Do "roots in the sewer in the past" require disclosure?

[DerbyDad03]

Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

[Oren]

I would think disclosure is NOT required. I've never seen where
_routine maintenance_ is required. My experience is that disclosure
has to be made when a known problem existed that was serious or posed
a potential problem to the buyer. In my city you can actually bury a
person on your property but you have to disclose it :-\

A former neighbor was selling, the inspector saw water stains on a
garage wall suggesting a past leak. He investigated further and found
mold inside the wall ( or said it was ) so remediation had to be done
at his expense and then disclosed.

Some states may require that water damage be disclosed*, others may
require it if a suicide took place in the home.

Things that are structural or potential safety hazards (meth labs)
should be disclosed.

When folks start talking about having MOLD I cringe. Once that can of
worms gets opened it leads to _know you know - now you disclose.

You can't report something you do not know.

(* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)

[tra...@optonline.net]

> (* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

One data point would be to look up the specific law and/or
disclosure form that is required where the house is located.
NJ has a form the seller must fill out and it has a long list
of specific items and questions. Last time I looked, it was
really dumb, like what an elementary school kid would put
together. Questions like, "Have any repairs been made
to the roof?" So, if you replaced one shingle in 1994,
you're apparently required to disclose that. I guess houses
should have a log book like an airplane.....

If a question like that is on the list for where the house
is located, what exactly that question is and what it
requires would be very important.

Beyond that, I don't know. It's an interesting question.
I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine
maintenance. Painting the house, cleaning gutters,
that's routine maintenance. A sewer system with root
intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In
his case, they were known to exist and to recur. I would
tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.

[carson ridder]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:

> You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

[DerbyDad03]

On Apr 4, 1:36 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> (* water leaks might to recorded in property records.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

re: "the inspector saw water stains on a garage wall suggesting a past
leak"

I've actually been wondering about that in my own house. Many years
ago we had some ice dam issues and water leaked into the house. There
is a section of the attached garage ceiling where not only is there a
brown stain, there is also a few small holes where I opened it up to
let the water drain out. (We don't park in the garage, so the holes
don't bother me)

Fixing the holes won't be an issue, and I guess I could paint the
ceiling, but I've often wondered how I would explain the stains if I
decided to sell. The house been re-roofed using modern (2012) methods
and we made it though this past winter without a single ice dam
problem, even doing without the ice melt cables for the first time in
10 years.

Still, if you look at the joists in the basement and parts of the
garage, you can see evidence of the ice dam problem from a decade ago.
I can't imagine that they won't be noted during an inspection, which
will then lead to a need for me to give an explanation.

I guess I could pull out the pictures of the ice dams, show them the
dates and hope any potential buyer (or inspector) believes that the
problem occurred a very long time ago. Still, it could scare off a
buyer that was on the edge anyway.

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
every now and then.

[andrew s]

DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

> I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about
> every now and then.

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
(except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

[Oren]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Beyond that, I don't know. It's an interesting question.
>I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine
>maintenance. Painting the house, cleaning gutters,
>that's routine maintenance. A sewer system with root
>intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In
>his case, they were known to exist and to recur. I would
>tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.

Point taken.

[DerbyDad03]

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

[DerbyDad03]

...and one option for the buyer is "no way".

These days, I think you would be seriously limiting your buyer pool if
you refused any and all offers that required an inspection.

Buying a house without wanting an inspection, as you did, is easy.
Selling one while refusing to let an inspection be part of the deal
might not be.

[Oren]

My last house, the water heater leaked in the garage and stained the
wall. Some clean up and it was never mentioned by and inspector.

In the same house we added a floor area (12' X 22' ?) in a cathedral
ceiling space. Basically closed in the second floor.

I sold the house to a real estate agent. She wanted to know if I had a
permit. I told her no, but I used a contractor. I could go down an
get permit and pay a penalty.

I had all the contract papers - without a permit. It detailed all the
materials, construction details and such. I did have to change two
stationary windows with tempered glass. I knew it was necessary an
paid for it.

She accepted this, bought the house

Why do water heaters leak when I'm asleep :-\

[Oren]

Bought my present house offering to buy as-is. Also asked for $25,000
off the asking price. The deal was accepted. The seller paid the wife
and I to help here clean and organize for her move back east.

[DerbyDad03]

On Apr 4, 1:51 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If I knew that ice dams were known to exist and known to recur, but
have since stopped being a problem after the roof, insulation and
ventilation were upgraded, would I still need to disclose that the
house had serious ice dam problems prior to the upgrade?

That would be one of those situations where you really don't know if
the problem has been fixed until it happens again. At that point
you'll know that it *hasn't* been fixed. It's not like it's something
you can test.

In other words, a specific set of conditions has to be in place for
the ice dam to cause water infiltration, so not having infiltration
since the upgrade might mean the roofing upgrade solved the problem or
it might mean that the specific set of conditions has not yet
reoccurred.

One could argue that a specific set of circumstances has to exist for
roots to enter the pipe, so one wouldn't know if it was the RootX or
the lack of the specific conditions that has eliminated the issue. I
was told by a guy from a plumbing company 2 winters ago they had very
few calls for frozen pipes due to the mild weather, but that they
expected a very busy spring dealing with roots for the same reason.
The roots didn't get the water they needed from the snow melt, so they
will go looking for it elsewhere. My point is that roots can be an
ongoing problem but could also stop being a problem for different
reasons - RootX or Mother Nature.

