Sold house now buyer threatening to sue!

[Allfriends]

ok, I sold my house last winter and moved away. a month or two after the sale went through, the agent called and said the buyer found a leak in the porch and had spent a lot to have it fixed including some amount (not sure how much) of work to rebuild the porch.

he was asking me to chip in $1500 to the repairs which was supposedly less than the full amount and was some kind of compromise amount he was 'offering' to be nice.

the agent agreed it was a crazy request and that the buyer didn't have much grounds for it. the house is low cost 60 years old, sold as-is. the buyer did have an inspection done before the sale closed.

agent explained the buyer felt I'd covered up the leak by painting the porch but in truth the porch, like the entire house, was thoroughly painted because it needed it.

the buyer also felt the leak was causing mold in the walls and that he was rebuilding a lot of the porch rather than just repair whatever was leaking. he also said something about the buyer having someone check behind the walls and ceiling and conclude the problem didn't just start but had been going on for years.

this was my first house ever so I also had an inspection when I bought the house 3 years ago and there was no mention of anything. the inspection said the porch was not built on a foundation it was just an add-on

i noticed a leak the first spring I was there but then I learned to go outside and knock the snow and ice piles off the roof and so the leak never came back

any buyer could see the house is older and in need of different maintenance. the shingles for example are old and the gutters need fixing or replacing. to me these are obvious things a buyer should know when buying and living in a used house.

anyway, I sent the agent an email explaining my side of it and heard nothing back.

oh something I forgot to mention, sale the agent mentioned that buyer noticed lots of little repairs the house would need and wanted a sizeable discount to account for that. I never knew specifically what repairs but on the agent's advice I gave about $4000 discount in order to close the sale.

then a couple months ago, the agent calls again. I said 'didn't you read my message'. he said his email was not working well at that time so he'd check. he agreed again he'd never heard of someone coming back so long after the sale trying to claim for repairs. I thought it was going to be handled

but today I get a voice message this time from the buyer. he didn't sound mad or crazy or anything, but said he wants $1500 or he's going to sue in claims court.

can he really do this? even though I think he has no grounds, it would be a real pain to travel back and deal with this.

how should I be dealing with this guy?

shouldn't the sale agent or the agency headquarters be handling this? that's why I went with them in the first place, to avoid problems

or maybe his inspector should take the blame if something was missed.

isn't it reasonable to know that you have to knock snow and ice piles off your roof? how can I be responsible for a problem that for all we know has been there for 50 years?

what should I do, I don't need the strees but on the other hand caving in to his demands doesn't seem right either

sorry for the long story but it just seems so unfair that a buyer can do this and create a headache for me when I did nothing wrong

[sunnybono]

ok, I sold my house last winter and moved away. a month or two after the sale went through, the agent called and said the buyer found a leak in the porch and had spent a lot to have it fixed including some amount (not sure how much) of work to rebuild the porch.

he was asking me to chip in $1500 to the repairs which was supposedly less than the full amount and was some kind of compromise amount he was 'offering' to be nice.

the agent agreed it was a crazy request and that the buyer didn't have much grounds for it. the house is low cost 60 years old, sold as-is. the buyer did have an inspection done before the sale closed.

agent explained the buyer felt I'd covered up the leak by painting the porch but in truth the porch, like the entire house, was thoroughly painted because it needed it.

the buyer also felt the leak was causing mold in the walls and that he was rebuilding a lot of the porch rather than just repair whatever was leaking. he also said something about the buyer having someone check behind the walls and ceiling and conclude the problem didn't just start but had been going on for years.

this was my first house ever so I also had an inspection when I bought the house 3 years ago and there was no mention of anything. the inspection said the porch was not built on a foundation it was just an add-on

i noticed a leak the first spring I was there but then I learned to go outside and knock the snow and ice piles off the roof and so the leak never came back

any buyer could see the house is older and in need of different maintenance. the shingles for example are old and the gutters need fixing or replacing. to me these are obvious things a buyer should know when buying and living in a used house.

anyway, I sent the agent an email explaining my side of it and heard nothing back.

oh something I forgot to mention, sale the agent mentioned that buyer noticed lots of little repairs the house would need and wanted a sizeable discount to account for that. I never knew specifically what repairs but on the agent's advice I gave about $4000 discount in order to close the sale.

