After we bought the house last November we found several problems with the house and we have proof ( one written, other verbal) that he knew about the following things:
- previous termite infestations - his disclosure said there were none. We found the termite letter HE got when he bought the house which shows 6 past termite infestations including one active just before he bought the house
- drainage problems in the back yard cause water to enter the basement - we talked to the guy they called to take the water out but he might be an illegal immigrant so we're not sure we can use him to prove our case
- sloping floors - we talked to the guy who replaced their floors. He advised them to have the floors straightened but they didn't go for it. The kitchen floor slopes almost 2 inches over just 2-3 feet distance. This is caused by a center wood 2x10s have sagged excessively. We talked to the first owner of the house ( who sold it to the guy that sold it to us) and she said that she had a massive flooding from upstairs so we're thinking that this is the reasons for the sagging.

Basically, we would like to take the seller and the inspection company to court but have found the following obstacles:
- we signed a paper before the inspection that basically says that whatever happens ( errors/omissions) the inspection company is only responsible for the cost of the inspection ( i.e. can give us $500 back) so I'm not sure we can sue them
- the seller moved to Connecticut. We are in Georgia. The real estate lawyer we contacted said that we would need to sue the seller in Connecticut which would cost us about $10,000 in legal fees ( that probably doesn't include the lawyer fees) and $10,000 in travel expenses. Considering that the repairs we need to do would cost us max $15,000 - $20,000, even if we win we would just barely pay for all the expenses. That doesn't make any financial sense. However, we're really angry with the seller and would like to go after him if at all possible just to teach him a lesson.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how to do it and if you know of anybody who was successful in prosecuting the seller.

thanks,

I would still sue the inspection company. Its one thing to make mistakes, but omissions you are talking about go beyond mistakes and appear to be due to negligence and incompetence. You can't sign away liability for those.

I would also question the need to sue the owner in CT. Since the damage is local you should be able to sue locally. I would talk to another lawyer.

I would has to say it depends so much on the closing documents.

Did you purchase the home pending a home inspection, did you have a inspection done. Almost any closing requires a termite inspection prior to your closing. Was it not done.

You may have a case against the inspector your hired and the termite company if there is current termite activity.

Now if you purchased the property without hiring an inspector and bought the property "as is" then most likely you signed away any ability to sue for damages.

90 percent of my properities I have sold are always "as is" I just tell the buyers that they can hire an inspector prior to purchase if they want.

We did have an inspection. The inspector either didn't catch any of these things or greatly underestimated their severity. For example, in the basement they just noted "minor water damage that needs to be fixed". This did not exactly give us any idea that the water enters the basement every time it rains.

The seller gave us a termite letter issued by Terminix saying that there is no visible past or present termite damage. Terminix didn't have this house under contract. However, when we called Terminix to treat the house and put it under a bond, they immediately noted that there is termite damage in the garage. How come they didn't see that when they were issuing the termite letter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtlantaMom123

We did have an inspection. The inspector either didn't catch any of these things or greatly underestimated their severity. For example, in the basement they just noted "minor water damage that needs to be fixed". This did not exactly give us any idea that the water enters the basement every time it rains.

The seller gave us a termite letter issued by Terminix saying that there is no visible past or present termite damage. Terminix didn't have this house under contract. However, when we called Terminix to treat the house and put it under a bond, they immediately noted that there is termite damage in the garage. How come they didn't see that when they were issuing the termite letter?

---

The inspector would have no way of knowing water enters the basement every time it rains unless he/she was there when it was raining. Like you I'd be very, very unhappy and I would comb over their report but I don't know what they would know - of course, I also don't know what they SHOULD know.

Terminix sells termite control products - I'm not the least surprised that "suddenly" they have found termites. On the other side - when was the original letter dated, when did you call Terminix, when was the damage caused (after the letter) - and can you prove it?

Did your mortgage company send out an inspector? What does that report say? In theory mortgage companies/banks will not lend money on properties with major problems (note that I said, "in theory").

I'm not minimizing your upset and concern, I am simply telling you what I see some of the legal problems to be.

On the other hand - your Attorney has already given you advice, knows your local regs and laws, knows the situation - and if he/she says sue in Connecticut I would presume he/she is correct.

As a side issue some years ago I worked on a NYS matter involving a bad septic tank - the sellers moved out of the house 2 weeks before the dye test (deliberately, guaranteeing that the system would pass, the system did pass, the new owners moved in and the system failed (of course). The "old" owners had moved to Michigan and it simply wasn't worth pursing for the new owners.