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.
Thanks, rjrcm. Well, update: we canceled the contract. You are right--with my plumber-dad's help, we came to the same conclusion that it was a disclosure issue. She refused to have the extra rootering done (to get past the super-sized ball that even the regular rooters couldn't get through)--but she was willing to pay us the $650 in repair requests later. Yeah, right... clearly it wasn't about the money. All we wanted was to know what was beyond all those root balls, but I think she did not want to know--because then she would have to disclose any more bad news to anyone else after us. If the backup buyers want to take the place and waive inspections--they can have it, and all the headache that goes with it. This is where I think it's relevant that the seller is also an agent--she knows how these games are played. If she really wanted to work with us, and a disclosure issue was at stake (and she had integrity), she would have had that extra rootering done before we signed.
We still had two days left on our inspection period, so no skin off our backs; we've got a sweet apartment lease till May, and we're fully financed to put down up to 30% on a nice house if we want one. Any seller would be lucky to have us, if you ask me. So it was the seller's loss, as far as we're concerned. Sure did learn a lot about sewers in the last week though, I can tell you that.
You made the correct decision. Keep your eyes open for the next 6 months - you may find something better.
This seller will probably have her own 'aha' moment in the very near future...
You made the correct decision. Keep your eyes open for the next 6 months - you may find something better.
This seller will probably have her own 'aha' moment in the very near future...
Oh, we will definitely keep our eyes peeled... but I'm sure there will be a slump in inventory (more than there already is, in our market) over the winter months, and we'll need to wait for the usual spring uptick. But that's perfect timing for us, really. I am confident we'll find something better.
As for the seller... I don't know, that was the weird thing. As an experienced agent herself, shouldn't she have seen this coming? Why would anyone who knows anything about selling houses, be that stubborn about something that can't be hidden for very long? Maybe the backup offer really is from someone who won't bother with inspections (who does that, other than contractors who can fix their own houses?)... or maybe it was all smoke & mirrors, who knows. Good riddance.
...Maybe the backup offer really is from someone who won't bother with inspections (who does that, other than contractors who can fix their own houses?)... or maybe it was all smoke & mirrors, who knows. Good riddance.
Whether the backup buyer does an inspection or not, the seller is obligated to disclose the blocked sewer line. As an agent, she is an even more precarious situation since as you said, she should know better.
Whether the backup buyer does an inspection or not, the seller is obligated to disclose the blocked sewer line. As an agent, she is an even more precarious situation since as you said, she should know better.
Interesting. So then wouldn't it have been in her best interest to pay the $650 upfront and have the line thoroughly rooted today, while we were still willing to scope it a second time and possibly buy the house?... instead of trying to pass the unknown buck off to the buyer? That way she would have cleared the line for any future buyers' scopes instead of having to disclose the blockage, I would think. Unless she was even more afraid of what lies beyond that root ball?
To be clear, the sewer was still functional... toilets flushed and all the rest, and everything appeared to be on the up-and-up. But given the size of those root balls as well as the corrosion of the concrete pipes, it was only a matter of time before a problem emerged... either spilling onto the bathroom floor, flooding the lawn, or busting a pipe in the city's right-of-way. The latter was what we wanted to avoid. The seller has never lived in the house, however--she bought it 8 years ago and has rented it ever since, so she has no firsthand experience of living in the house herself. Does any of this affect our read of the situation?
Interesting. So then wouldn't it have been in her best interest to pay the $650 upfront and have the line thoroughly rooted today, while we were still willing to scope it a second time and possibly buy the house?... instead of trying to pass the unknown buck off to the buyer? That way she would have cleared the line for any future buyers' scopes instead of having to disclose the blockage, I would think. Unless she was even more afraid of what lies beyond that root ball?
To be clear, the sewer was still functional... toilets flushed and all the rest, and everything appeared to be on the up-and-up. But given the size of those root balls as well as the corrosion of the concrete pipes, it was only a matter of time before a problem emerged... either spilling onto the bathroom floor, flooding the lawn, or busting a pipe in the city's right-of-way. The latter was what we wanted to avoid. The seller has never lived in the house, however--she bought it 8 years ago and has rented it ever since, so she has no firsthand experience of living in the house herself. Does any of this affect our read of the situation?
She could try to brush off disclosures due to not having lived in the house. However, once she finds out about a material fact (blocked line), she must disclose to all parties. Some states may not require disclosure of material facts, but pretty sure WA does - you should ask your agent.
Since the sewer is "functional", she may try to dodge this and hope that the next buyer does not check the line. That would be a huge risk on her part if the new owner ever has a problem with it.
She could try to brush off disclosures due to not having lived in the house. However, once she finds out about a material fact (blocked line), she must disclose to all parties. Some states may not require disclosure of material facts, but pretty sure WA does - you should ask your agent.
Since the sewer is "functional", she may try to dodge this and hope that the next buyer does not check the line. That would be a huge risk on her part if the new owner ever has a problem with it.
WA is a disclosure state, as far as I know--my agent said that the seller would have to disclose this to everyone else, too. So that matches up.
Even if she didn't disclose, I would assume the next buyer would ask, "Why did the first buyer walk away from the house?"... isn't that just common sense? Or maybe it isn't. Maybe they are so desperate to have the house that they will take it with no questions asked. But if they did end up having problems with it after closing--what would be the risk for the seller? What is the statute of limitations, if she doesn't disclose and then the buyer has a problem... a year, two years?
