Banty writes:
In article , Jonathan Kamens says...

Banty writes:
What is the relevance of your post to the O.P's situation?

You tell me. You're the one that brought it up.


To spell it out, my point is that the fact that neighbors are replacing roofs
does not necessarily mean that the OP's roof is hail-damaged. Because insurance
fraud is extremely common.

That has nothing at all to do with the little piece of carrion you dragged in to
the house and mewled about, which was something about which of of said neighbors
should be conversed with.

On the contrary, what I said had everything to do with the point you
were trying to make. I will try to explain more clearly.

All the evidence you offered to support your claim that insurance fraud
is extremely common is that you've seen a lot of it. That could just
as easily prove that you associate with the wrong kind of people.

It's entirely possible that some of the people on OP's street know
there's nothing wrong with their rooves and are taking advantage of the
insurance companies to get free roof work. It's also entirely possible
that all of them sincerely believe that their rooves were damaged by
the hail because they're being misled by contractors who are eager to
take advantage of clueless homeowners and their insurance companies.
It's also entirely possible that the rooves really were damaged by the
hail and need to be replaced.

All of these possibilities exist. It's simply specious for you to
assert that the people getting their rooves replaced are engaging in
insurance fraud, when all you have to offer as proof of this assertion
is the fact that you know people who've done it.

Lots of people here seem rather quick to call people names and accuse
people of illicit dealings. What's the point of starting with that as
your initial conclusion? It doesn't hurt to assume people are on the
up-and-up until proven otherwise. The truth will come out in the end,
and one thing I've learned in life (although I confess that I have as
much trouble practicing it all the time as anybody else) is that it's a
lot more painful to start out believing that someone was wrong when it
turned out they were right, than the opposite.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...

You naive fools can believe the buyer acted responsibly but I believe
otherwise. When someone sells a used house car toaster etc it usually
has some problems. Had the buyer acted responsibly and maybe asked for
another inspection or did a THOROUGH walk through this would not be a
problem. I missed the OPhaving DEFINITIVE proof of hail damage.


Right - there's no proof of that.

The facts as stated:

1 - The 5 year old roof was inspected as part of the purchase and
deemed fine

2 - A hail storm occurred subsequent to that and before closing

3 - Neighbors have had significant roof damage, insurance claims, and
repair work done for the same storm

4 - The 5 year old roof was then re-inspected by a roofer and deemed to
have $5K worth of damage.

That constitutes "no proof"? How much more proof do you need that the
roof was damaged by hail? In a civil case, all you need is to tip the
scale over 50% in your favor to win. You don't need proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, but I'd say if all the above as stated is true, that
test is pretty close to being met too.





If
the seller did get money from a claim that would be easy to track
wouldnt it? That might point to a cover up by the seller. Otherwise
we're left with a whiney buyer who wants something for nothing.


But this is where I disagree with you. If there really is hail damage, it'd be
on the seller to pay. I really doubt the buyer is striving so hard to get a 5
year old roof replaced just so get something fer free. That'd be dumb. I'd be
more inclined to believe if it were a much older roof. I think it's just a
matter of panic about possible damage once they saw roofers on their neighbors'
houses.

Banty

The buyer failed to use common sense and reason by having an additional
inspection done or by making a thorough walk through especially if the
buyer is out of state and cannot reasonably monitor the property. This
absolves the seller of any responsibility in the absence of deceit or
misrepresentation. Had the buyer asked "Was their any roof damage from
the last storm" and seller said no yet the buyer can find evidence of
insurance payout then I would be on the buyer's side 100%.
Having been on both sides of real estate transactions I know Iwouldnt
give the buyer 1 cent after closing unless it was agreed upon
beforehand. As a buyer I wouldnt thinkof asking seller for a cent
unless agreed upon or I knew Icould prove misreprentation. Once
transaction closes it's too late. Otherwise everyone (especially in
sue happy America) would try to get money for every little thing.


Jonathan Kamens wrote:



I don't think anyone except you is debating the question of whether
the buyer acted responsibly. You are the only one who is calling
people, including the buyer, names.

The question is not whether the buyer acted responsibly or could have
protected himself better against the eventuality we are discussing.
The question is whether the seller in fact had a legal obligation to
deliver the house in the condition it was in when the inspection was
performed and the P&S was signed, and whether the seller thus has a
legal obligation to pay to repair damage that occurred after those
events and before the closing but was not discovered until after the
closing.

These are pretty clear-cut legal questions. They have nothing to do
with whether the buyer acted responsibly.

There is another interesting question, i.e., whether in fact the roof
is really damaged and needs substantial repairs, but that's completely
orthogonal to the legal question.