then a couple months ago, the agent calls again. I said 'didn't you read my message'. he said his email was not working well at that time so he'd check. he agreed again he'd never heard of someone coming back so long after the sale trying to claim for repairs. I thought it was going to be handled

but today I get a voice message this time from the buyer. he didn't sound mad or crazy or anything, but said he wants $1500 or he's going to sue in claims court.

can he really do this? even though I think he has no grounds, it would be a real pain to travel back and deal with this.

how should I be dealing with this guy?

shouldn't the sale agent or the agency headquarters be handling this? that's why I went with them in the first place, to avoid problems

or maybe his inspector should take the blame if something was missed.

isn't it reasonable to know that you have to knock snow and ice piles off your roof? how can I be responsible for a problem that for all we know has been there for 50 years?

what should I do, I don't need the strees but on the other hand caving in to his demands doesn't seem right either

sorry for the long story but it just seems so unfair that a buyer can do this and create a headache for me when I did nothing wrong


Speak to your lawyer, but I beleive the buyer doesn't have a leg to stand on. I sold a vacant house and the agent didn't turn the heat up with caused some plaster to crack in a room. The buyer when they came to make their last visit b4 closing noticed the crack and called back their original inspector who then claimed about $30k in damage!!!! I took my construction friends down to the house to take a look and they all laughed at the inspectors report with good reason. I passed this on to my lawyer who basically told the purchasers lawyer to go to hell as they signed off on the inspection waiver and we were 1 week away from closing!!!!

sk

[Allfriends]

I agree it sounds like he has no grounds but if sues me don't I have to get a lawyer, get evidence documented and show up to court and everything? or is there a way the court process will just step in and block him from doing this since his claim is not valid.

or is he hoping that I'll just want to give him some money to avoid all those costs and headaches?

I listened to his message again, sounds like he's been patient with the agent but not getting anywhere. it also sounds like his main issue is mold not leakage.

If this does go to court I have a mind to charge him back for my time and costs trying to protect myself. Or will the court do that for me?

[BuildingHomes]

Seeking legal advice from non-legal professionals is not going to get you any further.

Contact your lawyer who handled the sale in the first place. I'm sure you can ask them a couple of questions over the phone and get your answer in about 5 minutes.

And if you could sue for things post-closing.. I would have had a whole new house build by now..

[JWL]

I agree it sounds like he has no grounds but if sues me don't I have to get a lawyer, get evidence documented and show up to court and everything? or is there a way the court process will just step in and block him from doing this since his claim is not valid.

or is he hoping that I'll just want to give him some money to avoid all those costs and headaches?

I listened to his message again, sounds like he's been patient with the agent but not getting anywhere. it also sounds like his main issue is mold not leakage.

If this does go to court I have a mind to charge him back for my time and costs trying to protect myself. Or will the court do that for me?

When you sell a house you make certain representations. If you made them all honestly, there can be no claim. If the buyer had a house inspection (did he?) he could have a claim against the inspector, but not against you.

[Allfriends]

that's a good point I suppose I will contact the lawyer's office when it opens tomorrow. I was just looking to see what advice or epxerience people have about this

[Octavius]

Seeking legal advice from non-legal professionals is not going to get you any further.

Contact your lawyer who handled the sale in the first place. I'm sure you can ask them a couple of questions over the phone and get your answer in about 5 minutes.

And if you could sue for things post-closing.. I would have had a whole new house build by now..

+1

If you're going to small claims court I'd suggest at the very least talking to a lawyer. I doubt you would need to retain one for $175.00 / hour to defend a suit for $1500.00. Basically talk to the lawyer, explain the situation, and if they agree that the buyer has little chance at winning then go ahead and defend yourself.

If the claims are completely baseless, you can attempt to seek court costs for any expenses you have incurred while defending yourself (such as the discussion you had with your lawyer prior to the trial). That would be the most the court would give you...and that would likely only happen if the buyers claim was practically entirely baseless.

If the home inspector inspected the home and missed that, then tell the buyer to sue him, since he should have found the problem. Why the hell did they pay him $400.00 + for if they were just going to sue the original sellers of the house for a problem that should have been found upon inspection?

