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.
and don't respond to them at all. Even if they knock on your door, hand them your lawyers phone number.
How did they get your new address? Did the real estate give it to them?
It's easy to get someone's address, if they own their home. Start with the appraisal district & do a search under owner name. It was also probably in the paperwork @ the closing...the seller's new address.
Wrong. Any good real estate attorney, would recommend the buyer in this case, sending a demand letter, prior to the attorney taking over if they do not respond and work out the money problem.
For those that are not from California apparently do not realize, that California law requires the home seller to reveal any MOLD problem, or potential for MOLD. This is not a maybe thing, but a legal requirement when selling a home. They also do not realize that if there is a serious mold problem, the California Health Department will order the home vacated till the problem has been permanently solved. This is because the types of mold that develop there, can be a serious health issue for a large percentage of people.
A water leak in the home that goes on very long, will in most instances cause mold to grow, often inside walls, etc. A leak in the roof, or side wall, and leaky pipes that are not repaired, are a regular source of mold problems.
The owner knew there was a long standing water leak, and did nothing to solve the problem. That is almost a guarantee that Mold will develop in California, often within walls, etc.
Even though there was a long standing water leak that caused a mold situation to occur, the owner did not fix the leak, nor did they reveal the problem as the law requires them when selling a home. Even when the girl friend told him there was a problem, he just let it slide.
Get this to court, and the buyers attorney will have a lot of fun presenting this case. The OP had better prepare not only to pay for the mold repair, but the judge can very well add on some punitive damages, and the OP being forced to pay all the attorney fees and court costs. California law is real strict on problems involving mold and not being revealed when the home sells, and with only the limited information the OP has revealed to us, any good attorney will find it easy to win this case.
Tired of hearing this. There is no special California mold. Mold is mold and it happens anywhere in the world.
I would like to see where in the law it states that a seller has to disclose a potential for mold to buyers. How do they qualify potential for mold? Seriously? Any place that is the least bit damp could be considered a potential for mold. On top of that the inspector DID disclose the leak, which then disclosed the potential for mold. The buyers decided not to do anything about it.
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.
Last edited by oldtrader; 07-17-2016 at 04:06 PM..
You keep stating there was a long standing water leak. Where are you getting this information?
READ THE ORIGINAL POST!
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.
The inspector brought to the buyers attention there was a water leak.
So tell me, why isn't that sufficient? The buyers knew there was a leak. If the inspector didn't find mold, that must have meant there wasn't mold at the time, or in other words, the seller had no knowledge of mold. (If the inspector couldn't find it, why do you expect the seller to know about it?)
After the buyers are informed of a leak (aka "potential" for mold) then SOMEBODY should have told them to have it checked out—if mold is such a special and serious case. Why didn't that happen?
I'd be less forgiving if the seller knew about a leak but didn't say anything. But the inspector was the one who told EVERYONE about the leak. So there was no deception, the leak was a known thing. If as you say, a leak = mold, then EVERYONE would be out in the open, because the leak was disclosed.
I don't see what else the seller was supposed to do, since the leak was very much known and documented.
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.
I don't know CA contracts or disclosures but if they have a clause like Oregon does that states that they are buying the house "with defects apparent or not apparent." I would think the buyers would have an uphill battle since the mold wasn't apparent.
If what you are stating is true about CA, and that sellers have to disclose issues of potential California types of mold, why didn't the home inspector tell the home buyers that leaks can cause potential mold? Seems to be that would be a huge liability issue for home inspectors in CA. I know CA has crazy disclosure forms, and is a sue happy state.
In Oregon, that $9k in damages would go to small claims court and not be dealth with through attorneys.
So tell me, why isn't that sufficient? The buyers knew there was a leak. If the inspector didn't find mold, that must have meant there wasn't mold at the time, or in other words, the seller had no knowledge of mold. (If the inspector couldn't find it, why do you expect the seller to know about it?)
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.
Quote:
After the buyers are informed of a leak (aka "potential" for mold) then SOMEBODY should have told them to have it checked out—if mold is such a special and serious case. Why didn't that happen?
This is where the buyers agent fell down. He/she should have informed the buyer they should bring in a mold inspector. He/she did not do so, so they will probably be included in any lawsuit. The problem in the real estate business, is most agents are new, and have never taken any courses to really understand the real estate business. They really do not understand what their duties to their buyer are. That is why they have $100,000 Errors and Omissions Insurance to protect themselves when they mess up. As I was involved in big transactions, I carried a $1,000,000 rider policy if needed above the regular $100,000 policy. In all the years I was in the business, I never had one complaint or suit against me. I spent a year taking university real estate classes and real estate law classes, so I knew what I was doing, prior to going into the business.
If what you are stating is true about CA, and that sellers have to disclose issues of potential California types of mold, why didn't the home inspector tell the home buyers that leaks can cause potential mold? Seems to be that would be a huge liability issue for home inspectors in CA. I know CA has crazy disclosure forms, and is a sue happy state.
The inspector only tell what they observe, in all states. They are not to just guess at potential problems and bring them up, which would often ruin a lot of sales, if the guess of potential problems was wrong. If the inspector had observed mold, he would have mentioned it in the report. It is the duty of the Buyers Realtor to help them understand the problems brought up by the inspector and in this situation suggested bringing in a mold inspector with equipment to sniff it out. Apparently the Realtor did not do so. For that reason alone, is why the buyers Realtor and Broker may be included in the suit as they should be. The Realtor is deemed to be the expert in the transaction and is to protect the buyer when needed. This is one of those cases it was needed.
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.
This is where the buyers agent fell down. He/she should have informed the buyer they should bring in a mold inspector. He/she did not do so, so they will probably be included in any lawsuit. The problem in the real estate business, is most agents are new, and have never taken any courses to really understand the real estate business. They really do not understand what their duties to their buyer are. That is why they have $100,000 Errors and Omissions Insurance to protect themselves when they mess up. As I was involved in big transactions, I carried a $1,000,000 rider policy if needed above the regular $100,000 policy. In all the years I was in the business, I never had one complaint or suit against me. I spent a year taking university real estate classes and real estate law classes, so I knew what I was doing, prior to going into the business.
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?
You can tear that wood out and replace it for 300 bucks tops.
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.
