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

[Cassini]

Basements are very large hole in the ground, and water flows in the direction of the lowest point.

Before the advent (post-2000) of the more advanced basement ceiling systems, no basement was built to be capable of resisting water for long periods of time. As such, just about everyone with an older house should expect some problems, unless you live at the top of a hill and the location provides fantastic natural drainage.

I know people love the thought of a leak-free finished basement, but it almost impossible to get contractors to build leak-free finished basements properly. Why do people keep expecting it?

 

[james t kirk]

Basements are very large hole in the ground, and water flows in the direction of the lowest point.

Before the advent (post-2000) of the more advanced basement ceiling systems, no basement was built to be capable of resisting water for long periods of time. As such, just about everyone with an older house should expect some problems, unless you live at the top of a hill and the location provides fantastic natural drainage.

I know people love the thought of a leak-free finished basement, but it almost impossible to get contractors to build leak-free finished basements properly. Why do people keep expecting it?

True, a house is not a boat, however, a watertight basement can be built - but like most things - it costs more and so most people are not willing to pay the cost (at initial construction). People think that it's the walls that keep the water out. Wrong. It's the waterproofing and you can get waterproofing in a can from Canadian Tire or Home Depot for 60 bucks and pay a flunkie 14.00 bucks an hour to put it on with a roller, or you can pay for high tech waterproofing that meets the requirements of OPSS 914, or by RPM. Take your pick.

You could build 2 identical houses side by side. Say both are identical, same floor plan, same finishes (take your pick), but one was built "better"

Better foundations, better framing, better beams, better windows, better mechanical, better everything.....

You would be very very hard pressed to get a dime more for the "better house" (well, say the cost of construction - which would be substantial) than you would for the one with base construction. People are stupid and worst of all CHEAP when it comes to spending money on building their houses. They all want the BMW design, they figure they're entitled to it, but when you tell them how much it will cost, they pretty much have a stroke on the spot. Never fails. It's just one idiot after the other when it comes to residential construction.

BTW, if you want to see how to build a better house, you can go on Building Science.com Without a doubt, the most advanced and extensive source of residential design out there today. It's MASSIVE. All with better details for building a house.

www.buildingscience.com

 

[oldjones]

I never said that.

And I humbly beg your pardon for hurriedly misattributing that to you rather than james t kirk, who did.

 

[oldjones]

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.

In this instance, the plaintiff seems to only have acquired the knowledge that led her to sue after doing extensive demolition and renovation. Although she must allege the seller—and the agents—had such prior knowledge of mould, there's nothing in the article that suggests they actually did. If they didn't, how were they to acquire it? By demo-ing all the interior walls?

The intent to deceive part might be straightforward had she looked at the landscape and asked the obvious, "Has the basement ever flooded, or is it reliably dry?", and was lied to, but again, there's nothing in the story to say she did or didn't.

Taking this tale as evidence that we need to place a formal onus for 'complete' disclosure on sellers—who already open the property for inspection—is the usual simplistic nonsense. Especially considering this hapless buyer relied on the seller's inspection report of a suspect property. Who spends that kinda money buying used machinery that cavalierly, without their own expert?

By all means let's have better regulated markets with clear standards for products and how they are represented, but absolving buyers of every responsibility is no way to get there.

 

[oldjones]

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

And they'd demand the sellers hire an inspector—with attested credentials—who would cut holes in walls, floors and ceilings to do the sort of inspection that would protect them. The buyer did that inspection. It was called the demolition phase of her reno. And would we buyers want those inspection holes patched? Or left open for our inspector to use.

But I don't see any of that affecting agents' fees, except to inflate them.

 

[KBear]

She is suing the estate. If the house was sold as part of the estate, then the house would have been sold “AS IS”. The “AS IS” in the contract is one of the a wakeup calls that you are buying “AS IS”.

She bought for 395K, tried to sell a couple of years later for 1 million, and did not sell. Average selling price on the street is 499K, and she can’t sell. She can’t possibly doing anything wrong, must be someone else’s fault.

 

[Cassini]

Taking this tale as evidence that we need to place a formal onus for 'complete' disclosure on sellers—who already open the property for inspection—is the usual simplistic nonsense.

Complete disclosure is already present in the form of the Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS). However, most lawyers and real estate agents recommend that vendors do not use it.

The fundamental problem is that SPIS causes the vendor becomes liable for things they are not aware of, unless they list the answer to every question as "unknown." As a vendor, it is best to make no claims whatsoever. Especially about topics that you may have limited technical and factual knowledge.

Links:
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2006-10-21.htm
http://www.thestar.com/article/230201

JTK: Like the buildingscience.com website.

 

[james t kirk]

JTK: Like the buildingscience.com website.

I know. It's incredible the amount of information there. Free for the taking.

The basement details are remarkable.

 

[GPIDEAL]

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.

Yes, but an omission is not necessarily a lie if 'to the best of your knowledge', you didn't know about it.

 

[Aardvark154]

do we then let the doctor off when he can legitimately say "TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I never knew he had diabetes."

The term you are looking for is "Willful Ignorance" and it is generally not an excuse in law.

 

[oldjones]

Complete disclosure is already present in the form of the Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS). However, most lawyers and real estate agents recommend that vendors do not use it.

The fundamental problem is that SPIS causes the vendor becomes liable for things they are not aware of, unless they list the answer to every question as "unknown." As a vendor, it is best to make no claims whatsoever. Especially about topics that you may have limited technical and factual knowledge.

Links:
http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2006-10-21.htm
http://www.thestar.com/article/230201

JTK: Like the buildingscience.com website.

Thanks. Just the point I was trying to make. It's unreasonable to imagine—and more unreasonable to require—that sellers will know everything there is to know about wht you the buyer might consider to be faults relevant to their decision to purchase a machine as complex as a house. Even more unreasonable to imagine they could effectively disclose all that info if they had it.

To draw a parellel with other professions, like medicine, we would have to first establish a 'standard of practice' for realtors as well as a 'standard of resale-condition' for houses like the one in this story. Then you could make the case that the house was defective and the agent was professionally deficient in not ascertaining that and disclosing.

But current practice in real estate doesn't go much beyond standing behind the accuracy of the minimal, verifiable info in the listing and undertaking to give truthful answers to direct questions.