What is the name of your state? Florida
The Seller of our home, put on the Seller's Disclosure Statement, NO when asked if there ever had been any roof leaks during his ownership. He also said NO to any dry rot.
Shortly after we moved and it started to rain, we had roof leaks. We contacted the Seller and in a nutshell he said not his problem, our problem, get a roofer.
We got a roofer and found out that the Seller had pasted/glued new wood sheathing on top of the existing sheathing. When the new sheathing was removed it revealed the existing sheathing was rotted completely through in several areas. This is where the roof leaks were. The roofer also said that he had previously been to house for leaks in another location.
The Seller is the original owner of the house. He had to have know of this glued on sheathing. We later found out from the neighbor across the street, a pharmacist, that he saw the Seller himself, glueing it up.
Upon sending the Seller pictures of the hidden damage, he has hired a high powered attorney in order to intimidate us. This attorney is also the State Represenative for this district, and has been for 3 terms.
His letter says that the Sellers were absolved of any disclosures because they repaired all roof leaks before the sale. He also say the repair, (what I call the cover up) is a common and acceptable cosmetic remedy in this area where houses are close to the waterfront.
I think not. An acceptable remedy is not to slap new wood on top of rotted wood and not tell the buyers.
Florida disclosure law is based on Johnson vs Davis, which basically says the Sellers must disclose anything to a buyer that is not readiably observable.
I guess my question is twofold. Do you think I have reason to be concerned that the Seller has retained such a high powered, well connected attorney, and how do you think this will effect the outcome of our case, even with the law on our side? The good ole boys club?
Secondly, since the Seller deliberately hid the damage, do you think it is fraud? In the State of Florida the Seller must disclose "anything that is not readily observable to the buyer" so this isn't just something he didn't disclose but something the Seller deliberately concealed. Are punitive damages possible because of the intentional wrongdoing?
I don't think people should get away with this kind of stuff without a penalty in addition to actual damages. Because otherwise why won't they keep trying if they have nothing to lose?
Pls let me know your thoughts.
Thanks.
The Seller of our home, put on the Seller's Disclosure Statement, NO when asked if there ever had been any roof leaks during his ownership. He also said NO to any dry rot.
Shortly after we moved and it started to rain, we had roof leaks. We contacted the Seller and in a nutshell he said not his problem, our problem, get a roofer.
We got a roofer and found out that the Seller had pasted/glued new wood sheathing on top of the existing sheathing. When the new sheathing was removed it revealed the existing sheathing was rotted completely through in several areas. This is where the roof leaks were. The roofer also said that he had previously been to house for leaks in another location.
The Seller is the original owner of the house. He had to have know of this glued on sheathing. We later found out from the neighbor across the street, a pharmacist, that he saw the Seller himself, glueing it up.
Upon sending the Seller pictures of the hidden damage, he has hired a high powered attorney in order to intimidate us. This attorney is also the State Represenative for this district, and has been for 3 terms.
His letter says that the Sellers were absolved of any disclosures because they repaired all roof leaks before the sale. He also say the repair, (what I call the cover up) is a common and acceptable cosmetic remedy in this area where houses are close to the waterfront.
I think not. An acceptable remedy is not to slap new wood on top of rotted wood and not tell the buyers.
Florida disclosure law is based on Johnson vs Davis, which basically says the Sellers must disclose anything to a buyer that is not readiably observable.
I guess my question is twofold. Do you think I have reason to be concerned that the Seller has retained such a high powered, well connected attorney, and how do you think this will effect the outcome of our case, even with the law on our side? The good ole boys club?
Secondly, since the Seller deliberately hid the damage, do you think it is fraud? In the State of Florida the Seller must disclose "anything that is not readily observable to the buyer" so this isn't just something he didn't disclose but something the Seller deliberately concealed. Are punitive damages possible because of the intentional wrongdoing?
I don't think people should get away with this kind of stuff without a penalty in addition to actual damages. Because otherwise why won't they keep trying if they have nothing to lose?
Pls let me know your thoughts.
Thanks.