Wants me to pay for repair work after I sold them my house

[John Carson]

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

I recently sold a house to somebody and after they bought it they found a problem with the plumbing, small leak in one of the toilets, that I was not aware of when I sold them the house. The buyers did not do an inspection of the house before they bought it, that is, they did not hire a professional inspector to inspect the house. In Illinois, we have a checklist of things a seller signs off on before we can sell a house and one of those things that I checked off on I was not aware of any plumbing problems with the house, which was true, I was not aware of any. Now three weeks after buying the house, the buyers refuse to make the repair and they expect me to either make the repair myself or pay for the repair ahead of time. They claim I covered up the faulty repair work on the toilet somehow so it could not be detected, which I did not do. They threaten to take me to court. The cost estimate of the repair is $250. What should I do? In my opinion, they did not do proper due diligence before buying the home and I honestly did not know about this plumbing problem so I feel I should not have to pay for this repair or any other repair they find on the house. Am I supposed to pay for every little thing they find wrong with the house for the next three months, six months, one year or who knows how long? Once I pay for one repair, you can bet they will come back to me for the next repair. Anybody have any experience with something like this? Thanks.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[justalayman]

If you were honest on the disclosure form, you are in the right. If you are willing to fight this, you should win, based on your statements here. If they sue in small claims court, I would argue it. If they sue in a higher court where an attorney might be needed, it would be cheaper to pay for the repair. As part of any payment, I would demand a release from all future claims. While it might not be enforceable, especially if they can prove you hid known defects, it might give them a bit of pause before asking for money again.

 

[John Carson]

Thanks for you opinion, it was pretty right on. Yes, I was honest on the disclosure form, I never knew about the repair work that was needed, I rarely used that toilet so I never observed the leak. In fact, another potential buyer had the house inspected by a professional inpector one year earlier and after a three hour house inspection and 20 page inspection report, no mention was made of this leak. The inspector had said in his report that there were no visible leaks in all three bathrooms and the entire plumbing system. During the following year, I rarely used the toilet, maybe a total of five times, so I doubt the drain pipe under the toilet cracked on its own, I probably bought the house with this damage already there.

I was planning to defend myself in small claims court, use no attorney, because i really was not aware of this repair work. I am not sure how they are going to prove that I covered up something. If it goes to higher court and I do need an attorney, and if I won the case, would not the plaintiff have to cover my attorney fees or do I have to file a counter suit to make them pay for my attorney?

I really do not want to pay them anything unless a judge tells me to because they will just keep coming back for more. I thought of doing that written agreement barring any future claims but you are right in may not be enforceable if a similar situation arises again and it would make me look like I know about other things that are wrong with the house.

I have been buying, fixing up and selling houses for more than ten years now and nothing like this ever happened. I think the overall economy is making people a little bit crazy these days. They buy a house without doing an inspection on it to save money and when they move in they discover something wrong and then want the seller to pay for it. It is ironic that the price of the repair work is about the same price as a full house inspection so they pretty much are not gaining anything by not doing an inspection on it.

I wonder if I should ever mention that an official inspection was done on the house one year earlier and no leak was found anywhere. That would not support my case that they did not do proper due diligence since even if they did do an official inspection, the problem probably still would not have been found. What do you think about this? It is a fine point but could be important.

 

[justalayman]

John Carson;2644845]Thanks for you opinion, it was pretty right on. Yes, I was honest on the disclosure form, I never knew about the repair work that was needed, I rarely used that toilet so I never observed the leak. In fact, another potential buyer had the house inspected by a professional inpector one year earlier and after a three hour house inspection and 20 page inspection report, no mention was made of this leak. The inspector had said in his report that there were no visible leaks in all three bathrooms and the entire plumbing system. During the following year, I rarely used the toilet, maybe a total of five times, so I doubt the drain pipe under the toilet cracked on its own, I probably bought the house with this damage already there.

I would hang on to that report. It might come in handy of this goes to court. While it won't prove the toilet wasn't damaged since you owned the house, the report along with your story would help your defense.

I was planning to defend myself in small claims court, use no attorney, because i really was not aware of this repair work. I am not sure how they are going to prove that I covered up something. If it goes to higher court and I do need an attorney, and if I won the case, would not the plaintiff have to cover my attorney fees or do I have to file a counter suit to make them pay for my attorney?

Generally, unless the suit was frivolous or malicious in it's intent, attorney fees are not awarded. In other words, if they believe they have a valid claim, you would quite likely not get your legal fees.

I really do not want to pay them anything unless a judge tells me to because they will just keep coming back for more. I thought of doing that written agreement barring any future claims but you are right in may not be enforceable if a similar situation arises again and it would make me look like I know about other things that are wrong with the house.

very understandable.

I have been buying, fixing up and selling houses for more than ten years now and nothing like this ever happened. I think the overall economy is making people a little bit crazy these days.

actually I think you have had very good buyers or been very lucky. Claims such as this are very common.

They buy a house without doing an inspection on it to save money and when they move in they discover something wrong and then want the seller to pay for it.

Very typical

I wonder if I should ever mention that an official inspection was done on the house one year earlier and no leak was found anywhere.

It could help as I explained above.

That would not support my case that they did not do proper due diligence since even if they did do an official inspection, the problem probably still would not have been found. What do you think about this? It is a fine point but could be important.

this is not within the basis for arguing failure to do their due diligence. A buyer has a right to depend on the disclosure to be complete and honest.

