Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

I would think disclosure is NOT required. I've never seen where
_routine maintenance_ is required. My experience is that disclosure
has to be made when a known problem existed that was serious or posed
a potential problem to the buyer. In my city you can actually bury a
person on your property but you have to disclose it :-\

A former neighbor was selling, the inspector saw water stains on a
garage wall suggesting a past leak. He investigated further and found
mold inside the wall ( or said it was ) so remediation had to be done
at his expense and then disclosed.

Some states may require that water damage be disclosed*, others may
require it if a suicide took place in the home.

Things that are structural or potential safety hazards (meth labs)
should be disclosed.

When folks start talking about having MOLD I cringe. Once that can of
worms gets opened it leads to _know you know - now you disclose.

You can't report something you do not know.

(* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)

On Apr 4, 1:36*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03





wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

I would think disclosure is NOT required. I've never seen where
_routine maintenance_ is required. *My experience is that disclosure
has to be made when a known problem existed that was serious or posed
a potential problem to the buyer. In my city you can actually bury a
person on your property but you have to disclose it :-\

A former neighbor was selling, the inspector saw water stains on *a
garage wall suggesting a past leak. He investigated further and found
mold inside the wall ( or said it was ) so remediation had to be done
at his expense and then disclosed.

Some states may require that water damage be disclosed*, others may
require it if a suicide took place in the home.

Things that are structural or potential safety hazards (meth labs)
should be disclosed.

When folks start talking about having MOLD I cringe. Once that can of
worms gets opened it leads to _know you know - now you disclose.

You can't report something you do not know.

(* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One data point would be to look up the specific law and/or
disclosure form that is required where the house is located.
NJ has a form the seller must fill out and it has a long list
of specific items and questions. Last time I looked, it was
really dumb, like what an elementary school kid would put
together. Questions like, "Have any repairs been made
to the roof?" So, if you replaced one shingle in 1994,
you're apparently required to disclose that. I guess houses
should have a log book like an airplane.....

If a question like that is on the list for where the house
is located, what exactly that question is and what it
requires would be very important.

Beyond that, I don't know. It's an interesting question.
I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine
maintenance. Painting the house, cleaning gutters,
that's routine maintenance. A sewer system with root
intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In
his case, they were known to exist and to recur. I would
tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Beyond that, I don't know. It's an interesting question.
I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine
maintenance. Painting the house, cleaning gutters,
that's routine maintenance. A sewer system with root
intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In
his case, they were known to exist and to recur. I would
tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.

Point taken.

On Apr 4, 1:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:36*pm, Oren wrote:





On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

I would think disclosure is NOT required. I've never seen where
_routine maintenance_ is required. *My experience is that disclosure
has to be made when a known problem existed that was serious or posed
a potential problem to the buyer. In my city you can actually bury a
person on your property but you have to disclose it :-\

A former neighbor was selling, the inspector saw water stains on *a
garage wall suggesting a past leak. He investigated further and found
mold inside the wall ( or said it was ) so remediation had to be done
at his expense and then disclosed.

Some states may require that water damage be disclosed*, others may
require it if a suicide took place in the home.

Things that are structural or potential safety hazards (meth labs)
should be disclosed.

When folks start talking about having MOLD I cringe. Once that can of
worms gets opened it leads to _know you know - now you disclose.

You can't report something you do not know.

(* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One data point would be to look up the specific law and/or
disclosure form that is required where the house is located.
NJ has a form the seller must fill out and it has a long list
of specific items and questions. * Last time I looked, it was
really dumb, like what an elementary school kid would put
together. * Questions like, "Have any repairs been made
to the roof?" * *So, if you replaced one shingle in 1994,
you're apparently required to disclose that. *I guess houses
should have a log book like an airplane.....

If a question like that is on the list for where the house
is located, what exactly that question is and what it
requires would be very important.

Beyond that, I don't know. *It's an interesting question.
I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine
maintenance. *Painting the house, cleaning gutters,
that's routine maintenance. *A sewer system with root
intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In
his case, they were known to exist and to recur. *I would
tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If I knew that ice dams were known to exist and known to recur, but
have since stopped being a problem after the roof, insulation and
ventilation were upgraded, would I still need to disclose that the
house had serious ice dam problems prior to the upgrade?

That would be one of those situations where you really don't know if
the problem has been fixed until it happens again. At that point
you'll know that it *hasn't* been fixed. It's not like it's something
you can test.

In other words, a specific set of conditions has to be in place for
the ice dam to cause water infiltration, so not having infiltration
since the upgrade might mean the roofing upgrade solved the problem or
it might mean that the specific set of conditions has not yet
reoccurred.