... Even if she didn't disclose, I would assume the next buyer would ask, "Why did the first buyer walk away from the house?"... isn't that just common sense? Or maybe it isn't. Maybe they are so desperate to have the house that they will take it with no questions asked. But if they did end up having problems with it after closing--what would be the risk for the seller? What is the statute of limitations, if she doesn't disclose and then the buyer has a problem... a year, two years?
Yes, the buyer asking would be likely, but she doesn't have to discuss it, other than disclosing the material defects.
The buyer does not have to ask, the seller has to disclose material defects/facts regardless. If the buyer is told and closes anyway, then no further liability to the seller. The seller's risk if not disclosed is that they take her to court for damages. Don't know your disclosure laws, best to ask your agent or a lawyer about limitations.
The buyer does not have to ask, the seller has to disclose material defects/facts regardless. If the buyer is told and closes anyway, then no further liability to the seller. The seller's risk if not disclosed is that they take her to court for damages. Don't know your disclosure laws, best to ask your agent or a lawyer about limitations.
Okay, very interesting. So even if the sewer is functional, she will have to tell the next buyers about that un-rootable root ball, and they can decide from there. I just don't get why she couldn't pay the extra money to have it rooted out, so that we could have scoped it and possibly closed on it--what was she afraid of revealing?
If I were selling, I would want the buyers to know that I'm asking a fair price by being as transparent as possible. I mean, she bought this place for $339K in 2001, rented it out the entire time, doesn't seem to have done much remodeling (other than some last-minute improvements--a shoddy interior/exterior paint job before putting it on the market, for example), and now she wants $499K for it. Worst case scenario: material facts are disclosed, she has to drop her price several tens of thousands as a result... but she's still going to come out significantly on top, without someone suing her. So why not be above-board with everything from the very beginning?
What is there to gain from refusing to know potential problems about your own property, other than knowing you lied to someone and are passing off your own trouble to their shoulders? I don't know how people like that can sleep at night, frankly. Maybe I'm just naive because I've never sold a house before, but I just find her attitude reprehensible. And that was also a large part of why we walked away--she completely turned us off, simply by her approach to the whole thing.
I know you said you didn't feel it was about the money to the agent/seller, but I get exactly the opposite impression. Look at it this way. The seller is a real estate agent, which means she probably hasn't made much money this year. By saying she would reimburse you at closing, to me that screams "I don't have the money to pay now, but I could pay it out of my profit from selling the house." I could be totally wrong on it, but that's how it reads to me.
And for your question about the Statute of Limitations, I've seen some things that the time frame starts at "discovery of the problem" or something similar, or perhaps defining a time frame that discovery within that time would be reasonable. Tree roots growing through sewer probably wouldn't have a "reasonable time" for the buyer to discover that problem, so the seller could be liable for not having disclosed a known problem forever and ever. In other words, if she doesn't disclose to her buyer and 20 years from now a problem occurs because of it, she could possibly still be liable then. Of course, it could also be as simple as 3 years Statue of Limitations, you would have to consult a lawyer to know for sure.
I know you said you didn't feel it was about the money to the agent/seller, but I get exactly the opposite impression. Look at it this way. The seller is a real estate agent, which means she probably hasn't made much money this year. By saying she would reimburse you at closing, to me that screams "I don't have the money to pay now, but I could pay it out of my profit from selling the house." I could be totally wrong on it, but that's how it reads to me.
And for your question about the Statute of Limitations, I've seen some things that the time frame starts at "discovery of the problem" or something similar, or perhaps defining a time frame that discovery within that time would be reasonable. Tree roots growing through sewer probably wouldn't have a "reasonable time" for the buyer to discover that problem, so the seller could be liable for not having disclosed a known problem forever and ever. In other words, if she doesn't disclose to her buyer and 20 years from now a problem occurs because of it, she could possibly still be liable then. Of course, it could also be as simple as 3 years Statue of Limitations, you would have to consult a lawyer to know for sure.
You could be right on the first part... that's basically what her "reason" was, when she explained it to my agent. And I believed it for a few minutes, when I first heard it. What threw me off that explanation, though, is that she never lived in this home--she has been renting it for $2000-$2300 a month (which is way more than her mortgage was, so she was making money--no improvements done on the house except that paint job, either), and living in another house in the same neighborhood (which mostly is comprised of houses that are far more expensive than this one). She told our agent that she had considered moving into this house herself, with her family, but that it was "too small" (it's 4 bedrooms)... so I would guess from that she has quite a bit of monetary flexibility? I don't know... I just have a hard time believing that someone who owns at least two large houses, has been renting one of them quite successfully for some time, simply could not afford the additional $650 on the spot. But who knows; I will allow for the small possibility that she's totally innocent and not scheming for how to avoid a difficult situation. But I still don't like it.
As for the statute of limitations--I'll certainly look into it, once we get involved in another offer on another house. It wasn't just the massive root balls that were the problem--the concrete sewer pipes in themselves were severely corroded after 90 years, and the inspector said he had no guarantee on how long they would last. This, after the seller told us that a year ago, she'd had a scope done (no paperwork or receipt from that inspection, however!) and the sewer had absolutely no problems whatsoever. And she wanted us to believe that. It just all seemed very fishy...
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.
