File this lawsuit under bullshit - Home owners please comment

[minendo]

Scenario:

Owner of house is transferred out of state. Owner's employer allows employee to attempt to sell house, but offers to buy house through their mortgage company if owner can't sell. Turns out owner can't sell and company takes over the house. 3 months later lady buys the house. Hires her own inspector to check out the house and he approves. She buys and moves in. Two years later she sues original owner, original owner's employer, and the employer's mortgage company for a faulty roof (less than ten years old) and a faulty septic tank.

What a headache this will be for the original owner and companies.

 

[DurocShark]

I'd think that 2 years is beyond any reasonable inspection period.

 

[MacBaine]

Shouldn't take too long for her to lose it if her own inspector signed off on it.

 

[sillymofo]

What kinda 5 yrs old bs is that? That's just like buying a used car and then later sue the owner for a faulty engine, after you put 50K miles more to it.

 

[Ausm]

That law is B.S there has to be stipulations put in place that would free the original owner from any involvement after a 2 year period.

Sysadmin

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

She has a point

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
She has a point

On the top of her empty skull.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
She has a point

Yeah, and it's perfectly fine for Apple to just use an artist's music without permission.

Moron.

 

[blackdogdeek]

i always thought that signing off on the inspection absolved the previous owner of liability.

 

[prvteye2003]

2 years and her own inspector signed off on it?? Sounds like she needs to be suing the inpspector, not the previous owner. That being said, I don't think she will win.

 

[rh71]

It's been 2 years, b!tch.

 

[GasX]

Counter-Sue for stupidity

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Counter-Sue for stupidity

The original owner's plan to countersue for travel expenses and lawyer fees.

 

[OutHouse]

Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

Roof was approximately 8 years old.

 

[Jzero]

The sales agreement should cover this either way. Around here, there is no implied warranty on anything. It is the buyer's responsibility to hire a qualified inspector. There are basically 2 options - the seller agrees to remedy anything identified as deficient in the inspection or release the buyer and his deposit - or the seller is not responsible for remedying anything identified as deficient in the inspection but the buyer may back out and recover his deposit for most any reason - even as small as a broken doorknob.

After settlement, about the only thing you can try to do is prove that the original owner knew of some defect and failed to disclose it.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Citrix
Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

Roof was approximately 8 years old.

I think the court will side with your friend on this. 8 years old at the sale and 10 years old at the time of the suit. I dont see how the court can award the damages on a roof that was pretty much at the end of its life span. Now if it was a new roof at the time of sale and damage did occure then yes your friend wouldnt have a chance in hell in winning nor would the contractor who did the work.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Citrix
Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

Roof was approximately 8 years old.

If the new owner can prove that the old owner knew about the faulty roof, then she has a strong case even if an inspection failed to detect a problem. If she can't, then she will be hard pressed to win even some sympathy from the judge. What type of roof was it, and what is its life expectancy?

 

[Gyrene]

When was the last time a law suit in America was actually justified?

 

[Hoober]

The previous homeowner would be liable if he/she knew that the roof was bad and the septic tank was trash. But they're going to have to prove that the original homeowner knew of the defects. At least that's the law in Colorado. I'm sure each state is different.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: prvteye2003
2 years and her own inspector signed off on it?? Sounds like she needs to be suing the inpspector, not the previous owner. That being said, I don't think she will win.

That's what I was thinking. I don't see how she could possibly win this one. Stupid B1tch!

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Citrix
Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

Roof was approximately 8 years old.

If the roof was under some sort of warranty, they should be working with the provider of that warranty.

 

[lancestorm]

Frivulous lawsuit. Don't worry dude, if she bought the house and it was under no warranty coverage from you, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[vi edit]

Reason # 87123^1000000000 why we need to introduce the concept of paying for your idiocy. You want to bring up a stupid lawsuit? Fine. Go ahead and go to court. But you'll be stuck with both sides bill if you lose.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Citrix
Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

Roof was approximately 8 years old.

I think the court will side with your friend on this. 8 years old at the sale and 10 years old at the time of the suit. I dont see how the court can award the damages on a roof that was pretty much at the end of its life span. Now if it was a new roof at the time of sale and damage did occure then yes your friend wouldnt have a chance in hell in winning nor would the contractor who did the work.

Most roofs have a lifespan of 20-30 years.

This lawsuit is frivilous regardless, although the faulty septic tank is the greater cause for concern. Still, her inspector signed off, she should sue him.