following

I would not think there is any need to disclose something that had been corrected/remediated/eliminated by a prior owner. Subsequently lying to you is inexcusable, but is not the same as not disclosing a required item when selling.

Say a prior owner had treated for a minor termite infestation... if in fact it was treated and any damage corrected, it not need to be disclosed by a seller say ten years later. Nor would a poorly graded yard that the builder fixed... nor minor plaster cracks fixed a few months after the home was built.

I am sure that someone can come up with some items that would require disclosure in the future by subsequent owners/sellers.

Also, if there is no or partial correction accomplished of a "defect" it creates an interesting case. Say that the original owner claims the yard is not graded "properly" and is thus "defective." The builder comes back and says, "Nonsense. It's fine. I'm doing nothing.." Two years later the owner goes to sell - is the still existing yard grading "defect" still a defect that must be disclosed?

Stax - people put in a line like "following" so they get automatic notifications of further comments and can in fact follow the discussion.

"people put in a line like "following" so they get automatic notifications of further comments and can in fact follow the discussion."

I didn't know that... not seen it before.

I just create a shortcut to any threads I want to "follow" and have not posted in.

Interesting question. Just how far back do you go on disclosures? 10, 25, 50 years? Does the previous disclosure info have to be put on a current disclosure or just what repairs happened while the present owner occupied the house? How can the current owner be responsible for the accuracy of a previous disclosure?

Can you prove the owner you bought the house from had knowledge of water leaking problems while occupying the home? If not I wouldn't think you have a case.

Maybe an agent can chime in on this.

Realtors are held to a higher standard when selling their own property.

I'm not sure if she knew about the water since it was in the basement, but I think there may be a possibility that she knew or should have known based on your post.

Here is a good link to the Code of Ethics & Standards for you to read:

https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/code-of-ethics/2020-code-of-ethics-standards-of-practice

It still begs the question, if a previous issue is corrected and all needed mitigations/repairs are completed do you need to disclose that the issue existed.

Classically, the bathroom faucet needs a washer replaced. You replace the washer and correct the problem. Who here would report that as an issue five years later when selling?

Most houses are sold “as is.” No guarantees. I am in my third house, and we have a vacation house and just sold a rental. Couldn’t tell you what I wrote on any of the forms, or what sellers wrote on the forms for the houses we bought. Move on.

Stax, that is a very good question.

I don't know the answer to that question. It seems to me, based on the OP, that there was evidence of a leak during the Realtors ownership period of which she may or may not have been aware. Leaks can be persistent. When she was presented with the evidence of an old leak in the basement during the inspection it is my opinion she should have disclosed what she knew about the prior leak and it's repair. There is no reason she wouldn't have had a copy of the sellers disclosure from her purchase. I am assuming that she forgot about it prior to being presented with the leak evidence during the inspection but that inspection would have been a reminder to her.

"Most houses are sold “as is.”"

Not in my experience!

It's regional Stax. In my area of Florida it is customary to sell the homes "AS IS" and has been for many years.

Unless there is a warranty disclosed or required by law (such as sale of new construction homes), all homes are sold as is, and I believe that is in every state.

That is the entire reason for an inspection process. The reason that you have a due diligence or inspection period is to satisfy yourself that the condition of the home is satisfactory. You can't hold the seller responsible for a defect that existed and was unknown.

However, the seller also can't lie about the condition. So if the seller disclosed that there were no known water intrusions when they had knowledge of a water intrusion then that is not allowed. I am not certain about the disclosure process, my gut would lead me to believe that you don't have to disclose a problem from a previous owner that you never experienced. It just doesn't seem logical that you would be beholden to their level of legal reporting.

Here is another wrinkle that I did not mention in the original post and is tangential, but interesting and informative.

