Seller disclosure: police calls included

Buyers file suit after partiers ruin neighborhood

Inman News

DEAR BERNICE: We live in California and are currently in a lawsuit against the sellers of our home two years after the sale. In the winter of 2007 our agent told us that he knew some folks that had been thinking about selling their home for a while. We saw the house and loved it because it was in a very desirable area, and we made an offer.

Almost immediately after moving in, we discovered that the tenants renting the house across the street were a group of six "20-somethings." They were some of the hardiest partiers we'd ever experienced, throwing parties three to four times per week. A party starting at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday was common.

After we moved in, we discovered that the previous owners had been at "war" with the neighbors and their landlord for several years. The owners had written numerous letters complaining to the tenants and landlord. There were at least 10 incidents where the police came out to answer a "disturbing the peace" call.

The sellers deliberately concealed information regarding the problems and their involvement. In fact, the last complaint letter and calls to the police were dated 20 days prior to our offer. As you know, California has very strict disclosure laws. The items on the disclosure statement that indicated known neighborhood nuisances, noise issues (including parties), and notifications of government officials for problems were all checked "no." The problems across the street have never abated. We call the cops at least two to three times a month, and really we could call two to three times a week.

The sellers' response to our claim is that they "told us." They did not. Besides, it wasn't noted on the Transfer Disclosure Statement anyway. Now they claim their agent (our former agent) told them to lie. Honestly! The moral of this story: Disclose, disclose, disclose. We are currently in litigation with the sellers. We are asking for the sale to be rescinded as well as reimbursement for our attorney and court fees.

Liars beware! It's called fraud to conceal these sorts of problems knowingly and to do so blatantly. --K.B.

DEAR K.B.: Sellers who think that they can hide a major issue from their buyers are asking for a lawsuit. Your letter points out a number of important issues that all sellers and buyers must address. ...CONTINUED

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by on September 6, 2009 - 4:25am.

Another classic case for why dual agency does not work. Both parties are never represented 100%.

 
Submitted by on September 6, 2009 - 4:54am.

My experience is, properties are totally free of defects or negative issues until the buyer discovers them.

So many home sellers believe that they don't have to disclose and there is no problem until the buyer finds a problem. Buyers need to take the lead and investigate.

Relying on anything or anyone for information about a property is simply foolhardy.

In the instant case, the seller's omission was so egregious, they just might have to pay for their perfidy.

Lenn Harley
Broker
Homefinders.com
http://www.homefinders.com

 
Submitted by on September 6, 2009 - 10:22am.

Dual agency is not the problem.
Being dishonest is the issue.

 
Submitted by Jean Powers CRS on September 6, 2009 - 6:01pm.

It is ashame that this seller and their agent lied and did not disclose!! The Easton case is why we have this agency law. Listing agent and seller covered up the fact that the house was slipping down the hill. This is what gives the rest of us a bad name..Bernice is absolutely correct in regards if asking the question "should I disclose", the answer is YES. Agents ask me that question a lot. Regarding dual agency, I think that a buyer should absolutely have their own Broker for representation in a transaction. I have represented buyers and sellers maybe 4 times in 25 years and each time the seller had a buyer and brought me in just to write the offer. I feel dual agency, when the listing agent represents both buyer and seller, is a conflict of interest. I wish CA could do away with the listing agent representing both buyer and seller. Unfortunately the way dual agency is written into law that will never happen since the brokerage is the agent.

Jean Powers CRS, e-PRO, PMN
Broker Associate
Kane & Associates
Alameda, CA.
510 908.9002
Homes@JeanPowers.com
www.JeanPowers.net