Latent defect caused by negligence that was not known by previous owner either

[fpbear]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A party caused a major latent defect (or damages) in the house that I discovered after purchase, via negligent operation of their neighboring facility. The previous owner had absolutely no idea of the defect either. I believe the previous owner, there is plenty of evidence they didn't know, and plenty of evidence of the negligence of the facility operator.

The party I want to hold responsible for the negligence and damage is saying that I'm only entitled to damages that occurred since I purchased the house. The damages continued to get worse and some of it is visibly changing, getting worse as a result of their continuing facility operations. But they want to only pay for the smaller part of damages that happened during the short time I own the house. They are telling me that I bought the house in that condition.

But that's not acceptable since now I'm stuck with a major latent defect that is a much bigger permanent underlying problem I didn't know about. The previous owner had no idea. The appraisers during the sale had no idea. The damage is of the nature that it's beyond what an inspector would normally check for, so it's not the inspectors fault either.

Isn't there a general legal principle that makes the facility operator responsible for all of the latent defect? It was only discovered very recently but the damage happened across a larger timespan, mostly during the last 10 years.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A party caused a major latent defect (or damages) in the house that I discovered after purchase, via negligent operation of their neighboring facility. The previous owner had absolutely no idea of the defect either. I believe the previous owner, there is plenty of evidence they didn't know, and plenty of evidence of the negligence of the facility operator.

The party I want to hold responsible for the negligence and damage is saying that I'm only entitled to damages that occurred since I purchased the house. The damages continued to get worse and some of it is visibly changing, getting worse as a result of their continuing facility operations. But they want to only pay for the smaller part of damages that happened during the short time I own the house. They are telling me that I bought the house in that condition.

But that's not acceptable since now I'm stuck with a major latent defect that is a much bigger permanent underlying problem I didn't know about. The previous owner had no idea. The appraisers during the sale had no idea. The damage is of the nature that it's beyond what an inspector would normally check for, so it's not the inspectors fault either.

Isn't there a general legal principle that makes the facility operator responsible for all of the latent defect? It was only discovered very recently but the damage happened across a larger timespan, mostly during the last 10 years.

If you want any valid advice, then you need to explain the problem specifically.

 

[fpbear]

If you want any valid advice, then you need to explain the problem specifically.

LdiJ, I promised one of the attorneys I consulted with that I wouldn't discuss any details anywhere. So at this point I am just hoping for some general legal principles that apply to my case in a general sense. For example I know that a previous owner can be liable for a latent defect that is not disclosed that they knew about. However it is not clear to me what happens when the previous owner didn't know about it either, but that the cause of it was gross negligence by someone else. And it's not clear to me why the other side would argue that the sales transaction could somehow "reset" hidden damages. I think they're wrong, just looking for the legal principle that would be in my favor.

 

[Banned_Princess]

LdiJ, I promised one of the attorneys I consulted with that I wouldn't discuss any details anywhere. So at this point I am just hoping for some general legal principles that apply to my case in a general sense. For example I know that a previous owner can be liable for a latent defect that is not disclosed that they knew about. However it is not clear to me what happens when the previous owner didn't know about it either, but that the cause of it was gross negligence by someone else. And it's not clear to me why the other side would argue that the sales transaction could somehow "reset" hidden damages. I think they're wrong, just looking for the legal principle that would be in my favor.

your lawyer should be answering your questions. We cant help you if you cant give us info. which you cant.

when working with your lawyer, considering the fees they charge by the hour, before seeing him, you should list your questions, biggest concerns first. in your meeting with your lawyer, refer to your questions, ask them, write down what they are saying about it, and move on to the next question, write down terms you don't understand or recognize, and instead of taking up time asking for clarification, take your notes home and google the terms you didn't quite catch.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A party caused a major latent defect (or damages) in the house that I discovered after purchase, via negligent operation of their neighboring facility. The previous owner had absolutely no idea of the defect either. I believe the previous owner, there is plenty of evidence they didn't know, and plenty of evidence of the negligence of the facility operator.

The party I want to hold responsible for the negligence and damage is saying that I'm only entitled to damages that occurred since I purchased the house. The damages continued to get worse and some of it is visibly changing, getting worse as a result of their continuing facility operations. But they want to only pay for the smaller part of damages that happened during the short time I own the house. They are telling me that I bought the house in that condition.

But that's not acceptable since now I'm stuck with a major latent defect that is a much bigger permanent underlying problem I didn't know about. The previous owner had no idea. The appraisers during the sale had no idea. The damage is of the nature that it's beyond what an inspector would normally check for, so it's not the inspectors fault either.