As I've already said several times, the only intelligent thing for the
OP to do at this point is to go talk to a local real estate lawyer,
not to hang around and be called named pointlessly by you.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

In article , Jonathan Kamens says...

Banty writes:
In article , Jonathan Kamens says...

Banty writes:
What is the relevance of your post to the O.P's situation?

You tell me. You're the one that brought it up.


To spell it out, my point is that the fact that neighbors are replacing roofs
does not necessarily mean that the OP's roof is hail-damaged. Because insurance
fraud is extremely common.

That has nothing at all to do with the little piece of carrion you dragged in to
the house and mewled about, which was something about which of of said neighbors
should be conversed with.

On the contrary, what I said had everything to do with the point you
were trying to make. I will try to explain more clearly.

All the evidence you offered to support your claim that insurance fraud
is extremely common is that you've seen a lot of it. That could just
as easily prove that you associate with the wrong kind of people.

It's entirely possible that some of the people on OP's street know
there's nothing wrong with their rooves and are taking advantage of the
insurance companies to get free roof work. It's also entirely possible
that all of them sincerely believe that their rooves were damaged by
the hail because they're being misled by contractors who are eager to
take advantage of clueless homeowners and their insurance companies.
It's also entirely possible that the rooves really were damaged by the
hail and need to be replaced.

All of these possibilities exist.

True. That goes to my point.

It's simply specious for you to
assert that the people getting their rooves replaced are engaging in
insurance fraud, when all you have to offer as proof of this assertion
is the fact that you know people who've done it.


I most certainly did NOT say that, because widespread insurance fraud exists,
therefore it is being indulged in by the OP's particular neighbors. I asserted
a *possibility*.

Furthermore, I did NOT say that therefore it could be included there was no roof
damage due to the hail.

All that I have ever asserted is that the neighbors are getting roofing work
done is not conclusive evidence that there is hail damage to the OP's roof!

Lack of evidence .not equal. evidence to the contrary. I argued for the former.

I said that there was reason to be skeptical as to the cited evidence of roof
damage - that some neighbors are having roof work done.

That's all.

Do you understand now.

Lots of people here seem rather quick to call people names and accuse
people of illicit dealings. What's the point of starting with that as
your initial conclusion? It doesn't hurt to assume people are on the
up-and-up until proven otherwise. The truth will come out in the end,
and one thing I've learned in life (although I confess that I have as
much trouble practicing it all the time as anybody else) is that it's a
lot more painful to start out believing that someone was wrong when it
turned out they were right, than the opposite.


Perhaps it would be better for you in life to learn that holding a skeptical
mind as to what people say or do, can be done without "believing that someone
was wrong". Then you won't be quite so set up for surprises, whether good or
bad, and dissapointments.

I recommended that the OP get the roof inspected again, and get on the roof with
the inspector. I do agree with you that they should contact a property lawyer
*if* they find actual hail damange such that work needs to be done on the roof.

Banty

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.

writes:
The buyer failed to use common sense and reason by having an additional
inspection done or by making a thorough walk through especially if the
buyer is out of state and cannot reasonably monitor the property. This
absolves the seller of any responsibility in the absence of deceit or
misrepresentation.

Legally speaking, you simply have no way of knowing that.

You continue to assert your legal opinion as authoritative despite the
fact that you are not qualified to do so and ample evidence has been
provided that both the law and content of P&S agreements vary widely on
this topic.

You have therefore proven that you would rather listen to the sound of
your own voice than listen to reason, and that you are therefore not
worth listening to.

*plonk*

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

All these pretty much indicate the buyer is out of luck . It's clear
that once the deal closes the house is "as-is" and any subsequent
issues are the buyer's problem. The only one that mentions roof says
"known" leaks and if the seller didnt know or there was no apparent
damage the sellers are off the hook.

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
writes:
... who is responsible for
hail damage between inspection and closing. The answer to that is:
The SELLER. Have you not read real estate contracts? Every one I've
ever seen says the seller agrees to deliver the property at closing in
the condition it was in at contract time, broom clean, etc. And even
if it's not explicitly stated, it's implied.

Not all P&S agreements are like this, so whether the buyer has any
recourse at all, assuming that there really is substantial roof damage,
may very well depend on the language of the P&S he signed, as well as
on state and local law where the property is located. Therefore, as
I've suggested before (is it beginning to sound like a broken record),
the OP needs to talk to a lawyer.