The fact that you discounted the home 4k would (in my mind) only mean something if the buyer (and preferably written down somewhere) knew that you were discounting the home an additional 4k to compensate for some repairs that needed to be performed. If the buyer didn't know about it and it isn't written down, the buyer may have viewed the "discount" as just being part of the negotiation process and being unrelated to the repairs of the home.

Good Luck.

[Allfriends]

+1
If you're going to small claims court I'd suggest at the very least talking to a lawyer. I doubt you would need to retain one for $175.00 / hour to defend a suit for $1500.00. Basically talk to the lawyer, explain the situation, and if they agree that the buyer has little chance at winning then go ahead and defend yourself.

OK that's good advice. listened to his message again he seemed to stress that his actual costs were much higher and the $1500 was his way of just trying to make an offer

if he goes to sue can he go higher than that? is there a limit? my impression listening to his message was that I could pay him $1500 now to avoid trouble or pay more later

+1
If the claims are completely baseless, you can attempt to seek court costs for any expenses you have incurred while defending yourself (such as the discussion you had with your lawyer prior to the trial).
it's just that even just going to a lawyer means missing work, traveling to the city, maybe a hotel depending on the timing plus child care for my kids. can I claim for those costs too?

+1
That would be the most the court would give you...and that would likely only happen if the buyers claim was practically entirely baseless.
I still don't know exactly what his thing is yet. With that old of a house it would need all kinds of fixups heck I know did lots of them during 3 years when I was there and have the bills to prove!

+1
If the home inspector inspected the home and missed that, then tell the buyer to sue him, since he should have found the problem. Why the hell did they pay him $400.00 + for if they were just going to sue the original sellers of the house for a problem that should have been found upon inspection?
it's a good point but I remember when I had my inspection the inspector spent a lot of his time stressing that they can only see some things and that they were not libel for anything and so on and so. I'm pretty sure I signed papers admitting that I would never go back and blame them. Wouldn't his inspector have the same loop hole?

+1
The fact that you discounted the home 4k would (in my mind) only mean something if the buyer (and preferably written down somewhere) knew that you were discounting the home an additional 4k to compensate for some repairs that needed to be performed. If the buyer didn't know about it and it isn't written down, the buyer may have viewed the "discount" as just being part of the negotiation process and being unrelated to the repairs of the home.

well that was how the agent who was acting for both of us positioned it. since he was acting for both he can't rightly say it was a factor the other agent left out!

one thing the agent did say is the big discount wasn't all that bad because with only one agent involved I'd pay less commission charges that was going to sort of make up for it

thanks everyone for the support, it's good to know I didn't do anything wrong and this is just a nuisance sueing on his part

[Allfriends]

When you sell a house you make certain representations. If you made them all honestly, there can be no claim. If the buyer had a house inspection (did he?) he could have a claim against the inspector, but not against you.

well I didn't epxliticy tell him he had to knock snow off the roof in the spring but I didn't tell him to drain the yard water socket before winter or rake the leaves either

I would have figured some things are basic home owner knowledge you pick up with experience and you don't have to give the buyer a whole lesson in how to run the house after you leave it

[Dustbunny]

So what part of 'as is' does this buyer not understand?

Seems to me your best to call the lawyer (no you don't have to take time off work, just phone them). Explain what is happening, get their perspective and (if it's as I imagine) they say too bad for buyer, have them do up a letter to the buyer which is cc'd to the Realtor. The letter would request that buyer cease and desist from asking your for money for the house and states the reasons which could go from 'as is' accepted at time of purchase, to $4000 allowance in price already took repairs into consideration, or whatever. It might cost you $$ but maybe the Realtor will split it with you since they haven't been very effective at handling the buyer and putting this fire out.

I don't think this person has any grounds or the courts would be full of people trying to get money for their houses. It's buyer beware and as long as the seller has disclosed 'known' problems, the house is sold as it stands. I can tell you I know of a house here which got sold to a flipper (owner had died, house stood basically waiting for estate to settle for a while). It was sold after being inspected by the flipper but when the house was cleared and flipper took possession the city showed up and condemned the house (I'm not sure why). Not a thing the flipper could do as they had accepted the deal and the house and nothing known had been hidden. So $1500 for a repair... I don't think so.