One could argue that a specific set of circumstances has to exist for
roots to enter the pipe, so one wouldn't know if it was the RootX or
the lack of the specific conditions that has eliminated the issue. I
was told by a guy from a plumbing company 2 winters ago they had very
few calls for frozen pipes due to the mild weather, but that they
expected a very busy spring dealing with roots for the same reason.
The roots didn't get the water they needed from the snow melt, so they
will go looking for it elsewhere. My point is that roots can be an
ongoing problem but could also stop being a problem for different
reasons - RootX or Mother Nature.

Granted, I am aware that in this case the owner has been using RootX
for a number of years, and I guess someone could track down the
purchase records as proof that the owner hid the fact that he had been
"fighting" roots for many years. I guess it would depend on how long
after the house changed hands that the root problem showed up again -
assuming that it was the RootX that kept them at bay.

What is the statute of limitations on disclosures? Can the buyer come
back 3 springs later if he has a partial blockage due to roots and
fight for compensation?

On Apr 4, 2:59*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:51*pm, "
wrote:





On Apr 4, 1:36*pm, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

I would think disclosure is NOT required. I've never seen where
_routine maintenance_ is required. *My experience is that disclosure
has to be made when a known problem existed that was serious or posed
a potential problem to the buyer. In my city you can actually bury a
person on your property but you have to disclose it :-\

A former neighbor was selling, the inspector saw water stains on *a
garage wall suggesting a past leak. He investigated further and found
mold inside the wall ( or said it was ) so remediation had to be done
at his expense and then disclosed.

Some states may require that water damage be disclosed*, others may
require it if a suicide took place in the home.

Things that are structural or potential safety hazards (meth labs)
should be disclosed.

When folks start talking about having MOLD I cringe. Once that can of
worms gets opened it leads to _know you know - now you disclose.

You can't report something you do not know.

(* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One data point would be to look up the specific law and/or
disclosure form that is required where the house is located.
NJ has a form the seller must fill out and it has a long list
of specific items and questions. * Last time I looked, it was
really dumb, like what an elementary school kid would put
together. * Questions like, "Have any repairs been made
to the roof?" * *So, if you replaced one shingle in 1994,
you're apparently required to disclose that. *I guess houses
should have a log book like an airplane.....

If a question like that is on the list for where the house
is located, what exactly that question is and what it
requires would be very important.

Beyond that, I don't know. *It's an interesting question.
I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine
maintenance. *Painting the house, cleaning gutters,
that's routine maintenance. *A sewer system with root
intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In
his case, they were known to exist and to recur. *I would
tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If I knew that ice dams were known to exist and known to recur, but
have since stopped being a problem after the roof, insulation and
ventilation were upgraded, would I still need to disclose that the
house had serious ice dam problems prior to the upgrade?

That would be one of those situations where you really don't know if
the problem has been fixed until it happens again. At that point
you'll know that it *hasn't* been fixed. It's not like it's something
you can test.

In other words, a specific set of conditions has to be in place for
the ice dam to cause water infiltration, so not having infiltration
since the upgrade might mean the roofing upgrade solved the problem or
it might mean that the specific set of conditions has not yet
reoccurred.

One could argue that a specific set of circumstances has to exist for
roots to enter the pipe, so one wouldn't know if it was the RootX or
the lack of the specific conditions that has eliminated the issue. I
was told by a guy from a plumbing company 2 winters ago they had very
few calls for frozen pipes due to the mild weather, but that they
expected a very busy spring dealing with roots for the same reason.
The roots didn't get the water they needed from the snow melt, so they
will go looking for it elsewhere. My point is that roots can be an
ongoing problem but could also stop being a problem for different
reasons - RootX or Mother Nature.

Granted, I am aware that in this case the owner has been using RootX
for a number of years, and I guess someone could track down the
purchase records as proof that the owner hid the fact that he had been
"fighting" roots for many years. I guess it would depend on how long
after the house changed hands that the root problem showed up again -
assuming that it was the RootX that kept them at bay.

What is the statute of limitations on disclosures? Can the buyer come
back 3 springs later if he has a partial blockage due to roots and
fight for compensation?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A quick google shows that it's probably 3 years in CT, at
least. Probably varies from state to state.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0585.htm

But obviously that aside, the longer it goes, in general the
less likely the buyer is to prevail. But then again, the roots
thing is a recurrent problem that takes a while to develop.
It's not like a leaking roof, which you'd expect would be
found quickly.

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:

You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

On Apr 4, 1:57*pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

On Apr 4, 2:28*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:57*pm, carson ridder wrote:





On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any chance of getting rid of the tree that is the source
of the roots? If the tree were gone, then you've largely
eliminated the problem. I say largely, because with a
truly intact sewer system, roots couldn't get in. So,
something isn't quite right, right?

And as you say, once you start down the disclosure path,
even if the tree is gone, once the buyer knows, then they
may say that the roots getting in is really secondary to
the sewer not being in proper condition, being old,
starting to fail, etc. And they want it replaced.