Here're some quotes from P&S agreements I found on the net:

From
http://www.mcba.org/member/documents...teractive.pdf:

"13. Condition of Property. Buyer agrees to purchase the property and
any items included in the purchase AS IS except as provided in
paragraph 2, subject to reasonable use, wear, tear, and natural
deterioration between now and the time of closing. However, this
paragraph shall not relieve Seller from furnishing a Certificate of
Occupancy as called for in paragraph 11, if applicable. Buyer shall
have the right to inspect the property within 48 hours before the time
of closing, and Seller agrees that all utilities shall be on at that
time."

From http://realestate.utah.gov/REForms/New%20REPC.pdf:

10.2 Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property will be
in the following condition ON THE DATE SELLER DELIVERS PHYSICAL
POSSESSION TO BUYER:
(a) the Property shall be broom-clean and free of debris and personal
belongings. Any Seller or tenant moving-related damage to the Property
shall be repaired at Seller's expense;
(b) the heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing and sprinkler systems
and fixtures, and the appliances and fireplaces will be in working
order and fit for their intended purposes;
(c) the roof and foundation shall be free of leaks known to Seller;
(d) any private well or septic tank serving the Property shall have
applicable permits, and shall be in working order and fit for its
intended purpose; and
(e) the Property and improvements, including the landscaping, will be
in the same general condition as they were on the date of Acceptance.

On the other hand, from
http://www.ilrg.com/forms/realestate-purchase.html:

After closing, all conditions of the property, as well as any
aforementioned items and systems, are the responsibility of Purchaser
and shall be deemed purchased AS-IS.

This next one's a mixed bag, indicating that the seller has to deliver
the property in the condition it was in when the agreement was signed,
but also indicating that the buyer has to notify the seller of any
defects at or before the closing. From
http://www.woodandmeredith.com/forms/PSA1.html:

14. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY: Seller agrees to deliver the Property to
Buyer in its present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and
further certifies and represents that Seller knows of no latent defect
in the Property. All heating, cooling, plumbing, electrical, sanitary
systems and appliances shall be in good working order at the time of
closing. Seller represents and warrants that the personal property
conveyed with the premises shall be the same property inspected by
Buyer and that no substitutions will be made without the Buyer's
written consent. Buyer may also inspect or cause to be inspected the
foundation, roof, supports or structural members of all improvements
located upon the Property. If any such system, appliance, roof,
foundation or structural member shall be found defective, Buyer shall
notify Seller at or before closing...

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

In article ,
says...
In article . com,
wrote:

USED cars and house are sold as is for a reason- to prevent buyers from
coming back and expecting the seller to cover exorbitant repair bills.
Buyer doesnt seem to get this. They missed it before closing and unless
the can prove coverup by seller they need to pony up the money
themselves.


Houses are not typically sold as-is, unless they explicitly say that
they are being sold as-is. When houses are sold as-is there is no
home inspection, walk through, or anything else. What would be the point?

The point of the inspection is to know what condition the house is in.
That's true whether the seller is willing to fix any defects or not.

I was *especially* concerned with getting a good inspection when I
bought my house as-is. After all, I wanted to know what condition in
was really in. We had an inspection that lasted for about eight hours,
and did a prolonged walk-through with our architect, roofer, and
realtor.

Unless it's a real fire-sale, why would anyone buy a house as-is without
an inspection?

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

wrote:
All these pretty much indicate the buyer is out of luck . It's clear
that once the deal closes the house is "as-is" and any subsequent
issues are the buyer's problem. The only one that mentions roof says
"known" leaks and if the seller didnt know or there was no apparent
damage the sellers are off the hook.


Can you read? Section 10.2 of the first contract example spells out
explicitly that the buyer warrants that they will deliver the property
in the same condition it was in at time of contract:

10.2 Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property will be
in the following condition ON THE DATE SELLER DELIVERS PHYSICAL
POSSESSION TO BUYER:
(a) the Property shall be broom-clean and free of debris and personal
belongings. Any Seller or tenant moving-related damage to the Property
shall be repaired at Seller's expense;
(b) the heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing and sprinkler systems
and fixtures, and the appliances and fireplaces will be in working
order and fit for their intended purposes;
(c) the roof and foundation shall be free of leaks known to Seller;
(d) any private well or septic tank serving the Property shall have
applicable permits, and shall be in working order and fit for its
intended purpose; and
(e) the Property and improvements, including the landscaping, will be
in the same general condition as they were on the date of Acceptance.

From the third contract example:

14. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY: Seller agrees to deliver the Property
to
Buyer in its present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and
further certifies and represents that Seller knows of no latent defect
in the Property.


There are none as blind as those that will not see. But at least you
should have sense enough to stop telling the OP that they are a whining
buyer and should just eat this loss without pursuing it at all. What;s
your problem with letting a judge who understands contract law decide?