[Bullseye]

It's 'buyer beware' when you buy a home, unless the seller willfully hid problems, which can be very hard to prove. Sounds like this guy knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, and is just trying to shake you down for some money by threatening to sue. Ask yourself this....if he thought he had a good case, why wouldn't he be demanding the entire amount of the repairs?

In any event, if he does file in small claims court, you don't need a lawyer to defend you. The whole point of small claims is for people to be able to defend themselves without expensive legal representation. You may still want to talk to a lawyer beforehand, but he or she won't need to be in court with you.

Again, I think it's highly unlikely that this guy will actually file suit. Tell him politely that you didn't know about the problem, and that you won't be paying anything. Careful, though, he may be recording your call.

[Pete_Coach]

In some provinces (Quebec for sure) you can sue a previous owner for issues with the house that were present before you bought. Maybe your province has the same type of law. Selling a car "as is" ids one thing but a house may have different requirements.
As suggested by others, you had best get a real estate lawyer to provide you with the legislation and laws governing the sale of real estate from your province before you either accept the offer to settle or, ignore it entirely. If your province is like Quebec, you could end up paying not just for the repair but the legal costs as well.
The fact that an inspector never caught a leak that occurs in the winter is not at issue. The fine print from those guys basically says we did what we could see at that very specific time and otherwise they accept no liability or responsibility.

[eelfliw]

Don't you love real estate agents? $$$ commission to sell a house and all they do is relay problems back to you after the sale. They make more money than anyone (even the government) in a real estate transaction yet they don't do squat when there's a problem.

Anyways, call your lawyer. Seek their advice.

Whether the buyer has any weight behind the claim depends on what was said during the sale. If you've made promises to the buyer (eg. that there's no leak, you warrant that the house is in excellent condition etc.) on the sale agreement or even verbally (with others present who can testify against you), then you'd better watch out because promises were made. Check your agreement and consult your lawyer.

[Allfriends]

Don't you love real estate agents? $$$ commission to sell a house and all they do is relay problems back to you after the sale. They make more money than anyone (even the government) in a real estate transaction yet they don't do squat when there's a problem.

Anyways, call your lawyer. Seek their advice.

Whether the buyer has any weight behind the claim depends on what was said during the sale. If you've made promises to the buyer (eg. that there's no leak, you warrant that the house is in excellent condition etc.) on the sale agreement or even verbally (with others present who can testify against you), then you'd better watch out because promises were made. Check your agreement and consult your lawyer.

no the only thing that came out of the inspection was question a about the air conditioning since they coldn't test it during the winter. when the agent brought it up I said it worked fine but since it was old and everything I wasn't going to offer a long term warranty on it. he said all I had to give was assurance that it worked properly the last time it was used which indeed it did and I said so.

I notice the buyer hasn't returned my call. I'm waiting til I get a private chance to call the lawyer from the original sale

[IoannI]

I don't think he can sue you. Your best bet is to call up a lawyer and get legal advice from him or her. I do watch quite a bit of People's Court, Judge Judy and Judge Mathis. Usually when it is a as-is sale, the seller is selling it in the state it is in. So the buyer knows what he or she is getting into. As long as its in the sale ad that the house was a as-is sale the judge dismiss the case in your favor. Also that fact that the new homeowner did not have a home inspection done does not help out their case. So I don't think you should have anything to worry about, you can probably counter-sue for lost wages for the amount of time it takes in court. Like I said your best bet is to speak with a lawyer and get some legal adivce from one who is in that field.

Good Luck,

[Allfriends]

I don't think he can sue you. Your best bet is to call up a lawyer and get legal advice from him or her. I do watch quite a bit of People's Court, Judge Judy and Judge Mathis. Usually when it is a as-is sale, the seller is selling it in the state it is in. So the buyer knows what he or she is getting into. As long as its in the sale ad that the house was a as-is sale the judge dismiss the case in your favor. Also that fact that the new homeowner did not have a home inspection done does not help out their case. So I don't think you should have anything to worry about, you can probably counter-sue for lost wages for the amount of time it takes in court. Like I said your best bet is to speak with a lawyer and get some legal adivce from one who is in that field.

