The seller was a real estate broker, and I had no agent representing me - so I believe his fiduciary responsibility was higher than it would be otherwise. After discovering a slab leak a couple of weeks ago, I found out that the seller had been included in a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of the faulty polybutylene plumbing pipes. Because of the case settlement, he could have replaced the pipes at the manufacturer's cost, but he did not. Years later, I was sold the property and the pipe situation was not disclosed to me.
My understanding is that real estate transactions in California require full disclosure, and that a lack of disclosure could result in the seller's liability to the buyer. Do I have a case to sue the seller for the $6000 cost of replacing the pipes?
Answers:
You have no case:
The statute of limitations for breach of the statutory duty to inspect and disclose under Civil Code Section 2079.4 runs two years from "the date of possession," which means the earlier of the date of recordation, the date of close of escrow, or the date of occupancy. (Civil Code Section 2079.4)
A realtor sued for negligent nondisclosure of defects in real property may obtain equitable indemnity from a home inspection company that allegedly breached its duty to the purchaser to discover and disclose the same defects. (Leko v. Cornerstone Home Inspection (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1119-1120.)
Equitable indemnity is available even where the home inspection company prepared its report for a different prospective purchaser, in connection with a previous transaction involving the same property, so long as the home inspection company intended or knew with substantial certainty that its report would be used in subsequent transactions involving the property. (86 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1120-1122.)
The facts that a broker must learn, and the advice and counsel required of the broker, depend on the facts of each transaction, the knowledge and the experience of the
principal, the questions asked by the principal, and the nature of the property and the terms of sale.
The broker must place himself in the position of the principal and ask himself the type of information required for the principal to make a well-informed decision. This obligation requires investigation of facts not known to the agent and disclosure of all material facts that might reasonably be limitations for breaches of those duties imposed by section 2079 of two years from the date of possession.
You have to be able to prove that the problems were present at the time of sale. Also, you have to check to see if the statute of limitations have not expired.
NO it was your responsibly to have an inspection conducted BEFORE purchase.
If four years have passed you have no case unless you can somehow prove that the problem existed when you bought the home. If it was caused by the manufacturer then you may be included in the class action. Did you hire a professional home inspector? If you did and he found no problem with the plumbing then there was nothing wrong with it when you bought the house. If he did find something questionable and you bought the house anyway then you're out of luck.
Also, I have been included in a class action lawsuit as a buyer of a certain model of computer but I never new about it until I'd been awarded seventy five bucks by the court.
The facts you've layed out clearly call for a review by a real estate attorney. If the broker knew about the issue and there was a present problem, then it was DEFINITELY under the "full disclosure" requirements of the Truth in Real Estate legislation. I'm not sure what happens when they know of a potential problem that hasn't surfaced yet... That might be his out. but only an attorney can review the information you have and advise you as to the merits of the case..
I'd say it's definitely worth a consultation fee. At least.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment