for just for attorney fees.
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.