Good Luck,

hmm regarding the as-is sale it was done through the regular real estate method multiple service so does that mean as-is? I don't know that there was specific wording as-is in the advertizements. I can't an imagine an old house is supposed to come with warranty?

about the home inspection the buyer actually did have inspection done, at least they said they wanted one and I agreed. the agent was handling that and at one point he said they were clearing the object of inspection but had the one question about the air conditioning

I'm starting to feel better about the situation. he hasn't called back to explain so I don't know if maybe he's coming to his senses or what or was just testing the water to see if I'm gullible to pay him for after sale repairs

[Pete_Coach]

I don't think he can sue you. Your best bet is to call up a lawyer and get legal advice from him or her. I do watch quite a bit of People's Court, Judge Judy and Judge Mathis. Usually when it is a as-is sale, the seller is selling it in the state it is in. So the buyer knows what he or she is getting into. As long as its in the sale ad that the house was a as-is sale the judge dismiss the case in your favor. Also that fact that the new homeowner did not have a home inspection done does not help out their case. So I don't think you should have anything to worry about, you can probably counter-sue for lost wages for the amount of time it takes in court. Like I said your best bet is to speak with a lawyer and get some legal adivce from one who is in that field.

Good Luck,
Is this for real? Comparing a real life situation to a pre-arranged, staged for TV, Hollywood production to a case in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan? Not only the wrong Country but perhaps not even in the real world:)

[mrsmagoo2001]

Depending on who your employer is ; you may have access to a lawyer through work. My hubby can have a one hour consult for free. My son-in-law has the same deal through a different employer.

[JWL]

well that was how the agent who was acting for both of us positioned it. since he was acting for both he can't rightly say it was a factor the other agent left out!

Now I understand why your agent isn't being "tougher" with the buyer since he acted for the buyer too. You need to be tough with the agent. If he really feels for the buyer, tell him to pay it out of the gravy commissions he earned.

I know this doesn't apply to the Op, but advice to buyers: Never use the seller's agent.

[WalnutCrunch]

I know this doesn't apply to the Op, but advice to buyers: Never use the seller's agent.

Very good advice. All the laws, contracts, and ethics in the world won't make the agent completely impartial. There is a huge financial incentive to make sure the sale goes through as they represent both the seller and the buyer.

[hugh_da_man]

So the house is in Moose Jaw or that's where you are now?

Rules are different for some provinces.

[brute33]

anyone can sue. doesn't mean he will win. in civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant. you do not have to prove you didn't know. he has to prove you did know. If your comments are true i don't think you have anything to worry about.

[Allfriends]

Very good advice. All the laws, contracts, and ethics in the world won't make the agent completely impartial. There is a huge financial incentive to make sure the sale goes through as they represent both the seller and the buyer.

I remember signing some special papers about this, recognizing that he was going to be a double-agent.

when this sale came around I had less commissions deducted thanks to the double-agent rule. had their been two agents each would have had to deduct their fees, this way only one did.

the buyer isn't returning my messages 3 days in a row nor is the agent.

If he ever gets back to me I'll listen and consider what he has to say and whether it just makes sense to share the cost rather than fight... but I will for sure want to see what the full costs were (with bills!) and what work was actually done.

[Allfriends]

anyone can sue. doesn't mean he will win. in civil court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant. you do not have to prove you didn't know. he has to prove you did know. If your comments are true i don't think you have anything to worry about.

no way... the inspection I had when I bought was really thorough and listed a bunch of repair items that I had to, each was rated high medium low etc. High ones were immediate and I did them all right away and it cost a lot! then I had the medium ones done gradually over time except for some that were optional such as replacing the underground sprinkler tubes. I can't remember the low ones but probably some of them got done too.

[Allfriends]

So the house is in Moose Jaw or that's where you are now?

Rules are different for some provinces.


so are the rules are the same for all towns in the province? everyone involved is within SK. but I'm over an hour from the nearest city so I really don't want to be making trip after trip trying to deal with this

[hugh_da_man]

so are the rules are the same for all towns in the province? everyone involved is within SK. but I'm over an hour from the nearest city so I really don't want to be making trip after trip trying to deal with this

I'm pretty sure when I was dealing with a real estate lawyer everything was provincial law.

To me it sounds like you have someone trying to bully you into paying. Talk to a real estate lawyer and get them to draft a letter to the dude telling him his claims are baseless and to stop harassing you or you'll seek legal action against him. It would probably cost you $100 for all that and it's done.