THE QUESTION STILL IS---- IS THERE ANY DAMAGE AND WHAT PROOF IS THERE
IT OCCURRED AFTER INSPECTION. Plus if the buyer did not notice the
damage and did not get another inspection prior to closing for all
legal purposes the house was in the same condition at the time of
inspection. A cursory home inspection with a guy guessing the
age/condition of the roof from the ground is NOT legal evidence of
anything. No judge will accept that "evidence" to give someone $5000
and go against all real estate law . Buyer is whiny and just wants a
handout. I bet if she got $5k it would go to a granite c-top since the
roof is FINE!!!


wrote:
wrote:
All these pretty much indicate the buyer is out of luck . It's clear
that once the deal closes the house is "as-is" and any subsequent
issues are the buyer's problem. The only one that mentions roof says
"known" leaks and if the seller didnt know or there was no apparent
damage the sellers are off the hook.


Can you read? Section 10.2 of the first contract example spells out
explicitly that the buyer warrants that they will deliver the property
in the same condition it was in at time of contract:

10.2 Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property will be
in the following condition ON THE DATE SELLER DELIVERS PHYSICAL
POSSESSION TO BUYER:
(a) the Property shall be broom-clean and free of debris and personal
belongings. Any Seller or tenant moving-related damage to the Property
shall be repaired at Seller's expense;
(b) the heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing and sprinkler systems
and fixtures, and the appliances and fireplaces will be in working
order and fit for their intended purposes;
(c) the roof and foundation shall be free of leaks known to Seller;
(d) any private well or septic tank serving the Property shall have
applicable permits, and shall be in working order and fit for its
intended purpose; and
(e) the Property and improvements, including the landscaping, will be
in the same general condition as they were on the date of Acceptance.

From the third contract example:

14. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY: Seller agrees to deliver the Property
to
Buyer in its present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and
further certifies and represents that Seller knows of no latent defect
in the Property.


There are none as blind as those that will not see. But at least you
should have sense enough to stop telling the OP that they are a whining
buyer and should just eat this loss without pursuing it at all. What;s
your problem with letting a judge who understands contract law decide?

THE QUESTION STILL IS---- IS THERE ANY DAMAGE AND WHAT PROOF IS THERE
IT OCCURRED AFTER INSPECTION. Plus if the buyer did not notice the
damage and did not get another inspection prior to closing for all
legal purposes the house was in the same condition at the time of
inspection. A cursory home inspection with a guy guessing the
age/condition of the roof from the ground is NOT legal evidence of
anything. No judge will accept that "evidence" to give someone $5000
and go against all real estate law . Buyer is whiny and just wants a
handout. I bet if she got $5k it would go to a granite c-top since the
roof is FINE!!!


wrote:
wrote:
All these pretty much indicate the buyer is out of luck . It's clear
that once the deal closes the house is "as-is" and any subsequent
issues are the buyer's problem. The only one that mentions roof says
"known" leaks and if the seller didnt know or there was no apparent
damage the sellers are off the hook.


Can you read? Section 10.2 of the first contract example spells out
explicitly that the buyer warrants that they will deliver the property
in the same condition it was in at time of contract:

10.2 Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property will be
in the following condition ON THE DATE SELLER DELIVERS PHYSICAL
POSSESSION TO BUYER:
(a) the Property shall be broom-clean and free of debris and personal
belongings. Any Seller or tenant moving-related damage to the Property
shall be repaired at Seller's expense;
(b) the heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing and sprinkler systems
and fixtures, and the appliances and fireplaces will be in working
order and fit for their intended purposes;
(c) the roof and foundation shall be free of leaks known to Seller;
(d) any private well or septic tank serving the Property shall have
applicable permits, and shall be in working order and fit for its
intended purpose; and
(e) the Property and improvements, including the landscaping, will be
in the same general condition as they were on the date of Acceptance.

From the third contract example:

14. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY: Seller agrees to deliver the Property
to
Buyer in its present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and
further certifies and represents that Seller knows of no latent defect
in the Property.


There are none as blind as those that will not see. But at least you
should have sense enough to stop telling the OP that they are a whining
buyer and should just eat this loss without pursuing it at all. What;s
your problem with letting a judge who understands contract law decide?

In article .com, wrote:
THE QUESTION STILL IS---- IS THERE ANY DAMAGE AND WHAT PROOF IS THERE
IT OCCURRED AFTER INSPECTION.

Actually, that's NOT "still" the question. It never *was* the question.

