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, after much thought, I've decided to sell the home I inherited from my mom.
As part of the "prep for sale" phase, I have to fill out a seller's disclosure.
There is a section where I am asked if I am aware of any defects/issues with such things as roof, foundation, doors, windows, those type of structural things.
I am not sure whether or not I should check "No" or "unknown".
I work in civil litigation, so I know the devil is in the details when it comes to terminology.
Truthfully, I am not aware of any such structural issues. It is an inherited house, and I have never occupied the property. I do know that my mom had been religious about maintenance and upkeep, but other than that, I would not have intimate knowledge of such things and a buyer should perform their own due diligence/home inspection.
However, "unknown" is a "gray area" term that is not as definitive as "no", and I am wondering if I should tick off that.
With homes that I've occupied, this was not an issue because I knew them well.
If you are not comfortable with using the obvious "unknown" then you should consult an Attorney for guidance. Your Real Estate Salesperson may also be able to point you to sites with additional legal guidance such as The Texas Association Of Realtors who write various articles on disclosure and may have one fitting your situation.
Seems to me that the "Not Aware" is difficult territory, opening the prospect of a buyer complaining "should have known."
Or, mom's paper files include a termite or foundation report that falls into that "should have known" area.
Maybe call TREC for guidance?
I like the NC Disclosure, where the seller has the choice to state, "No Representation," which makes it clear they just aren't saying anything they don't have to say.
"No Rep" is what all the liability-adverse attorneys claim and recommend.
The statute mentioned by others requires that a disclosure be completed, and the disclosure must include the items listed in the statute.
Failing to disclose a material defect that you know of opens you to liability under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act with triple damages and attorneys fees awarded to the plaintiff if they win.
There is no possibility of selling a house "as is" with no disclosures.
I would answer yes or no to everything I am sure of, and unknown to anything where I have zero knowledge.
Try to get a hard copy of the disclosure form and add a comment about the house being inherited and that OP has never lived in it.
The risks of a buyer potentially suing for a defect makes it imperative to over disclose. There is no "caveat emptor" in Texas when it comes to single family properties.
I'm in California so laws may differ here and I am not an attorney. This is also "apples to oranges" to your situation but I thought I'd share anyway.
I once purchased a property from a house "flipper", and after escrow closing I discovered some material issues that were not disclosed by the seller. Seller claimed that since he's a flipper and never lived at the property, he was unaware and therefore did not disclose of issues he's not aware of.
To make a long story short, my attorney argued that these are issues that the Seller "should have known" considering the number of times he visited the property to check up on the status of the remodel. We eventually prevailed.
We bought a house with a roof leak that wasn't disclosed. There was a botched repair job so the previous owners knew about it.
The couple we bought it from were close to 100 years old and the husband had Parkinson's. Whether or not they knew they were supposed to disclose the roof problem, or didn't understand the form, I don't know. We were more p!ssed at the two inspectors we hired that missed it. Heck, we were p!ssed at ourselves because it was hard to miss.
Anyways, it was a pretty easy repair for our handyman and it didn't cost us much. We didn't lawyer up or anything. The inspectors were protected by the legalese in their forms and I wasn't going to bother the elderly couple with it.
We bought a house with a roof leak that wasn't disclosed. There was a botched repair job so the previous owners knew about it.
The couple we bought it from were close to 100 years old and the husband had Parkinson's. Whether or not they knew they were supposed to disclose the roof problem, or didn't understand the form, I don't know. We were more p!ssed at the two inspectors we hired that missed it. Heck, we were p!ssed at ourselves because it was hard to miss.
Anyways, it was a pretty easy repair for our handyman and it didn't cost us much. We didn't lawyer up or anything. The inspectors were protected by the legalese in their forms and I wasn't going to bother the elderly couple with it.
Well, that's nice of you.
But this makes me wonder if their atty and/or listing agent really did their due diligence.
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.
