Toronto woman sues Real Estate Agent because her house needed unexpected work

[james t kirk]

Pamela Tebbs’s dream home turned into a nightmare the minute construction workers began flushing her toilet.

The crew brought in to do some renovations to the basement and kitchen made frequent use of a toilet that for the past decade had been lightly used by an elderly woman. It didn’t take long for everyone to figure out there was a major issue with the plumbing.

“There are only so many things you can do behind a bush,” Ms. Tebbs said. “We realized we had a major, major, major problem.”

The case is a cautionary tale for home buyers across the Greater Toronto Area, many of whom are buying houses without bothering to do an inspection because the market is so hot. An inspection-caused delay could be the difference between securing a new home or spending the next six weekends crowding into open houses.

Others, such as Ms. Tebbs, use an inspector recommended by the person selling the home in an effort to expedite the process.

“When you’re in a multiple-buyer situation and forego an inspection, you can end up with some nasty surprises,” said Bill Johnston, outgoing president of the Toronto Real Estate Board. “But even with an inspection, there are things that don’t get caught. It’s rare, but can be troubling.”

One of the biggest problems with inspections, he said, is that they are non-invasive. As such, inspectors – who are granted their designation by the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors after taking weekend courses – aren’t necessarily pulling back carpets or checking behind drywall.

Another concern is that inspectors are self-regulated. If a buyer is dissatisfied, the recourse is to complain to the association. A disciplinary panel can be formed, which would examine the complaint and seek to address concerns. Homeowners shouldn’t expect a refund on their purchase, however.

“If the panel decides the home inspector should be disciplined, possible penalties range from a formal warning, requiring further training, or suspension,” the association’s website states. “In addition, conditions or restrictions may be placed on the inspector.”

Despite the home’s apparent clean bill of health, Ms. Tebbs was caught in the unenviable position of owning an uninhabitable house when she took possession in 2003 after winning a bidding war. It was just one of several critical problems that would turn up within the first few months of ownership – including a basement

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-agents-over-her-housing-woes/article2082916/

 

[james t kirk]

My personal opinion is:

Too bad for you lady - you bought the damn place.

I've never been a big believer in Home Inspectors myself and even a good Inspector can only see so much. (A top to bottom inspection is neither practical or possible for just $350.00.)

But suing the agent? Cause the Agent should have known better?

Please.

Now I'm the first person who will say that a Real Estate Agent is anything more than an overpriced unnecessary flunkie. But to blame the Agent for your problems is kind of funny. Even if the Agent told you to forgo the inspection. It's a case of Buyer Beware. Ultimately you made the (bad) decision to buy the joint and ultimately you made the decision not have a home inspection and, therefore, you are on the hook.

 

[doggystyle99]

Wow thats just ridiculous.
She bought a home for $395000 spent $150000 on renovations and another $100000 on legal fees for a total of $645000 and has the property listed for sale for the amount of $750000 and still trying to sue the real estate agents while making a profit of $105000.
What a greedy bitch

 

[Aardvark154]

From the article it would seem Ontario precedent on this point is much like that elsewhere in North America.

"She’s suing the former owner’s estate and the real-estate agents alleging they knew the home was susceptible to flooding and likely contained mould. (and I'm assuming not mentioned in the article that these facts were not readily apparent to a prudent buyer).

All have filed statements of defence, suggesting that any problems were caused by the extensive renovations and landscaping Ms. Tebbs undertook after she took possession of the house."

 

[Mervyn]

She may have a claim for the Mould portion , but the fact that a lightly used toilet breaks down and after heavy use by construction workers makes things more difficult to determine, especially since the article is very scant in details.

 

[eldoguy]

Good Luck, only recourse is Errors and Omissions Insurance. Only if real estate or Brokers may have?

 

[wetnose]

If anyone buys that house, then the market is *really* overheated.

 

[michael_to29]

A good agent would never advise you to buy without a home inspection. I was in a bidding war for an older home and paid a higher end firm to do a very detailed home inspection, cost in the $700 range before putting in a bid. Paying for a home inspection prior to putting in an offer is just one of those things that really suck about buying real estate in Toronto. (the only thing worse is the Toronto land transfer tax)

 

[oldjones]

I disagree and hope the agents and seller get their asses raked over the coals. When I was young and went camping, I was taught one cardinal rule - leave the site cleaner than you found it. I also learned that an omission is still a lie. Keep a house well-maintained and be honest and ethical with the buyer.

You'd have to know of the problem first in order to omit informing the buyer. Ignorance is the buyer's default condition; it's up to the buyer to do what they can to investigate and inform themselves. The buyer was a bit foolish to put so much faith in the seller's inspection—like trusting the used car guy's mechanic, instead of taking the car to yours—but is absolutely off-base (given the facts in the story) claiming the seller should have known about problems with "…a toilet that for the past decade had been lightly used by an elderly woman". How so?

And should an ordinary domestic toilet be able to handle an entire construction crew's morning offerings anyway? Never mind that South Kingsway is a street in a gully and one might well; expect dampness and mould in basements there.