Our community has several class action lawsuits against the builder because early homes (built roughly 2008-2011) used a type of durapex pipe that has been proven defective over time. Specifically, it develops pinhole leaks when exposed to hot water for too long, or from water that is too hot. Homeowners who had recirculating pumps on their hot water experienced the failures first, then homes that did not have the pumps, which led to an investigation of the situation. Plumbers and lawyers opined that the actual pipe was defective and a certain percentage of it would fail over time. It was not a question of if, but when. There was no was the builder could have known if the defect. However, as a matter of fact, the pipe was not rated for the prolonged exposure to hot water created by the recirculating pumps, and this was clearly stated in the specifications from the manufacturer. The recirc pump, offered by the builder as an upgrade, hastened the speed with which the pipes would fail and did so. This situation was the topic of many emails sent to all homeowners / HOA members by their neighborhood captains. It was a frequent topic of conversation in the community and the subject of many email and mail solicitations by plumbers and lawyers.

This is also a disclosure the sellers did not make to us. Our inspector brought the problem to light in his report, photographing the pipe, noting it had known defects and mentioning the class action suits. We also had friends who lived in the community already who had had their homes re-piped so we knew about the situation from them as well. We didn’t expect the sellers to repipe the house but Verbally through our agent suggested a price reduction to allow for re-piping and the seller immediately refused, saying they did know about the lawsuits (but did not disclose that) but that nothing had happened and they would not reduce based on something that might or might not happen.

She and her husband had built a house around 2012 and had lived in the community for five years prior to purchasing the house. They had received all the same emails about the plumbing, both those from the HOA representatives and from the builder. They knew about the lawsuits beforehand and if they could have pleaded they did not, they certainly knew when they received our inspection report that laid it all out. We decided we would have our house re-piped at our own expense ($7k) before we moved in.

After we bought, the next door neighbor put her house on the market and our seller was the Realtor. It sold quickly, within a couple of weeks. The couple were planning to do extensive work on the house and happened to see the plumbers truck at ours when we were getting estimates. He came over and jokingly asked if something was wrong already. I told him what we were doing and he was astonished, having never heard about the pipe situation. He texted his Resltor (our seller) and asked if she knew about all the pipe failures and defective pipe and she texted back that she had never heard about it. He was really angry and showed me the text. His wife wanted to sue the Realtor but he decided they should just let it lie. However, they told us the realtor told them the house was in perfect condition and did not need an inspection, so they didn’t get one. Not her fault, pe se, but certainly at her instigation they did not learn about the problem.

So we know the Realtor is a liar. There are other, smaller instances in both transactions that were also questionable. They specifically denied to me any knowledge that work had been done on our house although they had only owned it for 18 months since viewing the disclosure. She was not really an active realtor, basically just acting as one for their own transactions and a couple of friends. it is not as though she was so busy with other contracts that she forgot what was disclosed to her about her own house.

That is illuminating.

She clearly has violated the Code of Ethics in my opinion.

The fact that she encouraged the buyers to not perform an inspection is outrageous. It doesn't impact you directly, but it does show a pattern with this particular agent.

The lawsuit(s) against the builder should have been disclosed to you, the buyers.

The faulty plumbing pipes should have been disclosed. IMO they are a material defect. This is the purpose of disclosures.

You can't take action over the plumbing issue. Your inspector found it, and therefore it is not actionable now. Even supposing there was a duty to disclose, your inspection found it. You would only have a reasonable action for costs incurred up to termination of the agreement. If you close on the house you can't claim that it was a material defect, you closed after you knew it! That is the very definition of not material. As for proof of her honesty, it simply isn't relevant as there is only a duty not to defraud, not a duty to be honest with you.

Certainly your neighbors can use your information and theirs to show that the realtor knew and didn't mention the defect, but I am honestly unsure if a realtor has a duty to reveal a condition concern that was not revealed by the seller or inspector. The inspection thing is a tragedy.

ETA: Please note, the realtor might be doing things that land them in trouble but I am specifically talking about compensation to you for the defect. As for duty disclose a lawsuit, I suspect you would need to be a party to the lawsuit for you to have an affirmative disclosure duty.

I'm sure there are various types and styles of sellers disclosures across the US.

Our's is very specific now. Over the years it has been changed repeatedly. Now there is a very specific question regarding lawsuits (see below):

• ,

Are you aware of the Property ever having been, or is it currently, subject to litigation or claim, including but not limited to, defective building products, construction defects and/or title problems?