On Apr 4, 3:02*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:28*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:





On Apr 4, 1:57*pm, carson ridder wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any chance of getting rid of the tree that is the source
of the roots? * If the tree were gone, then you've largely
eliminated the problem.

The tree belongs to a neighbor.

I say largely, because with a
truly intact sewer system, roots couldn't get in. *So,
something isn't quite right, right?


Well, here's where things get a little messy, but I'm sure the
homeowner has no recourse.

I don't know exactly when, but many years ago the town came through
and dug up everyone's easement (?) and replaced the cast iron with PVC
at the property lines. (The town owns about 10' of everyone's front
yard). They also installed a PVC cleanout so that they didn't have to
go into basements anymore if someone called the town about a blocked
sewer. They would snake from the cleanout to street and if that solved
the problem, good. If not, it was the homeowner's problem to deal with
the cast iron section. To be more specific, it is the homeowner's
problem to deal with anything from the cleanout back towards the
house.

OK, so picture a PVC cleanout similar to this, with the "flow" pipe
being the homeowner's cast iron sewer and the rest being the town's
PVC.

http://extension.missouri.edu/explor...q0402art4b.jpg

The town considers the junction of the cast iron "flow" pipe and the
PVC cleanout to be "before the cleanout" and therefore the homeowner's
responsibility. The homeowner told me that the town brought over a
scope the last time he had a partial blockage (5 years ago). It showed
that the town's section was clear and that the roots were coming in at
the junction of the PVC and the cast iron. So, even though the town
could be blamed for causing the problem, they also claim that it is
the homeowner's problem to fix it.

The homeowner snaked the piped, cleared the blockage and has been
using RootX ever since.

The other night we were chatting about our houses and the discussion
of "if you were to sell, what would you disclose" came up. he told me
about his sewer and that's what prompted this question.


And as you say, once you start down the disclosure path,
even if the tree is gone, once the buyer knows, then they
may say that the roots getting in is really secondary to
the sewer not being in proper condition, being old,
starting to fail, etc. *And they want it replaced.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:57 pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

I spent the years between 1940 and 1950 in Lynbrook, New York. (on Long
Island) We had cesspools dug in our front lawns. these were bottle shaped
chambers about 15 feet deep by 10 feet in diameter, with concrete covers
aroud 4 feet in diameter and a couple of feet under the lawn that were lined
with concrete blocks with popenings through them for water to seep through.
All of our sewage went into these things, and they were pumped out
periodically when they got full and didn;t work any more. The trucks that
pumped them out brought the sewage to a treatment plant somewhere, just as
sewer systems today take it through pipes to these same plants. At the
plant, it received, "primary" treatment before it was pumped into the ocean
where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.

On Apr 4, 7:47*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:57 pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

I spent the years between 1940 and 1950 in Lynbrook, New York. (on Long
Island) We had cesspools dug in our front lawns. these were bottle shaped
chambers about 15 feet deep by 10 feet in diameter, with concrete covers
aroud 4 feet in diameter and a couple of feet under the lawn that were lined
with concrete blocks with popenings through them for water to seep through.
All of our sewage went into these things, and they were pumped out
periodically when they got full and didn;t work any more. The trucks that
pumped them out brought the sewage to a treatment plant somewhere, just as
sewer systems today take it through pipes to these same plants. At the
plant, it received, "primary" treatment before it was pumped into the ocean
where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...and this little story applies to the current thread ...wait for
it... how?

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:28:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:57*pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

Many disclosures are not problems. It could simply be notice. For
example, we all know water heaters don't last forever. If you
replaced it 8 years ago why not just disclose that when the question
asked on the form is "Condition of water heater". Just say "Replaced
8 years ago". Then you won't have a buyer move in and have it leak
and claim they it "looked like new" and they thought it was new and if
it was "so old" you should have disclosed it. Another option is to
simply sell "as-is" even if you still disclose. And NOTHING has to be
dealt with to the buyers satisfaction unless that's what the contract
says. Most standard contracts make provisions for...

1 - A required disclosure by the owner (the owner can answer "unknown"
to everything if they wish but if they really knew something that can
be risky)
2 - A ten day inspection period. Usually with a NOTE suggesting the
buyer hire a professional inspection service.
3 - a requirement for the Buyer to request in writing the repair of
those things deemed in need of repair. There is usually a time frame
during which they need to make this request, perhaps within 5 days
after the inspection period expires.
4 - Acceptance or rejection by the Seller of the buyers demands.
5a - If accepted, then it gets fixed, reinspected, and sale moves
forward.
5b. - if rejected, then the buyer needs to decide whether to accept it
without repairs or propose a reduction in price or ???. Whether to
accept it is up to the seller.