 

[james t kirk]

Any toilet should be able to handle any construction crew. The worst problem would be a collapsed or improperly installed drain. Often these old houses have clay drain pipes that tree roots get into and block or they collapse. (What do you want after 100 years)

I'm not quite sure how (worst case scenario) a collapsed drain and some mold in the basement end up costing 150k. The only thing I can figure is that they gutted the basement, repaired any water leaks, then did a high end reno on the basement. Even then, you're hard pressed to spend 150k. I'd be willing to be that the lady in question is simply handing over all her bills for the reno to the basement and claiming all of it as damages.

As to a Home Inspection, people delude themselves that a Home Inspection is going to catch everything. For $350 all a guy can do is a quick visual inspection. No Home Inspector is going to camera a sanitary drain for 350. Just getting roto rooter to camera a sanitary drain would cost 350.

When I bought my place in High Park, the Real Estate Agent wrote on the offer "subject to Inspection" but then verbally informed me that the seller's agent would probably scratch this off the list and sign it back to me. This is exactly what happened. The reasoniing was simple - "you can do the inspection all you want, but the results won't change the price one iota". Which actually made sense to me as it was simply a case of this is what you get for the money you've quoted. End of story.

I've also read that a seller should never fill out a Seller's information sheet. The Real Estate Company could use that against you for future legal issues. "Well, yes, we asked him about the wiring and he said everything was OK" In short, they are covering their ass with your ass.

 

[oldjones]

Ignorance IS indeed an excuse. And I doubt a good and competent Real Estate agent would be ignorant of the problem with the toilet, even if the old lady was. Should a toilet be able to handle a construction crew? It's irrelevant... that was simply the issue that uncovered $150,000 worth of renovations. It is up to the buyer to do as much investigating as possible, I agree - BUT - the seller must also act ethically. What's the point of playing a "cat and mouse game" when selling a house?

The statement that I highlighted in your quote above is also self-defeating for you and irrelevant as well. If it is a KNOWN mould/damp area, then the original owners and sellers for the owners should have known or suspected it as much as anyone else - right? In fact more so because they would have known the history of the property.

Finally, notice in the quote I have from the original article here - "All have filed statements of defence, suggesting that any problems were caused by the extensive renovations and landscaping Ms. Tebbs undertook after she took possession of the house." that their defence is that the new owner caused ALL the damage herself. My view is that if they actually plead "ignorance" or said something like "there was no way for us to know", their defence would be thrown out by a judge who would say "It's your job to know what you're selling".

But what judges have actually said in such cases is, "caveat emptor", because the open-ended 'gotta tell 'em everything, and if you don't know, you gotta dig and investigate until you do know everything" is unreasonable. No one has that much time to listen, and if it was written the price would be a few thousand more for a massive binder no one would ever read.

Here's just one: every house in the past hundred yeasrs has been built from drawings. And was placedd on the lot by surveying data. Just try to get either a survey—and at least sellers know what that is, wnen they tell you they don't have one—or the drawings. The most easily available, starting version of 'everything about the house'. But I'm interested in your real estate agent with the x-ray vision; just how is she/he expected to discover the problem waste line the owner didn't?

Being so eager to have others do the resaerch, you clearly missed the point about obvious problems like being in a damp area. Why didn't the buyer ask? Asking moves the issue from ignorance, "I dunno" to suspicion, "well, we'll have to get an inspection then" or outright fraud, "So, I'll offer based on your assurance".

Comes down to the only person whose ignorance you can do anything bout is yourself, thus 'buyer beware'. But do let me attend the next time you demand the seller certify every electrical outlet, every tap and drain, and every inch of unseen wire, piping and structural lumber, and tell you just how they know. I have lots of free time, and houses fascinate me.

 

[Jumbo99]

Being a home inspector myself these problems would were probably undetectable at time of inspection. No one is going to flush a toilet 10 time for an inspection and once a construction crew has started work the condition is changed and it would be almost impossible to lay blame. The conditions of use have changed. ie a floor may be in great condition just don't expect it to hold your grand piano. This only makes money for lawyers

 

[Aardvark154]

But what judges have actually said in such cases is, "caveat emptor", because the open-ended 'gotta tell 'em everything, and if you don't know, you gotta dig and investigate until you do know everything" is unreasonable. No one has that much time to listen, and if it was written the price would be a few thousand more for a massive binder no one would .

However, seemingly the difference here, is that the plaintiff is alleging that the defendants were aware, and that they did not disclose and that the problems would not have been apparent to a buyer exercising due diligence.

 

[SirWanker]

Ignorance IS indeed an excuse. And I doubt a good and competent Real Estate agent would be ignorant of the problem with the toilet, even if the old lady was. Should a toilet be able to handle a construction crew? It's irrelevant... that was simply the issue that uncovered $150,000 worth of renovations. It is up to the buyer to do as much investigating as possible, I agree - BUT - the seller must also act ethically. What's the point of playing a "cat and mouse game" when selling a house?