Hint: look at the title of the thread you're posting in.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
Every used house in NJ unless otherwise agreed upon is sold as-is once
inspections and agreements for repairs are made. One cannot goback to
the seller for every thing that pops up after closing unless there is
some evidence of misrepresentation or fraud.
As-is in a house ad means its so dilapidated the seller wont fix it.
But there are no warrantees on used houses. Would anyone sell a used
house if the buyer could come back for everything that goes wrong after
living there for a while? Before closing is the time to inspect and
make deals on repairs etc. After closing its too late. Just like a
used car from a private seller. If I sell a used car and the engine
blows a month later its not my problem.


If you want to talk cars, then make the correct comparison and you will
come up with the exact same result. Let's say a buyer has a car he's
interested in buying inspected by a mechanic. The mechanic gives it a
clean bill of health. In the two days before you actually bring over
the money and take possession of it, the seller takes it out for a
drive and abuses it. He blows the engine. The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.

BTW, we all notice you won't address the example I gave you where a
house was inspected, then a fire burned up the kitchen a day before
closing. Neither the buyer, nor seller were aware of it because they
live out of state. The closing is held. According to you, is the
buyer then a whiner too who should just eat the loss and go away?

Nor did you address the contract examples another poster provided that
clearly state the seller is responsible to deliver the property in the
condition it was in at time the deal was made.







D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

USED cars and house are sold as is for a reason- to prevent buyers from
coming back and expecting the seller to cover exorbitant repair bills.
Buyer doesnt seem to get this. They missed it before closing and unless
the can prove coverup by seller they need to pony up the money
themselves.


Houses are not typically sold as-is, unless they explicitly say that
they are being sold as-is. When houses are sold as-is there is no
home inspection, walk through, or anything else. What would be the point?


Dimitri

In article . com,
wrote:


If you want to talk cars, then make the correct comparison and you will
come up with the exact same result. Let's say a buyer has a car he's
interested in buying inspected by a mechanic. The mechanic gives it a
clean bill of health. In the two days before you actually bring over
the money and take possession of it, the seller takes it out for a
drive and abuses it. He blows the engine. The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.


Imagine instead that the engine blew on its own - the seller did nothing
at all. You have to prove that the seller knew about the damage. If the
seller didn't know that the car broke down between the inspection and
the day the money is exchanged, then the buyer has no valid complaints
unless the seller offered a warranty. I'm guessing that the seller didn't
know about the hail damage. Therefore, they likely aren't liable to repair
it. For all the seller knows, the buyer screwed up the roof in some
manner after closing. Now, if you can prove that the seller's knew about
the damage (or should have known) then that's different.


Dimitri

(D. Gerasimatos) writes:
Imagine instead that the engine blew on its own - the seller did nothing
at all. You have to prove that the seller knew about the damage.

Can you cite any written law, common law or court precedent to
support this assertion? Can you prove that your understanding
of the law is correct everywhere, which would be necessary for
your argument to hold any weight in this discussion, given
that we don't know the jurisdiction in which the OP's house is
located?

It is just as logical to assert that the seller of an item
contracts to deliver the item in the condition it was in when
the buyer agreed to buy it. Several of the P&S agreements I
posted for residential home sales state this explicitly.

If, indeed, that is the principle which prevails in a
particular jurisdiction for a particular sale, then if the
item's condition is significantly damaged for whatever reason
before it is delivered to the buyer, then it doesn't matter
whether the seller knew about the damage. The relevant fact
is not whether the seller knew about the damage but rather
whether the buyer can prove that it happened before the
delivery of the item to the buyer.

In the case of something like cars or other items that are
less expensive and whose sales are less complicated than
houses, the outcome of such a dispute would probably be the
nullification of the sale and the requirement for the seller
to take the item back and refund the buyer's money. In the
case of a very expensive, complicated sale like a house, it
would be more likely that the seller would reimburse the
buyer for the cost of repairing the damage.

The crux of this argument is whether "as-is" kicks in when the
buyer agrees to purchase or when the property changes hands.
The answer to this question depends on the jurisdiction and/or
the terms of the agreement between the buyer and seller. For
people in this newsgroup to continue to assert that one answer
is right and the other wrong, when they have no idea where the
house in question is located or what the terms of the P&S
agreement were, is simply ridiculous.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

wrote:

.The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.

