Hey Thickhead,
The house burning down is not like this case. There would not be a
closing if the house burned down, blew away, gas explosion etc. What
idiot buyer would close? There would be no deal under any state's laws
or legal concepts.
This case is different. Buyer failed to notice a potential problem,
closed and now its her problem. If she comes back with evidence of
fraud by seller I'll change my tune. Until Then I'm convinced its a
whiny buyer wanting something for nothing.

wrote:
wrote:
Did the inspector climb on the roof? Probably not.

More obfuscation. Any reputable home inspector is going to climb on
the roof to inspect it. Mine always have.



An eyeball exam from the ground is not clear evidence of a good roof
. Hail storm
means nothing. Was the roof damaged by it? Probablynot.

The fact that neighbors had roof damage and repairs due to the specific
hail storm obviously means nothing to you.

Who did the second inspection? A rogue contractor claiming a newroof
isneeded.

Now you know the qualifications of the contractor? Deal with the
facts, stop inventing them.



Hardly firm evidence. The buyer is whining. Plain andsimple.Should
have bought a new house if she wanted a warranty!!!!!

I notice once again you ignored the case of a house that burns down in
the period between inspection and closing. For obvious reasons,
because it defeats your concept that the buyer has no recourse and
should take a loss because you say so.








wrote:
The OP clearly state that:

1 - The inspection report stated the roof, which is only 5 years old,
was fine

2 - There was a hail storm between inspection and closing, with
neighbors reporting major roof damage, insurance claims, and repairs.

3 - They had another inspection done, that shows hail damage to their
roof.

So, the buyer has compelling evidence, which only you refuse to
acknowledge.



2. That the sellers knew of said hail damage and did n ot repair
and/or disclose such damage.

Wrong. Whether they knew or did not know is immaterial. The point you
refuse to acknowledge or accept, is that the seller has an obligation
to deliver the property in the condition it was in at the time the deal
was struck and the inspection conducted.



Without those two things, byer is just wasting time. They should have
made a closer inspection at walkthrough. Thats what a judge will say.

According to you. Strange that you're so opposed to the buyer going
to small claims to find out.


AS-IS means just that.

It means as it was a time of contract and inspection. You make this
sound like the buyer is whining about some defect that existed BEFORE
the deal was done or the home inspected, which they failed to find.
That is not the case here. In fact, every contract for sale I have
seen, actually spells out in black and white that the seller must
maintain the property and deliver it in the same condition as when
contracted, broom clean, etc.

You also conveniently ignored where I presented the case of a house
that burned up in the period between inspection and closing. Suppose
both the buyer and seller live out of state and neither knew it
happened. The buyer, being out of state, did not do a final walk
through. Following your logic, the buyer is stuck buying a burned down
house and should just take the loss and walk away. Is that right? In
reality, just like in the OP's case, the seller is obligated to deliver
the house in the condition it was in when the deal was agreed to. And
just like in the OP's case, the party that really should be paying up,
is the insurance company. But you'd rather them keep the $$$ and the
buyer get screwed. A judge won't see it that way.