The above presumes there is no preset dollar amount within the seller
"must repair" or other similar provision. Basically the inspection
period is a 10 day window for the buyer to get cold feet -- here in AZ
they can basically claim their detailed inspection just makes them
leery of the house and reject it. Technically, they need a real
reason but no one wants to go to court and have their home sale tied
up for a couple years so sellers won't challenge a rejection.

Similarly, if a seller wants out they can reject all repair requests
and hope the buyer walks away but the seller has the upper hand since
they can just accept the defects and proceed with the sale. That
said, you really can't force someone to sell if they change their
mind, the best you could do is sue them for damages, assuming you can
prove damages from not being able to buy that house.

On Apr 4, 1:36*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03





wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

I would think disclosure is NOT required. I've never seen where
_routine maintenance_ is required. *My experience is that disclosure
has to be made when a known problem existed that was serious or posed
a potential problem to the buyer. In my city you can actually bury a
person on your property but you have to disclose it :-\

A former neighbor was selling, the inspector saw water stains on *a
garage wall suggesting a past leak. He investigated further and found
mold inside the wall ( or said it was ) so remediation had to be done
at his expense and then disclosed.

Some states may require that water damage be disclosed*, others may
require it if a suicide took place in the home.

Things that are structural or potential safety hazards (meth labs)
should be disclosed.

When folks start talking about having MOLD I cringe. Once that can of
worms gets opened it leads to _know you know - now you disclose.

You can't report something you do not know.

(* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"the inspector saw water stains on a garage wall suggesting a past
leak"

I've actually been wondering about that in my own house. Many years
ago we had some ice dam issues and water leaked into the house. There
is a section of the attached garage ceiling where not only is there a
brown stain, there is also a few small holes where I opened it up to
let the water drain out. (We don't park in the garage, so the holes
don't bother me)

Fixing the holes won't be an issue, and I guess I could paint the
ceiling, but I've often wondered how I would explain the stains if I
decided to sell. The house been re-roofed using modern (2012) methods
and we made it though this past winter without a single ice dam
problem, even doing without the ice melt cables for the first time in
10 years.

Still, if you look at the joists in the basement and parts of the
garage, you can see evidence of the ice dam problem from a decade ago.
I can't imagine that they won't be noted during an inspection, which
will then lead to a need for me to give an explanation.

I guess I could pull out the pictures of the ice dams, show them the
dates and hope any potential buyer (or inspector) believes that the
problem occurred a very long time ago. Still, it could scare off a
buyer that was on the edge anyway.

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

On Apr 4, 2:06*pm, andrew s wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

....and one option for the buyer is "no way".

These days, I think you would be seriously limiting your buyer pool if
you refused any and all offers that required an inspection.

Buying a house without wanting an inspection, as you did, is easy.
Selling one while refusing to let an inspection be part of the deal
might not be.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:33:07 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:06*pm, andrew s wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

...and one option for the buyer is "no way".

These days, I think you would be seriously limiting your buyer pool if
you refused any and all offers that required an inspection.

Buying a house without wanting an inspection, as you did, is easy.
Selling one while refusing to let an inspection be part of the deal
might not be.

No problem if the price is "right". Quite a few houses are advertized
as "as is -handyman special" or "needs some attention" or "TLC
required". The buyer goes in with eyes wide open - what he sees (or
doesn't see) is what he gets. The price reflects this - but let's
face it. If a house needs $20,000 to bring it up to "condition" to
sell, you are unlikely to get $20,000 less selling it as is. The new
owner is going to make modifications anyway - so drop the price the
estimated cost of the "required" repair and you come out ahead. A
prospective buyer who is not going to be doing upgrades is unlikely to
buy the house at any rate. The guy doing major renovations will spend
less on the repair, in many cases, than you will - because it's part
of a bigger job he'll be doing anyway - even if you spent the $20,000
in repairs.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:06:08 +0000 (UTC), andrew s
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Bought my present house offering to buy as-is. Also asked for $25,000
off the asking price. The deal was accepted. The seller paid the wife
and I to help here clean and organize for her move back east.

On Apr 4, 2:58*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:06:08 +0000 (UTC), andrew s

wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Bought my present house offering to buy as-is. *Also asked for $25,000
off the asking price. The deal was accepted. The seller paid the wife
and I to help here clean and organize for her move back east.

$25K off the asking price doesn't mean much to those of us that don't
know the asking price.

$25K off an asking price of $100,000 is huge. $25K off an asking price
of $1,000,000 isn't much more than an annoyance.

We need both numbers or perhaps a "percentage" off the asking price to
get a feel for how much the "as-is" offer was really worth.

On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).
So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
"as is"?

I'm in a 100-year-old house in a declining neighborhood,
that I've owned since 1988.

It has LOTS of problems. Such as
- messy combination of knob-and-tube/BX wiring (60 amp
service w/fuses). Looks to have been "converted" in the 40's
or 50's, don't know how much is BX and if any of the K&T is
still in use. Almost all house wiring is "2-wire" (no grounds).
- siding old, loose in spots, really needs to be torn off
and replaced.
- windows all old in need of replacement.
- main bath shower has loose and missing tiles, ceiling
plaster peeling (really needs an entirely new bath)
- sewer needs root cleanout every 3-4 years
- cellar entrance needs replacement, back steps need replacement
- 40-50 year old wallpaper everywhere -- awful stuff
- kitchen looks to have had some updating in 40's or 50's,
but needs replacement

Over the years, I've had work done when it absolutely needed
to be done, but I have refrained from a full remodeling
(which would be EXTENSIVE) because I see no point in dumping
money into the house in a neighborhood that isn't what it
used to be (the small city I live in has been taken over by
illegals).

The house is in an area where 2-family (or multi-family)
conversions are common. In fact, the house next door (same
size as mine) was converted into a "Mexican hotel", doubled
in size, property paved over -- a mess.

I have no illusions about what this place is worth. I'll
sell it for what it brings and be satisfied with what I get.

I'm thinking this could be a decent 2-family conversion
(it's a 2-story and the interior could be easily
"convertible") -- IF whoever did it was willing to rip out
the entire interior down to the framing, and then do new
wiring, put in new interior walls, insulate, reside the
exterior, new windows, etc. (The roof is new in 2012 --
couldn't wait any longer). But literally EVERYTHING inside
would have to be rebuilt along with the exterior.

When it's time to sell, I'll tell any potential buyer
everything I can, but I'm sure there could be problems I
don't see.

With a house in need of this much work, how does the seller
proceed?
Disclose everything about which you know, and then say that
the sale must be "as is"?

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:42:58 -0400, John Albert
wrote:

On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).
So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
"as is"?

Certainly. It may have different meanings depending on custom and
law.

I'm in a 100-year-old house in a declining neighborhood,
that I've owned since 1988.

It has LOTS of problems. Such as
- messy combination of knob-and-tube/BX wiring (60 amp
service w/fuses). Looks to have been "converted" in the 40's
or 50's, don't know how much is BX and if any of the K&T is
still in use. Almost all house wiring is "2-wire" (no grounds).
- siding old, loose in spots, really needs to be torn off
and replaced.
- windows all old in need of replacement.
- main bath shower has loose and missing tiles, ceiling
plaster peeling (really needs an entirely new bath)
- sewer needs root cleanout every 3-4 years
- cellar entrance needs replacement, back steps need replacement
- 40-50 year old wallpaper everywhere -- awful stuff
- kitchen looks to have had some updating in 40's or 50's,
but needs replacement

Over the years, I've had work done when it absolutely needed
to be done, but I have refrained from a full remodeling
(which would be EXTENSIVE) because I see no point in dumping
money into the house in a neighborhood that isn't what it
used to be (the small city I live in has been taken over by
illegals).

The house is in an area where 2-family (or multi-family)
conversions are common. In fact, the house next door (same
size as mine) was converted into a "Mexican hotel", doubled
in size, property paved over -- a mess.

I have no illusions about what this place is worth. I'll
sell it for what it brings and be satisfied with what I get.

I'm thinking this could be a decent 2-family conversion
(it's a 2-story and the interior could be easily
"convertible") -- IF whoever did it was willing to rip out
the entire interior down to the framing, and then do new
wiring, put in new interior walls, insulate, reside the
exterior, new windows, etc. (The roof is new in 2012 --
couldn't wait any longer). But literally EVERYTHING inside
would have to be rebuilt along with the exterior.

When it's time to sell, I'll tell any potential buyer
everything I can, but I'm sure there could be problems I
don't see.

With a house in need of this much work, how does the seller
proceed?
Disclose everything about which you know, and then say that
the sale must be "as is"?

It depends on where you are. How about discussing it with a realtor?

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:42:58 -0400, John Albert
wrote:

On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).
So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
"as is"?

I'm in a 100-year-old house in a declining neighborhood,
that I've owned since 1988.

It has LOTS of problems. Such as
- messy combination of knob-and-tube/BX wiring (60 amp
service w/fuses). Looks to have been "converted" in the 40's
or 50's, don't know how much is BX and if any of the K&T is
still in use. Almost all house wiring is "2-wire" (no grounds).
- siding old, loose in spots, really needs to be torn off
and replaced.
- windows all old in need of replacement.
- main bath shower has loose and missing tiles, ceiling
plaster peeling (really needs an entirely new bath)
- sewer needs root cleanout every 3-4 years
- cellar entrance needs replacement, back steps need replacement
- 40-50 year old wallpaper everywhere -- awful stuff
- kitchen looks to have had some updating in 40's or 50's,
but needs replacement

Over the years, I've had work done when it absolutely needed
to be done, but I have refrained from a full remodeling
(which would be EXTENSIVE) because I see no point in dumping
money into the house in a neighborhood that isn't what it
used to be (the small city I live in has been taken over by
illegals).