If the damage was obvious, then due diligence would come into play. With this, they are claiming there was intent to hide the damage. A bit of a difference; your fraud compared to their failure to see the obvious. In the first, obviously you get hung out to dry. With the latter, their failure to see the obvious is their downfall.

 

[John Carson]

justalayman, thanks for the good advice, are you sure you are not an attorney, should have been

you had said,

"I would hang on to that report. It might come in handy of this goes to court. While it won't prove the toilet wasn't damaged since you owned the house, the report along with your story would help your defense."

I am not sure it will help my defense, but if the judge asks me if it was ever inspected, i will have to tell him, the fact that even a professional inspector did not find the defect means that i cannot use the argument that the buyer failed to perform due diligence because even if they did, the defect would not have been found

you had said,

"actually I think you have had very good buyers or been very lucky. Claims such as this are very common."

i like to think that i do a pretty good job of fixing up houses so nobody has a complaint after they buy it, i feel really bad that i missed this leak, i could have easily fixed it if i knew about it, after i had the house inspected last year, i rewired the entire house and got a new high efficiency furnace to replace an old boiler in response to the inspection report, spent over $10,000 to do that so another $250 to fix a leak would not have been a big deal

you had said,

"this is not within the basis for arguing failure to do their due diligence. A buyer has a right to depend on the disclosure to be complete and honest.

If the damage was obvious, then due diligence would come into play. With this, they are claiming there was intent to hide the damage. A bit of a difference; your fraud compared to their failure to see the obvious. In the first, obviously you get hung out to dry. With the latter, their failure to see the obvious is their downfall."

i guess if i tell the judge that i did more than $10,000 worth of repairs after the first inspection, he may tend to believe me when i tell him that if i knew about a $250 leak i would have fixed it, why would i go through the trouble of lifting a toilet and pouring hot wax over a cracked cast iron drain pipe then putting the toilet back and hope for the best, i would not even know how to do all that but that is what the buyers found when they had a plumber pull up the toilet, i am not even sure any licensed plumber would dare do that today or if that is even a technology they use, the buyers claim i did the hot wax thing sometime in the past two months which is absurd, i really wonder how they are going to prove that in court, it is up tp them to prove it i would think, if they cannot prove i covered up the repair, then the judge will probably fault them for their lack of due diligence before buying the house, which was a 100 year old foreclosure house, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD NOT DO AN INSPECTION ON A HOUSE LIKE THAT BEFORE BUYING IT! The buyer is a state trooper by the way, and he got a no down payment FHA loan to buy the house. I guess he wants to continue spending zero money on the house by having me pay for a repair on his house.

Thanks again for your input on this, it was very helpful.

 

[sendkeys]

250 bucks that is about the cheaper problem i have seen on this forum

If it was me i would offer to pay half to get hem to go away.

 

[acmb05]

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

I recently sold a house to somebody and after they bought it they found a problem with the plumbing, small leak in one of the toilets, that I was not aware of when I sold them the house. The buyers did not do an inspection of the house before they bought it, that is, they did not hire a professional inspector to inspect the house. In Illinois, we have a checklist of things a seller signs off on before we can sell a house and one of those things that I checked off on I was not aware of any plumbing problems with the house, which was true, I was not aware of any. Now three weeks after buying the house, the buyers refuse to make the repair and they expect me to either make the repair myself or pay for the repair ahead of time. They claim I covered up the faulty repair work on the toilet somehow so it could not be detected, which I did not do. They threaten to take me to court. The cost estimate of the repair is $250. What should I do? In my opinion, they did not do proper due diligence before buying the home and I honestly did not know about this plumbing problem so I feel I should not have to pay for this repair or any other repair they find on the house. Am I supposed to pay for every little thing they find wrong with the house for the next three months, six months, one year or who knows how long? Once I pay for one repair, you can bet they will come back to me for the next repair. Anybody have any experience with something like this? Thanks.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

First they are going to have to prove you knew about the problem before hand and did not disclose it which will be very hard to do.

The fact that you had an inspection a year ago and nothing was found could help you a little but honestly this could easily have happened after the inspection. I would tend to think it had to because the inspector from before found nothing.

Just tell them you are not paying for it and if they want to they can take you to small claims for it.

 

[John Carson]

sendkeys, you wrote: 250 bucks that is about the cheaper problem i have seen on this forum

If it was me i would offer to pay half to get hem to go away.

if i pay them half then they might come back for more on another repair that pops up, it will never end, they decided not to do an inspection before buying the house, they took the chance not me, i should not have to pay for their gamble, it does not matter how much money this specific repair is, what matters is that they could come back for more for a much bigger repair that right now is unknown to everyone, suppose the roof starts leaking tomorrow or has been leaking the whole time, am i supposed to pay half of that too?

 

[John Carson]

acbm05 you wrote: First they are going to have to prove you knew about the problem before hand and did not disclose it which will be very hard to do.

The fact that you had an inspection a year ago and nothing was found could help you a little but honestly this could easily have happened after the inspection. I would tend to think it had to because the inspector from before found nothing.

Just tell them you are not paying for it and if they want to they can take you to small claims for it.

i agree with everything you wrote except i doubt a big iron drain pipe underneath the toilet cracked on its own after the inspector did his inspection, i never used that toilet, iron pipes do not crack on their own usually, the problem was probably there when i bought the house, i never noticed it in the two years i owned the house, the buyers never noticed it when they checked out the house for themselves, and the inspector never noticed it when he did his inspection a year earlier, it is just one of those things, i have sent them a letter telling them i am not paying for it, still waiting to see what they do