[Dustbunny]

You should be able to find the rules for Sask here http://www.srec.ca/legisact.asp

[Krox]

Here's a link I found. It is specific for ontario but it is still a valuable read.

http://www.calvinmartinqc.com/brinkman.pdf

[ebizimage]

Actually my parents had a similar situation. The basement of a 40 yrs old house was flooded soon after the purchase, and the agent did get my parents 50% of the cost to fix it back. It was a big fix, and that costed like several thousands.

[Allfriends]

thanks for all the assurance every one

that brinkman story was interesting and similar to my situation. it sounds like if the problem is invisible to either buyer or seller then for sure the seller is not responsible.

[Gotassman]

This is a bit of a ridiculous thread.

People will "threaten" to sue, even if it's only small claims court, only because most people are afraid of getting litigated and will react to avoid it.

A house is sold as it is. It is the purchasers responsibility to determine if the house is acceptable for the purchase price. If the buyer feels the house needs repairs, then the price can be negotiated or the prospective buyer can walk away. It is not up to the seller to have a list of everything that is wrong with the house. My God, if everyone expected to buy a perfect house then we'd have everybody suing for all kinds of things. For example, a house is purchased in the summer, but in the winter the humidity drops and floors start squeaking......does the buyer have a right to sue. Did the seller need to disclose the squeaking in the winter.

If selling a home and the buyer asks about specific items (furnace, roof, etc) then the answer must be truthful. The buyer doesn't have a right to ask very general questions such as "Is there anything wrong with the house" then expect to come after the seller after the deal is closed because something wasn't disclosed.

Finally, small claims court must be in the nearest courthouse of the defendant (thats the seller, in this case). He has to travel to you.

[Neil]

A house is sold as it is. It is the purchasers responsibility to determine if the house is acceptable for the purchase price. If the buyer feels the house needs repairs, then the price can be negotiated or the prospective buyer can walk away. It is not up to the seller to have a list of everything that is wrong with the house. My God, if everyone expected to buy a perfect house then we'd have everybody suing for all kinds of things. For example, a house is purchased in the summer, but in the winter the humidity drops and floors start squeaking......does the buyer have a right to sue. Did the seller need to disclose the squeaking in the winter.

If selling a home and the buyer asks about specific items (furnace, roof, etc) then the answer must be truthful. The buyer doesn't have a right to ask very general questions such as "Is there anything wrong with the house" then expect to come after the seller after the deal is closed because something wasn't disclosed.

Reading the case from Krox, it would appear there could an instance, however rare, of a seller being liable for something after the fact.

For example if they knew the pipes were leaking and they hid that with some wrap or other insufficient repair method. Or if they knew the furnace was defective and sold during summer to hide that.

I could be wrong about this, but aren't there forms to declare the overall condition of the property before the transaction is final?

[Dustbunny]

... It is not up to the seller to have a list of everything that is wrong with the house.


Actually, in Ab anyway, you do have to list any known problems with the house when selling. You are not to conceal any known issues of any kind. The key word there is 'known'.

Things like squeaking floors during certain weather conditions wouldn't apply since those are the type of things which could be expected to happen in any house IMO. On the other hand a leak in the roof is another thing, but if the seller was not aware of it, and if the buyer did not do an inspection then it's the buyer's problem. So some things are normal maintenance or issues which one could reasonably expect with any house, others are not.

I can tell you it's a double edged sword with inspections. My house sold without conditions which was a big relief to me as that house had never been inspected since built in 1960. I had no idea what might come up even though the house had been well maintained. So, I was off the hook on any issues that weren't obvious (visible) or that I had no knowledge of.

When I bought (1930 house) had normal old house issues but the buyer from a conditional offer had had an inspection that killed their deal. Once that inspection was done, the seller had to add what was now 'known' to the paperwork. I also had to go with no conditions (the market went nuts here so no conditions was the only way to get a house), the inspection I had seen of this house was obviously skewed to get the buyers out of the sale, but I knew doing no inspection meant I was going to be the one stuck with any surprises as there isn't much mercy if you don't get an inspection. The one bonus I did have was the price had to drop and it was on record that that previous inspection had been done so if there is a problem that was on that inspection that the seller did not disclose, then I would have grounds to go after them.