The house is in an area where 2-family (or multi-family)
conversions are common. In fact, the house next door (same
size as mine) was converted into a "Mexican hotel", doubled
in size, property paved over -- a mess.

I have no illusions about what this place is worth. I'll
sell it for what it brings and be satisfied with what I get.

I'm thinking this could be a decent 2-family conversion
(it's a 2-story and the interior could be easily
"convertible") -- IF whoever did it was willing to rip out
the entire interior down to the framing, and then do new
wiring, put in new interior walls, insulate, reside the
exterior, new windows, etc. (The roof is new in 2012 --
couldn't wait any longer). But literally EVERYTHING inside
would have to be rebuilt along with the exterior.

When it's time to sell, I'll tell any potential buyer
everything I can, but I'm sure there could be problems I
don't see.

With a house in need of this much work, how does the seller
proceed?
Disclose everything about which you know, and then say that
the sale must be "as is"?
Sell it "as is - bulldozer not included" - you are basically selling
a lot. No disclosure required - period. If they want to salveage the
building, that is THEIR concern - not yours.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:42:58 -0400, John Albert
wrote:

On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).
So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
"as is"?


I bought my house as-is. I made the offer to the seller.

Check with your attorney (in those states) real estate agent or Title
company (in those states).

Used cars are often sold "as-is, where-is"...

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

"the inspector saw water stains on a garage wall suggesting a past
leak"

I've actually been wondering about that in my own house. Many years
ago we had some ice dam issues and water leaked into the house. There
is a section of the attached garage ceiling where not only is there a
brown stain, there is also a few small holes where I opened it up to
let the water drain out. (We don't park in the garage, so the holes
don't bother me)

Fixing the holes won't be an issue, and I guess I could paint the
ceiling, but I've often wondered how I would explain the stains if I
decided to sell. The house been re-roofed using modern (2012) methods
and we made it though this past winter without a single ice dam
problem, even doing without the ice melt cables for the first time in
10 years.

Still, if you look at the joists in the basement and parts of the
garage, you can see evidence of the ice dam problem from a decade ago.
I can't imagine that they won't be noted during an inspection, which
will then lead to a need for me to give an explanation.

I guess I could pull out the pictures of the ice dams, show them the
dates and hope any potential buyer (or inspector) believes that the
problem occurred a very long time ago. Still, it could scare off a
buyer that was on the edge anyway.

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

My last house, the water heater leaked in the garage and stained the
wall. Some clean up and it was never mentioned by and inspector.

In the same house we added a floor area (12' X 22' ?) in a cathedral
ceiling space. Basically closed in the second floor.

I sold the house to a real estate agent. She wanted to know if I had a
permit. I told her no, but I used a contractor. I could go down an
get permit and pay a penalty.

I had all the contract papers - without a permit. It detailed all the
materials, construction details and such. I did have to change two
stationary windows with tempered glass. I knew it was necessary an
paid for it.

She accepted this, bought the house

Why do water heaters leak when I'm asleep :-\

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

One test is to ask "Is it a material fact that would affect the
compensation to be paid?" Obviously you think it would negatively
affect the price or you wouldn't be looking for a rationale not to
disclose it. I understand your feelings, my house has some slab
cracks and small separations in the ceiling sheet rock that occurred
years ago and haven't moved since. But if not disclosed and later
discovered it could get ugly if the buyers so choose. If their has
not been a problem in years your disclosure can say "waste pipe
cleaned out X years ago" and leave it at that. You've disclosed. If
they care they can ask more about it. If everything is draining
properly at the time of sale and you've made that disclosure I tend to
think you are on solid ground.

On Apr 4, 3:39*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03





wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

One test is to ask "Is it a material fact that would affect the
compensation to be paid?" Obviously you think it would negatively
affect the price or you wouldn't be looking for a rationale not to
disclose it. *I understand your feelings, my house has some slab
cracks and small separations in the ceiling sheet rock that occurred
years ago and haven't moved since. But if not disclosed and later
discovered it could get ugly if the buyers so choose. *If their has
not been a problem in years your disclosure can say "waste pipe
cleaned out X years ago" and leave it at that. *You've disclosed. *If
they care they can ask more about it. *If everything is draining
properly at the time of sale and you've made that disclosure I tend to
think you are on solid ground.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just saying that the waste
pipe was cleaned out X years ago and not disclosing that
you know it has been cleaned out repeatedly every few years
because of tree roots doesn't meet your test of is it a
materially fact that would affect the price. Would you pay the
same amount for these two houses:

A - Had a sewer blockage of unknown cause once

B - Had a sewer blockage every couple of years due to tree roots?