@Denita - It doesn't matter. There are no damages to recover. If the inspector found it and they continued with the sale what damages could they possibly claim? If this was unknown until after the closing, then the OP could fight it out, but once they were told and continued... SOL.

Furthermore, the question is only are you aware of any, which is not an affirmative responsibility to discover. The only reasonable way to show that someone is aware of a lawsuit is to show that they were a party to it.

She isn't the typical seller. She was an owner/agent. She is held to a higher standard. How can she claim that she was unaware of any lawsuit in a community in which she lived and worked for years? I'm not saying that the OP should or shouldn't go after the seller. I'm just pointing out that it is unlikely that the agent didn't know about the lawsuits or the leaky/faulty plumbing or the leak in her very own basement. What the OP chooses to do including nothing, is up to them.

bry911, I agree with you about the damages since the leaks were pointed out during the inspection period and the buyer elected to close anyway. However, it doesn't release the owner/agent from any ethical responsibilities during the sale of her own home.

I am not asking for opinions on whether the seller acted in bad faith over the plumbing non- disclosure (we know she did) and we are not seeking damages or any other relief for that issue. It is, as I stated, tangential but interesting and informative to the issue at hand, which is their non disclosure of the defect discovered by the original owner in 2013.

Regardless of whether or not we can get any relief from the seller and her husband with respect to the leak—-which may cost upwards of $5k to fix—-the next door neighbor and we have agreed to both file formal complaints about her with the board of realtors in our state. She does not deserve a license to sell real estate.

So, did she also need to disclose any washers that were replaced ?

“As-is properties may not qualify for government-insured loans like FHA or VA,” cautions Brook. “To qualify for this type of loan, properties cannot have defects like roof issues, chipping paint or other major deficiencies.”

As-is properties may not qualify for government-insured loans like FHA or VA

This is one of those times where a phrase can have multiple meanings, some legally recognized and others just jargon. You are comparing the legal definition of "as-is" to the colloquial definition of "as-is". Which can lead to a misunderstanding.

An as-is sale means that there are no implied warranties against defects, which means that you have no recourse against the seller other than those things that were expressly stated. Signs disclaiming implied warranties are required by various statutes and the most popular is, "as-is."

Over time, the colloquial meaning transformed into, "what you see is what you get." So when you see a listing that is marked "as-is" that means that the seller is not interested in making repairs, which is the colloquial meaning. So FHA or VA may not allow financing on properties that are currently defective, they don't require sellers to make repairs for defects that became known after the sale.

Marking a property "as-is" is virtually meaningless. I have bought many as-is properties and requested repairs and had them done. It is just a way to scare off people who want a move in ready home. Noting that real estate transactions are "as-is" is a completely different creature.

As-is properties may not qualify for government-insured loans like FHA or VA

Nonsense. I sell properties all the time that are AS IS (all but one or two in the last 20 years since AS IS contracts became the norm) and the mortgages are FHA or VA regularly. Are the properties fixers and the seller can't or won't fix? Then a FHA 203k loan works. And, as bry911 points out - there is the negotiating of repairs after the inspection too. Not all repairs need to be done to satisfy loan requirements - only health and safety repairs.

If I'm the listing agent I encourage sellers to do this before putting the home on the market anyway. If the seller is unable or unwilling to do these repairs, then we are looking for a different type of buyer. Depending on the actual condition of the property or how severe the condition, we may be looking for an investor/cash/hard money buyer. This impacts the price. If a seller has lots of deferred maintenance, then either the seller repairs to a 'normal' standard before marketing or takes the hit on the sales price based on its condition at the time of sale. Marketing 101.

"Nonsense." Actually it is moronic to say that, but personal attack aside:

Sell "as is" and you better not include:

FHA Repairs That Must be Completed Prior to Closing - and you can't ignor these required repairs by claiming "as-is".