Why would someone hand over the money for the car (new or used) until a
final inspection is made. I always check over a new car before I
actually sign/ drive off. The buyer then has the power. In your
example of the burned out kitchen again the onus is on the buyer to
make a final inspection. If I were the seller I would claim it
happened after closing and what proof would the buyer have it didnt?
If they did a walk through before closing and said "Hey the kitchen is
burned up!" and contacted their attorney there would be nodoubt seller
would fix or at least compensate.Otherwise the buyer could walk away
without penalty . In the roof case we are missing some key facts:
1.Is the roof actually destroyed to the point of needing replacement?
2. If there is damage, when did it occur?
3. If the roof is that bad why didnt inspector catch it or whydidnt the
buyer noticebefore closing?

When dealing with expensive items it is really up to the buyer to
protect themselves.


wrote:
Every used house in NJ unless otherwise agreed upon is sold as-is once
inspections and agreements for repairs are made. One cannot goback to
the seller for every thing that pops up after closing unless there is
some evidence of misrepresentation or fraud.
As-is in a house ad means its so dilapidated the seller wont fix it.
But there are no warrantees on used houses. Would anyone sell a used
house if the buyer could come back for everything that goes wrong after
living there for a while? Before closing is the time to inspect and
make deals on repairs etc. After closing its too late. Just like a
used car from a private seller. If I sell a used car and the engine
blows a month later its not my problem.


If you want to talk cars, then make the correct comparison and you will
come up with the exact same result. Let's say a buyer has a car he's
interested in buying inspected by a mechanic. The mechanic gives it a
clean bill of health. In the two days before you actually bring over
the money and take possession of it, the seller takes it out for a
drive and abuses it. He blows the engine. The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.

BTW, we all notice you won't address the example I gave you where a
house was inspected, then a fire burned up the kitchen a day before
closing. Neither the buyer, nor seller were aware of it because they
live out of state. The closing is held. According to you, is the
buyer then a whiner too who should just eat the loss and go away?

Nor did you address the contract examples another poster provided that
clearly state the seller is responsible to deliver the property in the
condition it was in at time the deal was made.







D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

USED cars and house are sold as is for a reason- to prevent buyers from
coming back and expecting the seller to cover exorbitant repair bills.
Buyer doesnt seem to get this. They missed it before closing and unless
the can prove coverup by seller they need to pony up the money
themselves.


Houses are not typically sold as-is, unless they explicitly say that
they are being sold as-is. When houses are sold as-is there is no
home inspection, walk through, or anything else. What would be the point?


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:


If you want to talk cars, then make the correct comparison and you will
come up with the exact same result. Let's say a buyer has a car he's
interested in buying inspected by a mechanic. The mechanic gives it a
clean bill of health. In the two days before you actually bring over
the money and take possession of it, the seller takes it out for a
drive and abuses it. He blows the engine. The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.


Imagine instead that the engine blew on its own - the seller did nothing
at all. You have to prove that the seller knew about the damage. If the
seller didn't know that the car broke down between the inspection and
the day the money is exchanged, then the buyer has no valid complaints
unless the seller offered a warranty. I'm guessing that the seller didn't
know about the hail damage. Therefore, they likely aren't liable to repair
it. For all the seller knows, the buyer screwed up the roof in some
manner after closing. Now, if you can prove that the seller's knew about
the damage (or should have known) then that's different.


Dimitri



No, all you have to prove is the car was NOT IN THE CONDITION IT WAS IN
AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS STRUCK. Whether the seller knew about it
is immaterial. If you like, change the circumstances so the seller's
kid took the car out for a drive the day before pick up and abused it,
blowing the engine, without the seller knowing it. Or change it to
it was parked on the street by the seller and vandalized, without
either the seller or buyer knowing. It does not matter, as the
seller is obligated to deliver whatever was contracted for in the same
condition it was in when the contract was made. If the engine blows up
before payment is made and title passes, it's the seller's problem.
If the engine blows up after that, then it's the buyer's problem.

And this isn't an issue of warranty, as we are talking about damage
that changes the condition of a contracted item while it is still owned
by the seller, not after. This is a very simple contract law issue.
The essence is that whatever is contracted for, the buyer has the right
to receive exactly that when title passes. If the property is
damaged, regardless of how, before title passes, it is the SELLER'S
obligation to remedy it.

In article om, wrote:


In the roof case we are missing some key facts:

No, we're not.

1.Is the roof actually destroyed to the point of needing replacement?

As stated in the original post, it's damaged to that point, yes.

2. If there is damage, when did it occur?

When the hailstorm came through. Post-inspection, post-offer, pre-closing. As
stated in the original post.

3. If the roof is that bad why didnt inspector catch it

Because it happened after the inspection -- DUH! As stated in the original
post.

