Non-disclosure - sewer pipe issue

[Avalon]

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

Bought a 1960 rancher a few months ago. On the Seller Disclosure Form, the answer to the question "Are you aware of any past or present leaks, backups, or other problems relating to the sewage system or related items?" was "No".

Shortly after two of us moved in, the basement toilet overflowed while the washer was discharging water into the laundry basin. The aging sewer pipe from the house to the street was apparently overwhelmed by the sudden rush of water. It was snaked, but happened again a few days later. Snaked again, but was told the next time they'd need to put a camera down the pipe to determine the condition of the pipe. Several neighbors on this street have had to replace their pipes, at a cost of over $7K.

Hasn't happened again, but only due to our diligence in ensuring we don't overwhelm the drainage pipe by multiple water activities at the same time.

I do not believe the Seller was not aware of this issue. He did live alone for 8 years, but I find it hard to believe that this drainage issue only appeared after two of us moved in here. The neighbor told me the Seller had a tree removed in the front yard due to the roots' affecting the pipes. I would imagine he had to have the pipe snaked at one time or another. In which case, he should've disclosed it, don't you think? I am upset because even though it wasn't disclosed to ME, I would now have to disclose it as a material defect that could affect the value of the property. In any event, I will need to get that camera diagnosis, because I can't live my life constantly running down to the basement to make sure the toilet didn't overflow.

I would appreciate your legal opinions on whether I have a valid case, and what an appropriate remedy would be. Thanks in advance.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Avalon]

P.S. I forgot to add, I complained to the home inspector about this. He said underground pipes outside the house are not within the scope of the inspection. He also said volume- or pressure-testing the water is not part of the testing. He did say he ran the tub for an hour, etc., but was not specifically doing a volume test to assess the drainage capacity. This is a major expense and a major system. I feel blindsided by this. I thought the purpose of the home inspector was to check EVERY major system.

That's just an aside...my main question is still about the Non-Disclosure. But if you have any opinion on what the home inspector said, let me know. He was arranged by my agent (I know, mistake) so I feel he was biased towards getting the sale done.

 

[FarmerJ]

With home inspectors unless you required a video sewer line inspection I dont believe you have recourse with the inspector, your free to discuss this with a atty to learn all the details of what is required disclosure items in your state , building inspectors report on what they can see and comment often on what they cannot , inspector ran the water , nothing was found to report, There is a chance that part of the sewer lines pitch changed . Video inspection would tell you if there is water pooling in the line. ( at the worst video inspection can tell you if part of the line collapsed / cracked too ) Disclosing tree root problems in the past hard to say , talk to atty about it. last questions are the other homes on your block the same age ? has anyone in your area had problems with ground settling or heaving , The more information you bring to your consult with a atty the atty can give you more clear advice.

 

[justalayman]

so, the problem is; the guy may have filled out the disclosure improperly. Did he do it intentionally or did he simply forget something?

To win, you will have to prove to a reasonable extent that he did know or should have known about the pipe. That might be tough without any solid proof. Being a single guy, he uses less than 1/2 the water you and wife use. It may not have shown up for him.

so, then, you either file in small claims and accept their maximum or in a higher court where it is likely you will need an attorney. Once you start paying for that attorney (and his fees are probably not recoverable unless you can prove the improper mark was knowing and intentional).

so, you have no guarantee of winning and if you spend money on a lawyer, your winnings would be reduced drastically. If you go with the lawyer and lose, you are out of pocket that much more.


I would sit down with an attorney that can review all the pertinent information and give you some direction. Personally, with what you currently have, I believe you have a good chance of losing.

 

[Avalon]

Thank you for the prompt replies. My issue (to answer the question above) is that the question on the Disclosure Form was whether there had ever been a drainage backup or any other sewer-related issue, and he said no. In speaking to the neighbor, they clearly all know about the sewer pipe issues, because several have had to replace them at great expense. She herself said she runs down to check her basement toilet several times a day to make sure it hasn't overflowed. (Yes, the homes are all the same age.) The Seller didn't just take the tree down for fun or to be pro-active -- I believe he had had a drainage backup, if not a toilet overflow. And with all of the sewer pipe issues here, I can't believe he would've had a foggy memory, and that's no excuse anyway. You can't just not disclose something and then use the "I forgot" excuse. If he had EVER had the outside sewer pipe snaked, then he omitted that info on the Disclosure Form. If he had disclosed it, at least I would've been able to do more investigation on the reasons and ramifications. This is not a minor issue -- this could cost me 8 grand. I'm also ticked off that the home inspector doesn't at least MENTION that the sewer pipes in a home this age could be an issue. I've never owned a single home, what do I know from sewers!!? It's a public sewer, that's all I knew.