Keep an eye out for the following conditions on or in a prospective property:

• Peeling paint in homes built before 1978, which might be a lead hazard
• Unpainted downspouts and broken rain gutters
• Rotting outbuilding in need of demolition
• Exterior doors that don't properly open and close
• Exposed wiring and uncovered junction boxes
• Major plumbing issues and leaks
• Inoperable HVAC systems
• Leaky or defective roofs
• Roofs with a life expectancy of fewer than three years
• Roof composition over shake
• Active and visible pest infestation
• Rotting window sills, eaves, or support columns on a porch
• Missing appliances that are usually sold with a home, such as a stove
• Bedrooms without minimal-sized windows for egress or windows with bars that don't release
• Foundation or structural defects
• Wet basements
• Evidence of standing water in the crawl space
• Inoperable kitchen appliances
• Empty swimming pools, pools without working pumps, and abandoned pools with mosquito fish
• Ripped screens
• No pressure relief valve on the water heater
• Leaning or broken fences

(Currently, if the seller agrees to repair these items the loan may proceed.)

As an aside, I am a Veteran that except for one home purchase, was never able to purchase or sell with a VA Loan mainly because of the requirement to correct deficiencies prior to loan approval.

And again, Disclosure requirements in a jurisdiction are not reduced because of a claim by the seller to sell "as-is."

If there is a class action lawsuit, then the builders insurance company should have established a claims procedure and a reserve to pay for the pipe replacements. I’m still not understanding how you think it is it was the seller’s responsibility to inform the buyer of detailed repairs made by the prior owner some years before. I went hunting down some warranty information the other day and ran across an old plumbing file and saw an invoice for work from 10 years ago I completely forgot about. And I’ll probably forget about it again shortly. When I sell the house I’ll sell it “as is,” and I damn well will not be going through old records and providing a list of repairs. Oh, and if something is repaired, then the problem is remedied. What is there to disclose???

I sell a lot of homes with FHA and VA mortgages.

They pass the inspections and the appraisal requirements (the apprasal insp required by the lender). The reason they pass is because the seller has maintained their home during their ownership and they don't exhibit the deferred maintenance items in your list. If the seller hasn't maintained their home, it is obvious in the initial showing (not obvious in the photos) so an offer isn't made. If an offer is made and the items are found subsequently after the offer is accepted and during the inspection period we either negotiate the repairs or cancel the contract. The idea is to not get under contract with a house that won't pass the minimum property standards. Those minimum standards are health and safety factors.

Actually it is moronic to say that, but personal attack aside:

[...]

And again, Disclosure requirements in a jurisdiction are not reduced because of a claim by the seller to sell "as-is."

The irony of the moronic comment is thick. With respect Stax, you appear to be having a different conversation, iinformation is not a substitute for understanding.

The words "as-is" have nothing to do with disclosure requirements at all. It has to do with repairs of defects. You can't simply disclaim a disclosure requirement because you write "as-is" on the disclosure form. That would be fraud.

However, you don't have a duty to disclose repairs by previous owners that were sufficient. That is not how disclosures work. If you have a problem that requires disclosure and you repaired it, you must disclose that. If you are told of a significant problem that you don't correct, you must disclose that. You don't have to disclose previous problems that were repaired by previous owners. If that were the case 100 year old houses would have 10 pages of roof leak disclosures and they would become meaningless.

You are not going to prove fraud unless you can prove the seller was aware that the problem wasn't remedied, therefore you are going to have to prove it leaked during their ownership. You are wasting people's time and money pretending it is going to go any other way.

From the OP's last post she isn't planning to take the seller to court but to report her to the Board of Realtors in her state. That is a completely different standard from court.

We are going to report her regardless of any other action.

Shady willow, I agree that repairs made for defects or problems before their ownership are not, as a rule, disclosable. However, this is a house with a basement, and the disclosure with respect to the basement asks if the seller has ANY knowledge of intrusion of water into the basement. They said no. But, they knew differently. Had we known there was a prior problem we would have consulted an engineer to inspect the house. Had s/he uncovered evidence of a problem we might have passed on the house. Had s/he seen evidence of a prior, not current, problem we would have been satisfied it was fixed properly. An analogy someone mentioned above is a termite inspection. When an inspector sees evidence of prior infestation or damage s/he requires the area to be treated again.

