Foundation in need of repair

Our house is an old house (60 years to be exact), and we had been in the process of selling it when a prospective buyer pointed out a crack in the wall on a side of the house. We have had a few structural engineers out to check the damage and the estimates range anywhere from 9 to 50K to fix this so that we can sell the house. All the engineers agree so far that the damage was obviously patched before we bought the house and the damage was hidden from us and the home inspector who inspected it.

Is there any legal recourse against the people we bought the house from 6 years ago? Or are we screwed in this situation and just need to abandon the house?

Thank you to anyone that may offer some advice our way.

Newtronica

Your posting is confusing. Your posting says that you built the house six years ago, while also stating the house is sixty years old. I am going to assume you meant "buy" instead of "built". Also, there is no way to prove by looking at a house that the sellers intended to deceive a home inspector. That is a weighty charge---and one that takes significant proof to substantiate. How can an engineer look at repaired damage and assess the mental state and intention of the seller? Furthermore, how does an engineer even know WHO repaired the house, or attempted to hide the repair? He can look at a damaged wall and say with certainty that your seller and whomever repaired the wall conspired together to defraud and deceive both a buyer and a home inspector? What if it was done BEFORE YOUR seller sold the house to you? No one can testify (beyond a preponderance of the evidence--the standard that needs to be met to prevail in a civil trial) to someones state of mind and intention to defraud by observing a crack in the wall. How do you tell a difference between an attempt at repairing and an intention to deceive?

Caveat emptor... buyer beware. Before you bought the house, you should have exercised care to have inspections done to assure that there was no structural damage. If it was "obvious" that the house had been "patched", then you, as the buyer had a responsibility to exercise due care in documenting the quality of the house before you purchased it.

Also, having the house "patched" ( repaired? ) could imply that, at the time the repairs were made, the house met code and was not in any way structurally compromised. The only time you have recourse against the sellers is if they knew of a defect in the house and intentionally withheld the information in an attempt to deceive you. Also, the time frame is also significant--six years is a great deal of time when you stop to consider you hadn't even noticed the flaw ( according to your original posting)---it is very possible your seller did not notice the problem had not been fixed adequately.

Also, implicit in owning an older home is the reality that problems can develop suddenly. And, some problems can be reoccurring problems. A few years ago, I sold a 100+ year old house that is on the National Registry. While it wasn't restored and had all the original wood working, railings, stairways, etc., it was in beautiful shape. Now, merely three years later after the buyers of the house moved out, the second story rotunda is literally falling apart. It was sturdy while I was there---but it is obvious now, since it is breaking, that it had been repaired in the past. I did not repair it, so that means that the previous owner did--and she lived there for nearly forty years. This doesn't mean she is liable since she repaired the house and I had no problem with the house the entire time I lived there and owned it.

Full disclosure means the seller must disclose problems he or she is aware of. Perhaps the people YOU bought the house from weren't the ones that repaired it. Say, for sake of argument, the people three owners back repaired it. You cannot sue them---they were not obligated under the laws of full disclosure with you since you did not purchase the house from them.

As unfortunate as it seems, since the early 1900's, there has been a shift from full seller liability to seller/buyer liability under the terms of full disclosure and caveat emptor, buyer beware. This means unless you can prove your seller KNEW there was a problem and the problem was THERE (i.e. the repair was not satisfactory ) at the time you purchased the home, (which would be impossible, since you said yourself that you did not even notice the problem until six years had passed) and unless you can prove they willfully did not disclose this information to you with an intent to deceive, you do not have a case against them.

If you had a home inspection done by a licensed home inspector, I would turn my attention toward pursuing legal action against him. The average homeowner doesn't have the knowledge to deceive a trained, educated, skillful home inspector. More likely, the home inspector simply didn't do a good job. Get out your home inspection report and read his notes on the walls and the structure of the house. If he doesn't indicate there is a problem and you have so-and so- engineers who say otherwise, you'd have a much better case than expecting to pursue legal action against someone from six years ago.

Good luck.

Thank you for the detailed and candid reply, Grace. I apologize for originally typing built instead of bought, please excuse my mistake.

We are fairly certain that the previous owners "patched" the wall to make it look like it was fine, but nobody disclosed this to us during the purchase of the house. The home inspector who came did not inspect the house very closely, he more or less stuck his head in the attic, looked underneath the house, then filled out some forms.

Would it make sense to talk to a lawyer, or are we wasting our time pursuing a lawsuit against anyone involved with this?

Thank you,
Newtronica

You didn't indicate which state you live in to determine whether or not a seller's disclosure (or property disclosure) was required when you signed your original contract. Regardless, it's been at least 6 years for the house to settle and worsen the crack. What did the engineers determine caused the damage? The resulting wall crack may have been plastered without knowledge of the actual cause (i.e. defective foundation.) It's an older home; there's really no way to determine if the previous seller was in fact aware of the cause without more information from the engineers. That being said, if your state required the seller to provide a property disclosure and if you can prove they were aware of the structural damage and did not disclose it, you may have some recourse. Be advised though: it may be as expensive pursuing this in court as it sounds that your repairs may be. Since some time has elapsed since you purchased the property, I think it'll be pretty difficult to prove a pre-existing condition. A real estate attorney in your area might be better able to make that determination, once he/she reviews all of the information/documentation you've accumulated.

Personally, I think it's a pretty drastic step to abandon your property. It would never occur to me to even remotely suggest it. Unless you own it free and clear, that's just another foreclosure waiting to happen, not to mention an eyesore for your community. Have you had any reputable licensed contractors give you estimates to correct the problem? Bottom line, only you can decide whether or not to repair the problem and build that cost into the asking price of your home. If you've used a licensed contractor, there should be no problem to him/her providing a good one year warranty as well. If you're not willing to make the repairs and the property is inhabitable, you might consider reducing your asking price a bit. (Obviously not the entire amount.) Just clearly disclose the existing condition in your contract .. that way you'll avoid a potential buyer coming after you right after closing. It also may be state law where you live.

Hard call to make here. Just out of curiosity, does your city require you to have an inspection when you sell your home? If so, did your home pass it when you first bought the house and more importantly, now that you're trying to sell it? If that's the case, your city hall might have either solid contractor referrals for you, or you may have some possible recourse based on an original clear city inspection. Just a thought.

Good luck. *The posts below are just a few of the states that require property condition be clearly disclosed. Obviously, this is not a new law. If you look for your state's Property Condition Disclosure, the same will have been required at the time you purchased your home.*

SF0158 - Property Condition Disclosure Act-2.

Idaho Statutes

S.C. Code of Laws Title 27 Chapter 50 The Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act - www.scstatehouse.net-LPITS

http://www.state.ok.us/~orec/pdf/disclose.pdf

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/LCNS/pdfs/1614.pdf

You have three options--obviously, you know them already.

1. Move out, and take a loss in the thousands ( obviously, this is not optimal).
2. Sue the former owners and try to prove, after six years, they purposefully neglected to tell you the house seriously flawed ( although since you didn't notice it for six years, they could argue--"Hey, it couldn't have been THAT flawed!!"
3. Sue the inspector that clearly missed something very elementary--a substandard structure. I would go this route immediately.

Another possibility besides consulting with a real estate attorney, check with the city building codes and enforcement. Did you have to get a certificate of occupancy before moving in? Did your house have to meet certain city codes before you could move into it?

Also, your homeowners policy might be of help--although I doubt it. It doesn't hurt to check.