"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , cshenk says...

"dadiOH" wrote

But the good news is - you're in a disclosure state it sounds like
- you can pursue this through a lawyer. And the house isn't going
to fall down tomorrow. It's still a house for the living in while
you decide what to do, cracks or no cracks.

Not really. Even in a disclosure state, you have some protections as a
seller. My state is a mix-match there I think if I understand it right.
If
you do not want to be held liable, you sell as 'non-disclosure' which
means
you can not be held liable for anything. If you do disclose, you have
limits on what you can be sued for later as based on reasonable knowledge
basis.

You can for example: Disclose no knowledge of any roof problems, and not
be
held liable if 5 years later it turns out the roof starts to go.

How do you figure that? If the seller knew of material problems and
did not disclose them the *seller* is on the hook for repairs. It is

Not really. If the state doesnt require disclosure, but 'allows for it if
you want to' there's a huge difference.


One limit is that you need to show the seller *knew*. Especially if
they're not
the original occupants of the house, that may be hard to show. For
example, did
the freezer that blocked the view of the shifted block come with the house
when
*they* bought?

I know that a lot of people don't want to do certain repairs or even bring
an
engineer in because it would make it easier to show something they didn't
disclose. (Oh the tangled web we weave....)

Banty


Actually, this was a one-owner home. They were here for over forty years.
And since some of the cracks were poorly repaired, I find it difficult to
accept they didn't know. I don't think "they didn't know" would hold up in
court.