Maybe she should have disclosed the basement issue, perhaps not.

But, why did you not investigate the possibility that water was leaking into the basement. After all, you saw the water stain with your own eyes! What did your inspector tell you?

IMO, if someone is trying to deceive a buyer, the first thing they do is remove the carpet stain before showing.

Didn't you have an inspection? Time for you to just remedy the basement and move on.

From the OP's last post she isn't planning to take the seller to court but to report her to the Board of Realtors in her state.

That is not what the OP said... I am not asking for opinions on whether the seller acted in bad faith over the plumbing non- disclosure (we know she did) and we are not seeking damages or any other relief for that issue.

However, this is a house with a basement, and the disclosure with respect to the basement asks if the seller has ANY knowledge of intrusion of water into the basement.

Contracts are vague enough that a biased reading will almost always find some verbiage to support your side. I suspect that is what is going on here. The phrase "any knowledge" doesn't help you, it helps her. It is a disclaimer phrase to remove the affirmative duty, she doesn't have to thoroughly investigate. It is a much weaker question than "has there been water intrusion in the basement?"

Furthermore, disclosure requirements like this are statutory, and your state will rule on what is required. I just looked up half a dozen states and none require current disclosure of previous disclosures. So check what is required in your state, it would be quixotic to attempt to overcome that statute.

----

If you are going to report, I would wait until after you have settled if you are going to. It is a real bargaining chip and maybe your only one.

Inspection sometimes cannot detect water entering the basement unless there is evidence such as staining on walls, wet areas, etc. And even then it could be old staining. The inspector cannot see behind walls and back filled foundations. The best way to tell is to go inspect the home when raining and sometimes that is not possible.

Kswl2 has stated that she lives in Georgia. I want to point out that we have had over 10 inches of rain since the beginning of the year. South Georgia is even worse. While this is the rainy season, it's been more like a monsoon. These are historic levels. Septic systems are failing, basements are flooded and roofs are leaking. This week is the first week that we have had more than 3 days without rain. It's been very bad.

While we don't know the motives of the alleged shady realtor, I can state that conditions are very bad. It is possible that repairs were made, were satisfactory for quite a few years, and this year has pushed the water table much higher than normal causing the repairs to fail.

Buying real estate continues to be a buyer beware proposition.

Wow, so you’d try to ruin someone’s livelihood over something as trivial as possible knowledge of a repair made by a formal owner? How righteous.

It’s not “possible” knowledge. She signed both disclosures. If her livelihood is ruined it would be a situation of her own making. I appreciate your contributions to this thread; however, they might be more apropos if you read the original post more carefully.

I took the seller of our house to small claims court over the broken dishwasher that she said she'd filed a claim with the manufacturer to get a replacement - and court costs, of course. I prevailed in court, but it really irked me because all she had to do was be honest and simply take the deduction for the cost of a new dishwasher from the price agreed on for the house! She and her agent knew that the thing was broken, and perhaps her agent wasn't aware that she wasn't being forthright about the claim with the manufacturer thing, but she certainly knew she was lying and ultimately had to pay for a replacement AND court costs! It would have been cheaper for her to take the price discount in the amount of a replacement dishwasher!

I don't blame the OP for deciding to report her to the state licensing body, it's just unfortunate that the neighbor didn't get the inspection despite the advice they got from the realtor that ultimately led to them deciding not to get one. At this point in my life, I'm not sure that even a squad of legit holy angels descending from heaven to tell me I don't need to get an inspection and that I can take a person's statements about the condition of a property being 'perfect' and 'without any problems whatsoever' is enough to convince me it's absolutely 100% true fact. :P I've had to deal with the consequences and endure being truly irked, I'm just lucky that the stakes weren't say...whether or not the house would collapse on me in the middle of the night (without an earthquake or random sinkhole, those are the kinds of natural disasters you can't expect to know when/where/how bad it will be until it actually happens)...In the previous house there were things that I just had to put up with once they turned up post-moving in and weren't all that big of a deal once I came up with a work-around or means of covering it up to the extent that it wasn't glaringly obvious any time I looked over at the general area...and our current house had the "she lied!" dishwasher, but the fridge she left when she moved was not the one that was there the last walk through but because she was mostly but still in the process of loading up the truck with her stuff, I take responsibility for the fridge-switch-a-roo and for buying the replacement (the one she left was too big for the place in the kitchen that was intended for placing the fridge in and had a broken ice maker).