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:31:39 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 4, 3:39*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03





wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

One test is to ask "Is it a material fact that would affect the
compensation to be paid?" Obviously you think it would negatively
affect the price or you wouldn't be looking for a rationale not to
disclose it. *I understand your feelings, my house has some slab
cracks and small separations in the ceiling sheet rock that occurred
years ago and haven't moved since. But if not disclosed and later
discovered it could get ugly if the buyers so choose. *If their has
not been a problem in years your disclosure can say "waste pipe
cleaned out X years ago" and leave it at that. *You've disclosed. *If
they care they can ask more about it. *If everything is draining
properly at the time of sale and you've made that disclosure I tend to
think you are on solid ground.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just saying that the waste
pipe was cleaned out X years ago and not disclosing that
you know it has been cleaned out repeatedly every few years
because of tree roots doesn't meet your test of is it a
materially fact that would affect the price. Would you pay the
same amount for these two houses:

A - Had a sewer blockage of unknown cause once

B - Had a sewer blockage every couple of years due to tree roots?

I agree with your general observation. In the example I gave I was
thinking that the X would be some reasonable period of years, such as
5+ years ago. If it was 6 months ago and that was the third time in a
year than yes, just mentioning the last 6 months but not the last year
would be iffy.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Hi,
In my neighborhood, there is a house for sale for over 2 years. Nice
house but it suffered a sewage back up causing big professional clean up
and repairing the collapsed pipe. I think no one wants to buy i because
of that history. If there was no damage inside the house
it would've been different story.

On Apr 4, 9:44*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Hi,
In my neighborhood, there is a house for sale for over 2 years. Nice
house but it suffered a sewage back up causing big professional clean up
and repairing the collapsed pipe. I think no one wants to buy i because
of that history. If there was no damage inside the house
it would've been different story.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If everything has been repaired, including the "root" cause (no pun
intended) then why would people be leery of buying a house that had a
sewage backup more than 2 years ago?

There must be something else wrong with this "nice house".

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. It is also relative to
time. Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?


--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles

On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter


Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. Even the 12K sounds
high. Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? $20K?




nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.



the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 5, 11:47*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:





On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

....

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. *I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. *Even the 12K sounds
high. *Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. *But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? *$20K?

nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.
the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -


The FEDS ordered a complete end to storm water runoff into sanitary
sewers. some were co mingled from the start of sewers in the
pittsburgh area. previously sewer water overflowed into rivers which
provide drinking water and recreation.connecting downspouts to sewer
lines were common till recently. now every home gets die test before
sale.

because of the very hilly terrain many lines are super deep, for not
only freeze protection but natural drainage to sewer plants. even with
all this many areas have lift stations.

a friend looked at a bargain home it was super cheap except the sewer
line went out of the back of the home to a stream bed 200
feet ........ 20 grand to replace the collapsed line. he looked at
another home, it was wrongly connected to storm sewerrather than
sanitary sewer. 18 to 20 grand, very deep plus street must be dug up
and replaved by bonded registered contractors.

allegheny county has rules out the wazoole. and so does most of
pennsylvania

On Apr 5, 2:53*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:47*am, "
wrote:





On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:

On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. *I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. *Even the 12K sounds
high. *Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. *But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? *$20K?

nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.
the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

The FEDS ordered a complete end to storm water runoff into sanitary
sewers. some were co mingled from the start of sewers in the
pittsburgh area. previously sewer water overflowed into rivers which
provide drinking water and recreation.connecting downspouts to sewer
lines were common till recently. now every home gets die test before
sale.

because of the very hilly terrain many lines are super deep, for not
only freeze protection but natural drainage to sewer plants. even with
all this many areas have lift stations.

a friend looked at a bargain home it was super cheap except the sewer
line went out of the back of the home to a stream bed 200
feet ........
20 grand to replace the collapsed line.

Sure, if it's 200 ft, I can see that. I'll bet DerbyDad's isn't
200ft though, which is more than 2x the distance of the
sewer line in any house I've lived in.



he looked at
another home, it was wrongly connected to storm sewerrather than
sanitary sewer. 18 to 20 grand, very deep plus street must be dug up
and replaved by bonded registered contractors.

Sure if it's 12 to 15 ft deep, which is what you claim they
are where you are located. And if the street has to be dug up too,
etc. But again, those are not the more typical case.




allegheny county has rules out the wazoole. and so does most of
pennsylvania- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:




Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. Even the 12K sounds
high. Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? $20K?