Haven't you been paying *any* attention? That's the whole point of the thread.
Once again -- please note the title of the thread in which you are posting.
You don't appear to have noticed that yet.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

We only have a panicked female worrying about hail damage from
neighbors and a shady vulture-esque roofer out for a scam. What was the
nature of the damage? Lifted shingles? Cracked shingles? Holes in
sheathing? We dont know . One shady contractor and some possible
insurance scamming neighbors dont prove anything. Tome we have a
whiner wanting a free roof. Ridiculous.
Doug Miller wrote:
In article om, wrote:


In the roof case we are missing some key facts:

No, we're not.

1.Is the roof actually destroyed to the point of needing replacement?

As stated in the original post, it's damaged to that point, yes.

2. If there is damage, when did it occur?

When the hailstorm came through. Post-inspection, post-offer, pre-closing. As
stated in the original post.

3. If the roof is that bad why didnt inspector catch it

Because it happened after the inspection -- DUH! As stated in the original
post.

Haven't you been paying *any* attention? That's the whole point of the thread.
Once again -- please note the title of the thread in which you are posting.
You don't appear to have noticed that yet.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
wrote:

.The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.

Why would someone hand over the money for the car (new or used) until a
final inspection is made. I always check over a new car before I
actually sign/ drive off. The buyer then has the power.

Here you go again, trying to detour the discussion into debating
something entirely different. The question is under contract law, is
it the seller or the buyer who is responsible for a car that is damaged
between the time it was inspected and when it was actually
purchased/picked up 2 days later. Can't you accept a simple case as
stated, without re-inventing it into, "Well they shoulda done this, why
did they do that, etc? It's a simple and straighforward concept
that has nothing to do with any of these orthogonal arguments.


In your
example of the burned out kitchen again the onus is on the buyer to
make a final inspection. If I were the seller I would claim it
happened after closing and what proof would the buyer have it didnt?
If they did a walk through before closing and said "Hey the kitchen is
burned up!" and contacted their attorney there would be nodoubt seller
would fix or at least compensate.Otherwise the buyer could walk away
without penalty .

Again, more orthogonal arguments, instead of addressing the core
question, which is if the house is damaged before title passes, who is
responsible. Do you disagree that the above scenario is quite
possible? We're not debating how you prove when the fire ocurred.
But, if you apply just a wee bit of brain power, it's not hard to come
up with lots of ways you could prove when the fire ocurred:

1 - Police report
2 - Fire Dept report
3 - Fire/Police personnel
4 - Neighbors


In the roof case we are missing some key facts:
1.Is the roof actually destroyed to the point of needing replacement?

Makes zippo diff as to who is responsible for fixing the damage. What
you're avoiding is the title of the OP, where the question was
concisely posed.


2. If there is damage, when did it occur?

There was a frigging HAIL STORM between inspection and closing that is
documented by neighbors who also had significant damage to their roofs?
Can't you read and accept anything as given and then address the
question asked, instead of raising all kinds of spurious issues?


3. If the roof is that bad why didnt inspector catch it or whydidnt the
buyer noticebefore closing?

Pay attention. One more time. The inspection was done BEFORE the
damage and showed the 5 year old roof was fine. The buyer didn't
notice it during walkthrough because during a walkthrough one typically
doesn't climb up on the roof to inspect it again. I've never done
that, nor have I seen anyone else do it during a walkthrough. A
walkthrough is to make sure the seller has moved out, the place is
clean, trash has been removed, and to do a cursory inspection of
anything else that might be obvious wrong, make sure any repairs were
completed, etc. It's not the time to do a complete re-inspection to
find damage that in rare cases, like this, ocurred on the roof after
the home inspection.


When dealing with expensive items it is really up to the buyer to
protect themselves.




Great, so the in this case, you're sticking up for the seller's
insurance company pocketing money instead of paying out on a legitimate
claim. Or even worse, for the seller to perhaps already have made a
claim and pocketed the money.

The buyer is protected in this case, by contract law, which says that
whatever is contracted for has to be delivered in the condition it was
in when the deal was struck. Another poster provided two real estate
contracts that spell this out. Every deal I've done, it was spelled
out as well.

And I guess with the above comment, you also never heard of all the
various local, state, and federal laws that are there to protect
buyers, particularly of expensive items.

In article .com, wrote:
We only have a panicked

Unsupported assumption on your part.

female

Unsupported assumption on your part.

worrying about hail damage from neighbors

Unsupported assumption on your part.

and a shady vulture-esque roofer out for a scam.

Unsupported assumption on your part.

What was the
nature of the damage? Lifted shingles? Cracked shingles? Holes in
sheathing? We dont know .