Legally though, you have a limited window in which you will be able to recover any damages that you may be entitled to - otherwise people would be filing lawsuits against the person who built the house 50 years ago, sold it 20 years ago, and now needs a new roof. It might sound silly, but the US is a very litigious country, if someone can think of something to sue over then someone probably has tried to - with and without successfully recovering any losses. The courts have tried to reduce frivolous lawsuits and vexatious litigants are typically barred from continuing to be vexatious after a certain point - the court doesn't like to have its time wasted and it's not long before judges become well aware of those in their jurisdictions that are considered 'frequent fliers' so they can take action.

I'm still wondering why the OP did not bring up the issue of the stained carpet during the inspection period.

From the original post:

We noticed a discolored corner of the carpet in a basement bedroom and through our realtor asked what had happened. She said she didn’t know, nothing had happened. It was a minor darker spot and was not wet. The disclosure form from the sellers said there had been no repairs for water intrusion into the basement.

The “she” in bold refers to the seller. My apologies for being unclear.

If the neighbor is aware of the real estate agent making m repairs while she owned the property and it didn’t disclose, that a red flag. You have to disclose any repairs done...doesn’t matter if they’ve permanently resolved the issue or not.

If the neighbor is aware of the real estate agent making m repairs while she owned the property and it didn’t disclose, that a red flag.

If I am understanding correctly, the seller didn't make the repairs, the owner previous to the seller did. It is rare that an item being included on a previous disclosure would be required to be disclosed. I doubt many people keep them for any significant amount of time.

You have to disclose any repairs done...doesn’t matter if they’ve permanently resolved the issue or not.

Disclosure rules vary by state. In some states you might have to disclose repairs, in others you don't.

@bry911- my bad...I misread that the neighbor knew of repairs done by the seller. I just re-read that they knew the original owners did the repairs. It could be that the sellers didn’t experience the issues because they didn’t experience the same amount of rain during their ownership.

We found out we were going to get sued by our buyers by our old neighbors. This was way after the fact...apparently there was a pinhole leak somewhere between two bathrooms. We had no clue, but the buyers were really mad because they ended up having to do a bunch of work in one of the bathrooms. We had disclosed some tile/grout issues and didn’t know why. We had a plumber go down below the house and everything was dry. But if we had repaired the grout and not disclosed it, I’m sure it would have looked like we knew something was leaking in the walls...glad we were upfront about everything!

Asking the seller the cause of the stained basement carpet, and then using that info as the definitive info to base your actions is very risky.

After all, the stain had to come from something. Did the inspector mention it at all?

Having had a water heater go up, a downspout get plugged up, and a washing machine hose come undone, I’ve three times had water in my basement, none of which was caused by problems with the house itself. Stains on the basement carpet? Hell yeah, kids, puppies, cats, rowdy football game watching...I just feel it’s mean spirited to go after someone’s livelihood in lieu of getting clarification of what the seller knew and remedy the problem. And again, if the pipe issue is the builders fault, that insurance policy will pay for the repairs. But apparently OP is set on getting the sellers real estate license revoked and not really interested in getting all the repairs done with the least amount of money out of pocket.

Shady willow, it’s a shame you neglected to read the original post and my subsequent comments. You have demonstrated your unwillingness to read on more than one occasion in this short discussion. By all means, express your opinion, but do understand that an opinion is only as good as the information on which it is based. I can’t take your remarks seriously, sorry.

I appreciate others’ input of facts, anecdotes and considered opinions.