Isn't there a general legal principle that makes the facility operator responsible for all of the latent defect? It was only discovered very recently but the damage happened across a larger timespan, mostly during the last 10 years.

Well, we certainty don’t want you to tattle tale on your attorney.

But depending on the circumstances of which you are pledged to secrecy you may find an analogy in Siegel vs. Anderson Homes, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 994, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 462,

There the plaintiff had purchased a home unaware of several preexisting defects. The seller was unaware of the defects when he sold the home to plaintiff.

The defendant builder contended that plaintiff lacked standing to sue because damage had occurred as a result of the defects before plaintiff purchased the property and therefore the cause of action belonged to the original owner.

The California Court of Appeals rejected the builder’s arguments of lack of privity and plaintiff not a property party claimant, etc. Noting “generally that the rule is that a claim for construction defect accrues when the defect starts to cause property damage and belongs to whomever owns the property at that time”.

And because it was the plaintiff and not his seller that suffered economic harm “it would be unjust to deprive the plaintiff of a cause of action.”

_________________

Now if the subject defects can be traced to the negligence of the contractor, perhaps this case will serve as a favorable precedent.

(But for hell’s sake don’t tell anyone!)

 

[fpbear]

But depending on the circumstances of which you are pledged to secrecy you may find an analogy in Siegel vs. Anderson Homes, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 994, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 462,

Thank you so much latigo. That case law is exactly what I was looking for, and may be a huge help. The only unique twist in my case which might be slightly different from this case law is that the previous owner of the property did suffer some damages but he thought it was cosmetic in nature, he didn't know the underlying structures were severely affected. The appraisal was a bit lower than market because of the cosmetic damage. So he had some damage, I thought I was buying with some cosmetic damage, and then suddenly I'm surprised with knowing that the cosmetic damage is really a severe hidden structural damage.

 

[justalayman]

Thank you so much latigo. . The only unique twist in my case which might be slightly different from this case law is that the previous owner of the property did suffer some damages but he thought it was cosmetic in nature, he didn't know the underlying structures were severely affected. .

whoops. Start checking statutes of limitations or statutes of repose.

 

[fpbear]

whoops. Start checking statutes of limitations or statutes of repose.

Yes this was one of the initial areas of research but the attorney felt we are just fine because the damage in ongoing (underlying cause hasn't been fixed yet, damage is getting worse) and my initial discovery of the hidden defect is well documented in various evidence. The cosmetic stuff was assumed to be normal wear & tear, no one would have reasonably expected to find what we did, underground.

 

[Zigner]

Let me get some popcorn to watch this little game of "bat the ball" that our advisers are playing blindly.

 

[justalayman]

fpbear;3089060]Yes this was one of the initial areas of research but the attorney felt we are just fine because the damage in ongoing (underlying cause hasn't been fixed yet, damage is getting worse

)seriously? That is what your lawyer said?

You really need to understand your obligation to mitigate your damages and what a failure to mitigate your damages does to any claim you might have.

The cosmetic stuff was assumed to be normal wear & tear, no one would have reasonably expected to find what we did, underground

then how was the underground stuff found?

 

[fpbear]

)You really need to understand your obligation to mitigate your damages and what a failure to mitigate your damages does to any claim you might have.

Yes, that was an argument made by the other side, but both I and the previous owner took a variety of steps to mitigate damages. It turns out that our mitigations were actually temporary and cosmetic in nature (when we thought they were more permanent) because we didn't know the underlying cause.

then how was the underground stuff found

The underground stuff was found when a major construction project started near the house then came upon it.

The previous owner suffered only minor cosmetic problems (since he didn't know), but I suffer the economic loss that if I try to sell the house, now I'd have to disclose this serious underlying problem as well which would destroy the value. Fixing it permanently is super expensive. So although we both had the underlying hidden problem, my loss is much more serious.

 

[latigo]

Let me get some popcorn to watch this little game of "bat the ball" that our advisers are playing blindly.

How delightfully gauche!

 

[csi7]

The only thing I can add to this is to fill in all the timeline, work the way back, and then continue to the history of the events (including severe weather events, construction, destruction, and other connecting events).

The more background information you can provide, the better your case will stand up through the scrutiny of the opposing party.

Also explore any available information through department of environmental protection, local code enforcement, board decisions, state decisions, and keep track of who, what, when, where, as you piece together the puzzle.