At this point, I've gone back to my agent and raised the issue. I could easily ask for paperwork on why the tree was removed, and directly ask whether the line had ever been snaked and why. It might be a losing cause, but I'll see what she says and I most likely will consult with an attorney, given the amount of money that could be involved. I'm not optimistic, given your opinions, but it doesn't hurt to try.

 

[TIMMAAYY]

so, the problem is; the guy may have filled out the disclosure improperly. Did he do it intentionally or did he simply forget something?

To win, you will have to prove to a reasonable extent that he did know or should have known about the pipe. That might be tough without any solid proof. Being a single guy, he uses less than 1/2 the water you and wife use. It may not have shown up for him.

so, then, you either file in small claims and accept their maximum or in a higher court where it is likely you will need an attorney. Once you start paying for that attorney (and his fees are probably not recoverable unless you can prove the improper mark was knowing and intentional).

so, you have no guarantee of winning and if you spend money on a lawyer, your winnings would be reduced drastically. If you go with the lawyer and lose, you are out of pocket that much more.


I would sit down with an attorney that can review all the pertinent information and give you some direction. Personally, with what you currently have, I believe you have a good chance of losing.

You'd also have to prove the other owner knew it was a "problem". Some things need maintained, ya know. I don't think they'd have much of a chance at getting any relief from the seller or anyone else for something as obscure as this.

 

[nextwife]

A single guy, especially if they, for example, work out at a gym or Y, and then shower there, and/or has their shirts done and pressed at a cleaners. rather than laundering, may have had no inkling of a problem, and may never have stressed the system as much as even one single person with a different schedule. You can't prove non disclosure based upon "he MUST have known . . ." you need to prove he did know.

 

[FarmerJ]

This is a stretch but If that many homes have / had a problem on your block its entirely possible if it was the same builder and the sewer line installs were poor! and again as a household of one his water use was going to be less, tree root problems , they happen, House I grew up in was built in 55 , I recall sewer auger service coming out once , ( we had what we called a silver maple in front yard) Just dont remember if it was before or after we hooked up to city sewer in early 70s , do remember watching the guy work and seeing bits of what he said was tree roots. Instead of assuming you must replace the line, explore putting in a check valve to block back up and see if there is any kind of pump out there to assist forcing waste water into the line. And again your free to consult with a atty but its going to take alot of proof to win a claim so bring every thing you can with you when you see a atty.

 

[Avalon]

If he had had the outside pipe roto-rootered even once, wouldn't that indicate he had some kind of problem and should have answered "yes"? Do people spend hundreds of dollars on Roto-rooter just as a preventative measure? I don't know for sure he did, but I will be investigating for sure. I also want to know why the tree was taken down. If it was impacting the sewer pipes, then again, he should've indicated this on the disclosure form.

He lived by himself for 8 years here after his wife died. It is possible he didn't experience the toilet overflow because he probably didn't use the dishwasher and washer much. However, I still believe he knew there was a root problem. I will be doing some investigating on the reasons for the tree removal plus seeing if RotoRooter was ever here. If he used another service, guess I'm out-of-luck there. Can I demand paperwork on the tree removal? Not sure if it would explain why the tree was removed, but perhaps it would. My lawyer did say these cases are difficult to prove, but that won't stop me from squawking about it at least with the agents and Seller. By the way, I've done a search on similar issues on this board. Some of the cases are very similar to mine, and some folks were told they had a viable case against the Seller (in the opinion of the poster giving feedback...I realize this is free advice). That's why I don't understand why mine is so far-fetched then. I know, I'm beating a dead horse...

Farmer, thanks for the advice, I guess I first need to get that camera diagnosis to determine the extent of the problem. I also don't think it was a "builder issue" as much as that the pipes are old terra cotta pipes that are breaking down after 50 years. Regardless of whether the Seller knew about the drainage/root problem, I am still furious that I was not told by the Home Inspector that this is an area that could soon be failing due to age, just like he told me about the water heater. I already knew it had happened to my cousins (up the street) but until now, I just thought theirs was an isolated incident. Had the Home Inspector told me, I could've connected the dots and at least anticipated the expense.

 

[justalayman]

. Can I demand paperwork on the tree removal?

no, at least until you file suit and can make some reasonable argument it materially affects your claim.

I know, I'm beating a dead horse...

you have a very good claim...if you can support it with proof. As it stands, you just don't have any, just a lot of speculation.

Regardless of whether the Seller knew about the drainage/root problem, I am still furious that I was not told by the Home Inspector that this is an area that could soon be failing due to age,

did you hire the inspector and what did the contract say to what is inspected and what is beyond the scope of his inspection?