I can easily see the 12K. I had a sewer problem. The town came out
and checked their part and it was OK. I had a guy come and check my
end and they found the problem, cause by the electric company hitting
my sewer line with the new pole.
Backhoe, repair of the line was $3500. They only dug a 3" wide hole.
So much for Dig Safe. They told the utility where to drill.

On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Lining a sewer pipe far cheaper than replacing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhE8UhWOnM0

BTW...where are you that you need to bury pipe 15 - 20 feet to prevent
freezing?

How deep do post holes for a deck have to be?


nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:45:28 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Lining a sewer pipe far cheaper than replacing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhE8UhWOnM0

BTW...where are you that you need to bury pipe 15 - 20 feet to prevent
freezing?

In VT it wasn't unheard of for water pipes to freexe and burst eight
feet down. I remember a main that broke at the top of a big hill in
Burlington. Lotsa ice! ;-)

How deep do post holes for a deck have to be?

4' wasn't enough!


nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Derby Dad:

Here's where I'd look for the answer to your question:

I don't know what state or province you live in, but a more reliable way to find an answer to this question is to look at what the courts in your jurisdiction have decided on a case by case basis, and that will let you know what's legally required of a seller in the way of disclosure.

Here is the web site for the Ontario Court of Appeal. Often the lower courts like Queen's Bench, Family Court, Probate Court, Small Claims, etc. are so busy that they don't have the money or time to transcribe every case they hear and post it on their web site. But, the higher courts, like the Court of Appeal for each province, the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada will have every case they hear transcribed and posted on their web sites. And, each transcript will explain the circumstances surrounding the case, the reasoning used by the judge(s) in each of the lower court rulings, the reasons the case was appealed to a higher court, and the reasoning used by the judge(s) to support their decisions in the current court. If you read Supreme Court cases where there are 5 or 7 judges, the majority decision will be given, but the reasoning of each of the dissenting judges will also be provided.

While the law on a subject like this might differ from place to place because of the different precedents that have been set in each jurisdiction, the reasoning of the judge in the lower courts and the judge in the Appeal should make sense regardless of where you live.

If you live in the US, you should be able to find a similar web site to search the decisions of your state's Court of Appeal.

Here is the web page for the Ontario Court of Appeal:

Court of Appeal for Ontario

On the left side you'll see a link entitled "Decisions of the Court", and if you hover your mouse pointer over that link you'll get another list of links, one of which will be "Search Decisions". Click on that link.

Now, in my experience, the search engines on court web sites will all be different, but they'll all be easy to learn to use cuz they're meant to be used by everyone, not just lawyers and other judges. And, the way to use them is to start with some pretty generic terms to search for, and as you learn more about the law concerning disclosure in real estate sales, you'll find out which sections of which laws describe what is required of the seller in the way of disclosure, and then you can search for court cases where that particular section is quoted in the transcript. That way, you'll find cases where the argument is entirely about whether the disclosure by the seller met the requirements of the law or not.

Anyhow, on the Search Decisions web page cited above, it asks you for some keywords for the search engine to look for, and whether you want cases where ANY of those words appear, or only cases where they all appear. So:

1.) Type "house sale disclosure" into the keyword box,
2.) Click on the "ALL" radio button to only return case transcripts that contain all those words,
3.) Click on the "Search all court decisions" (rather than only the decisions made during one particular year), and
4.) Click on the "Search" button in the top right corner of the search area.

When I do that, I get 4 pages of 20 court cases each.

Maybe bookmark that web site so that you can come back to it easily.

By the time you skim through those 80 odd cases, you'll be an expert on what's required of the seller in the way of disclosure when it comes to real estate sales. And, even if the facts of the cases are different from yours, what's important is the reasons the judge gives to determine whether something was significant enough that it needed to be disclosed to the buyer or not.


PS:
Here's the search decisions page of the web site for the Tax Court of Canada and the Tax Court of the United States:

Tax Court of Canada - (Access to judgments)

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/...ricOptions.asp

The US site has the interesting footnote:

"* Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 7463(b), Summary opinions may not be treated as precedent for any other case."

...which basically says "We reserve the right to be inconsistant in our decisions." That's in there because every judge's decision is going to be heavily influenced by the circumstances and the credibility of the people involved. Depositing $5000 in a local credit union that pays 2% interest is NOT the same thing as depositing $5,000,000 in an unnumbered bank account in the Cayman Islands where you have to pay interest to the bank to keep your bank account details a secret.

One thing to consider is to search the Tax Court Decisions for the phrase "income tax attorney" or "income tax lawyer" because that will find all the cases where income tax lawyers were taken to court for cheating on their income taxes. Now, if I were an income tax lawyer, I'd use the smartest way I'd know of to weasel my way out of paying my fair share of income tax because I'd consider that if I got caught, that would provide me with the greatest chance of convincing the judge that I'm right, and the less experienced lawyer prosecuting me is wrong.