Irrelevant. For the *third* time, please look at the title of the thread. The
issue is not what sort of damage occurred, or how extensive the damage is. The
only issue is who is responsible for rectifying it, and the answer to that is
quite clear-cut, as has been explained to you many times by many people.

One shady contractor and some possible
insurance scamming neighbors dont prove anything.

Unsupported assumption on your part.

To me we have a
whiner wanting a free roof.

Unsupported assumption on your part.

Ridiculous.

I entirely agree. But probably not for the reason you imagine.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
We only have a panicked female worrying about hail damage from
neighbors and a shady vulture-esque roofer out for a scam.

The only one here panicking, regardless of their gender, appears to be
you, who is growing more frantic every post. And now you move on to
calling the roofer a shady vulture. How do you know anything about
the roofer? That's as well founded as your other arguments.


What was the
nature of the damage? Lifted shingles? Cracked shingles? Holes in
sheathing? We dont know .

As Doug pointed out, go read the OP title. It poses the real question
here, which is who is responsible for damage that occurs between
inspection and closing.


One shady contractor and some possible
insurance scamming neighbors dont prove anything. Tome we have a
whiner wanting a free roof.

And now you also know the neighbors are insurance scammers. Gee, you
sure know a lot. I guess you've never heard of hail damage before.
BTW, the insurance companies I've dealt with don't go around handing
out money like it grows on trees. They send out an adjuster to verify
that hail damage actually ocurred. The whole scenario as layed out in
the OP sounded logical and reasonable to just about everyone else.

wrote:

Hey bud - Mostof the state federal laws protecting consumers deal with
a consumervs. business, contractor etc. Few if any deal with private
sales and houses cars etc are often sold privately with NO guarantee or
warranty unless agreed upon. In NJ and many states private automobile
sales are as is automatically. In you car with dead engine scenario
any decent judge would ask the buyer if he knew the car worked at time
of sale. Buyer would say "I dont know I didnt try it" . Since it is a
private sale and buyer took the car home there is no telling what
happened it would be hard to blame the seller . Same in the roof case.
House was is materially the same condition since buyer didntnotice
any defects before closing. Would you think the seller hadany
liability if a tree root broke a sewer line a month after closing?

wrote:
wrote:

Hey bud - Mostof the state federal laws protecting consumers deal with
a consumervs. business, contractor etc. Few if any deal with private
sales and houses cars etc are often sold privately with NO guarantee or
warranty unless agreed upon. In NJ and many states private automobile
sales are as is automatically.

Oh really? Most states have a slew of laws protecting buyers of homes
in private sale transactions. I guess you never heard of NJ's
disclosure law for real estate transactions? Note, that I never
said that applies in this case, though I can see circumstances in which
it might.


In you car with dead engine scenario
any decent judge would ask the buyer if he knew the car worked at time
of sale. Buyer would say "I dont know I didnt try it" .

No, he would say I had the car inspected by a licensed mechanic. Here
is his report showing the engine was in good working order.

Since it is a
private sale and buyer took the car home there is no telling what
happened it would be hard to blame the seller .

Pay attention and stick to the example. The buyer did not take the
car home. He paid the seller then went out to the street at the
seller's home where it was parked to drive it away. The car would not
start because the engine was blown. Or the car had been vandalized.
Or sustained flood damage. Take you pick. The point is, the car now
was no longer in the condition it was in when the contract was made.


Same in the roof case.
House was is materially the same condition since buyer didntnotice
any defects before closing.

Again, you have difficulty in seperating concepts. The house is NOT
in materially the same condition as it was during contract/inspection.
It has sustained $5K in roof damage to a 5 year old roof. Whether
anyone noticed it has no bearing on the fact that the condition has
changed. I'm amazed anyone would argue this.



Would you think the seller hadany
liability if a tree root broke a sewer line a month after closing?

No, of course not, but what does that have to do with the price of tea
in China? In the OP's case and the example I gave you, the damage
ocurred after contract and BEFORE CLOSING, while the property was still
in the possession of the seller.


Given your approach to staying on target and adressing issues, I'll bet
you had great difficulty in school. I can see you taking an algebra
test:

Town A is 50 miles from town B. The Red Express steam locamotive leaves
town A at 2AM headed for town B, traveling 80MPH, while the Blue Comet
leaves town B headed for town A at the same time, traveling 50MPH.
What time do they pass and how far from Town A are they?

All the other students come up with a time and distance for an answer.

BigJim's answer:
There are no towns named A or B!
A steam train can't go 80MPH!
There might be only one track, they would collide!
Why would anyone except panicked females get on a train at 2AM?
The engineer is a shady vulture!
There is no proof the trains actually left at the state time!
We don't have all the facts!