The statement that I highlighted in your quote above is also self-defeating for you and irrelevant as well. If it is a KNOWN mould/damp area, then the original owners and sellers for the owners should have known or suspected it as much as anyone else - right? In fact more so because they would have known the history of the property.

Finally, notice in the quote I have from the original article here - "All have filed statements of defence, suggesting that any problems were caused by the extensive renovations and landscaping Ms. Tebbs undertook after she took possession of the house." that their defence is that the new owner caused ALL the damage herself. My view is that if they actually plead "ignorance" or said something like "there was no way for us to know", their defence would be thrown out by a judge who would say "It's your job to know what you're selling".

But you, as a buyer, should also be responsible for doing some homework yourself in regards to the area you may be purchasing in. As stated earlier, it is an old house and possibly the original owner ( hard to say from the article but reasonable to assume ). From my experience, such owners were "frugal" and will not "fix items that are not broken". Any educated buyer really should be expecting for additional expenses afterwards and adjust their initial offer accordingly.

To place all the accountability on the agents and seller for all of the above is bullpuckies, and frankly irresponsible laziness on the buyer side.

 

[MissCroft]

Love that movie! LOL

 

[simon482]

no one wants to be responsible for their own actions or choices anymore and always looking for the easy payday. disgusting.

 

[oldjones]

However, seemingly the difference here, is that the plaintiff is alleging that the defendants were aware, and that they did not disclose and that the problems would not have been apparent to a buyer exercising due diligence.

And the actual case, as described, is far less wide-ranging than all that's been mentioned. The article says the plaintiff's alleging the seller's agents knew the area was subject to flooding, and likely contained mould. As I said above, the street is at the bottom of a gulley (banks twice as high as tall houses), anyone who couldn't see that any house there was at risk shouldn't be out without an escort from their facility. If the house had flooded, mould might have been likely; two 'ifs' to be proven, and a due diligence standard of practice for agents that asks about any floods to be determined. And what if dotty old light toilet lady says, 'none I remember'. Nothing in the story about the agents actually having such knowledge, just that they should have known what the buyer was too stupid to ask and volunterred it.

And a long, long way from the silliness of making sellers responsible for disclosing every single thing you might be concerned about. Buyers have due diligence responsibilities, just like anyone else. Just they report to more understanding bosses.

Besides then you have to establish a standard of what is adequate, below-par. 4tees says any toilet should be able to handle any construction crew. My sweetie's currently on a crew of eighty painters with over a hundred carpenters in the same shop. Watch that domestic install fail on day one, which is why those guys take their own toilets on location, and why standards of manufacture, and installation do matter contrary to 4tees statement they're irrelevant. Can't say anything's substandard without them: be it a realtor's conduct, or a badly sloped drain, or a black patch on the inside of the sheathing.

City of Dearborn MI requires that every house transferring ownership must first be brought up to current building code standards, but even they don't rip off all the interior walls to prove there's no mould. Sorry, mold. They just make you install a brand new concrete driveway to replace the entirely functional separate concrete tire-tracks yhat had done the job for eighty years. And then the buyer of the house in question, with its arc-fault breakers and anti-siphon valves on the laundry sink complained of misrepresentation because he didn't realize the closets were so small.

The real question in this tale is why the buyer waited until after the renos to claim. How did she remain ignorant of all issues for so long, months and months—with a full crew available to expose everything to view—and yet imagine realtors in smart clothes should have picked up on them in the few hours they spend at a given house?

 

[fuji]

If real estate agents really were on the hook for this stuff maybe they would actually be worth the fee they charge.

 

[Mencken]

Some of the issues would have been known by the vendor...perhaps not the problem with the toilet, but for sure (I would guess) with the issue of flooding. Seems very plausible that the vendor did not disclose flooding issues, and the agent chose to not ask, or not want to know, but would be fully aware that flooding had very likely happened.

The buyer's agent also should have thought to ask that question. I'm assuming that since this was in Ontario, and after some date several years ago when agents for buyers became legally agents for the buyer, not the vendor.

Having been in a somewhat similar circumstance I know that the vendor disclosure in the standard listing agreement is very powerful - a warranty basically. The additional statements in the optional vendors disclosure may add to that.

 

[Aardvark154]

And the actual case, as described, is far less wide-ranging than all that's been mentioned. The article says the plaintiff's alleging the seller's agents knew the area was subject to flooding, and likely contained mould. As I said above, the street is at the bottom of a gulley (banks twice as high as tall houses), anyone who couldn't see that any house there was at risk shouldn't be out without an escort from their facility. If the house had flooded, mould might have been likely; two 'ifs' to be proven, and a due diligence standard of practice for agents that asks about any floods to be determined. And what if dotty old light toilet lady says, 'none I remember'.

As I recall there has to be knowledge and an intent to deceive - the classic textbook case involved infestation by termites in which the seller had placed a large potted plant over the area of the porch which showed evidence of termites. The court held that it was unreasonable to have expected the buyers to move the large potted plant.