The disclosures here even go so far as to state there is no ghosts or other strange activity in the house, no mold, no history of ever growing or making of contraband.

[Shiifty]

Years ago in Ontario a friend sold their house, and the buyers had done an inspection. Everything went fine. A few months after the buyers moved in, they sent a letter to the sellers demanding $xxx for replacement for damaged carpets (stains). The letter was from a lawyer (very poorly written), and threatened to sue. The sellers told them no, they did an inspection and the damage wasn't noted then, the deal was done.

Anyone can sue in court, will they win though? Anyone who doesn't do a home inspection doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

[darren9]

There is not much that can be done after closing date.
When my parents moved into their house, the basement was leaking water and the furnace was not working. They had to spend about $3000 to fix everything. It's up to the buyer to ensure everything is fine PRIOR to closing date.

[sleepyguy]

Yup... he's got nothing on you. Just relax and go to court if you have to. It'll be thrown out in 2seconds.

[aliti2k]

Hi Allfriends,

I'm not sure exactly where you live, but if you live in the GTA, and the house is a re-sale home, the house is sold as-is. Obviously, your former house falls into the re-sale category.

If the buyer had an inspection done and the inspection did not turn up any leaks, the buyer's SOL. The deal is now done, and unlike the US, Canada does not put up with that kind of stuff.

In any case, retain some legal council, and have a letter drawn up to send to the buyer's lawyer stating that the house was sold as-is, the buyer agreed to it, the transaction went through and that the buyer called you directly which constitutes harrassment in the middle of a legal dispute.

Bottom line, when purchasing a re-sale home it's always buyer beware. If the buyer wanted a warranty, the buyer should have purchased a new home.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out (which will be in like 2 years) ;)

[Dustbunny]

Hi Allfriends,

Bottom line, when purchasing a re-sale home it's always buyer beware. If the buyer wanted a warranty, the buyer should have purchased a new home.


Just an FYI in case anyone hasn't heard of it, there is insurance you can buy to warranty a resale home against things like appliance and house systems breakdown. I can't recall all the things it covered but basically it would slide in where your normal insurance wouldn't. I had never heard of it until I bought this house last year but it was part of the deal I got by going through the Costco real estate program and is renewable on an annual basis.

[tomincanada]

The disclosures here even go so far as to state there is no ghosts or other strange activity in the house, no mold, no history of ever growing or making of contraband.

Sorry.. no ghosts? Are you serious? Do they mention anything about goblins? I imagine those would be even worse to have in your house.

[Topher]

The disclosures here even go so far as to state there is no ghosts or other strange activity in the house, no mold, no history of ever growing or making of contraband.

And how would one prove or disprove there were ghosts? I'd love to be in court on the day that case comes up!

[Dustbunny]

It (ghosts) must have come up often enough to have been an issue as it comes under known problems. I'm sure anyone who has been through such a thing doesn't take it very lightly unless their ghost happens to be a friendly spirit. Proof probably isn't all that difficult if you have enough witnesses but given the differences in what people believe it might be hard to prove the previous owner knew anything about it.

As an example, when I was a kid, we moved from a house we'd been in about 5 years and one of the neighbours mentioned they were surprised we had lasted that long there. Apparently someone had committed suicide in the house years earlier and no one had lived in the house longer than a year after that because it had some things "going on". We never noticed anything unusual and even if there had been you can bet my parents would not have attributed it to spirits or ghosts so they just laughed that off. It might have been interesting to hear what the folks who had lived there before had to say though. Since then I have known people who have had things go on in their houses that they didn't find funny at all though, so who knows.

[malbadon]

That's what inspections are for.

You are responsible for problems you know about, nothing more. It's up to the buyers inspector to find the problems you don't know about (ie, you can't be expected to know that there is moisture behind some random wall, potentially a structure leak, if it has never shown any signs whatsoever of leaking and is drywalled).

You made three more calls to him? I read that correctly? You are feeding him, its what he wants, he knows now he has you worried.

He doesn't have a leg to stand on as long as you properly represented the house, and even less of one if their own inspection missed it.

The onus is on him to prove you knew about it, so unless you went and patched that leak and he has pictures of your patch attempt or something, just stop calling him.