Granted, I am aware that in this case the owner has been using RootX
for a number of years, and I guess someone could track down the
purchase records as proof that the owner hid the fact that he had been
"fighting" roots for many years. I guess it would depend on how long
after the house changed hands that the root problem showed up again -
assuming that it was the RootX that kept them at bay.

What is the statute of limitations on disclosures? Can the buyer come
back 3 springs later if he has a partial blockage due to roots and
fight for compensation?

[tra...@optonline.net]

> needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Any chance of getting rid of the tree that is the source
of the roots? If the tree were gone, then you've largely
eliminated the problem. I say largely, because with a
truly intact sewer system, roots couldn't get in. So,
something isn't quite right, right?

And as you say, once you start down the disclosure path,
even if the tree is gone, once the buyer knows, then they
may say that the roots getting in is really secondary to
the sewer not being in proper condition, being old,
starting to fail, etc. And they want it replaced.

[DerbyDad03]

On Apr 4, 2:58 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:06:08 +0000 (UTC), andrew s
>

$25K off the asking price doesn't mean much to those of us that don't
know the asking price.

$25K off an asking price of $100,000 is huge. $25K off an asking price
of $1,000,000 isn't much more than an annoyance.

We need both numbers or perhaps a "percentage" off the asking price to
get a feel for how much the "as-is" offer was really worth.

[tra...@optonline.net]

> get a feel for how much the "as-is" offer was really worth.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think the "as is" sale is really a viable option for
this root problem. What kind of haircut do you think you'd wind up
with
if you start raising red flags on the whole house by doing that?
My guess is a lot more than the cost of fixing the
sewer.

Also you might want to check with a lawyer about what exacly
"as-is" means in your state. I don't think it exempts
you from following the state disclosure laws. So, you could
sell a house stating it's "as is" and if you had a failed septic
system that you knew about, had a history of problems with,
etc, and didn't disclose it, I think the buyer could still sue you
and win.

[DerbyDad03]

On Apr 4, 3:02 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

The tree belongs to a neighbor.

> I say largely, because with a
> truly intact sewer system, roots couldn't get in.  So,
> something isn't quite right, right?

Well, here's where things get a little messy, but I'm sure the
homeowner has no recourse.

I don't know exactly when, but many years ago the town came through
and dug up everyone's easement (?) and replaced the cast iron with PVC
at the property lines. (The town owns about 10' of everyone's front
yard). They also installed a PVC cleanout so that they didn't have to
go into basements anymore if someone called the town about a blocked
sewer. They would snake from the cleanout to street and if that solved
the problem, good. If not, it was the homeowner's problem to deal with
the cast iron section. To be more specific, it is the homeowner's
problem to deal with anything from the cleanout back towards the
house.

OK, so picture a PVC cleanout similar to this, with the "flow" pipe
being the homeowner's cast iron sewer and the rest being the town's
PVC.

http://extension.missouri.edu/explore/images/wq0402art4b.jpg

The town considers the junction of the cast iron "flow" pipe and the
PVC cleanout to be "before the cleanout" and therefore the homeowner's
responsibility. The homeowner told me that the town brought over a
scope the last time he had a partial blockage (5 years ago). It showed
that the town's section was clear and that the roots were coming in at
the junction of the PVC and the cast iron. So, even though the town
could be blamed for causing the problem, they also claim that it is
the homeowner's problem to fix it.

The homeowner snaked the piped, cleared the blockage and has been
using RootX ever since.

The other night we were chatting about our houses and the discussion
of "if you were to sell, what would you disclose" came up. he told me
about his sewer and that's what prompted this question.

>
> And as you say, once you start down the disclosure path,
> even if the tree is gone, once the buyer knows, then they
> may say that the roots getting in is really secondary to
> the sewer not being in proper condition, being old,

> starting to fail, etc.  And they want it replaced.- Hide quoted text -

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

One test is to ask "Is it a material fact that would affect the
compensation to be paid?" Obviously you think it would negatively
affect the price or you wouldn't be looking for a rationale not to
disclose it. I understand your feelings, my house has some slab
cracks and small separations in the ceiling sheet rock that occurred
years ago and haven't moved since. But if not disclosed and later
discovered it could get ugly if the buyers so choose. If their has
not been a problem in years your disclosure can say "waste pipe
cleaned out X years ago" and leave it at that. You've disclosed. If
they care they can ask more about it. If everything is draining
properly at the time of sale and you've made that disclosure I tend to
think you are on solid ground.

[DerbyDad03]

On Apr 4, 3:24 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> and win.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's my understanding also. "As is" doesn't eliminate the
requirement to disclose items that may impact the buyer's decision.

I found this from an agent in California. This is exactly how I
thought it works, although I haven't bought or sold a house in a long
time, so it could be wrong or different in different locations.

"The California Residential Purchase agreement states that the sale is
"as-is." It also gives the buyer the right to investigate the
condition of the home and the obligation for you to disclose any
materials facts about the condition of the home that will or could
affect the buyer's decision to purchase. The buyer can then request
repairs which you can refuse to make or agree to pay for and make or
agree to a price reduction for the cost of the repairs or to pay the
buyer for the repairs at close of escrow (all negotiable in your
transaction). "

[Oren]

The number was $350,000 (bubble high). I was comfortable. Single story
homes here are an amenity. Good lot, good neighbors... Regardless, it
was a win for me.

Sold three others. Two doubled in price in 18-24 months. Cash for one.
Taxes paid <sigh!>

I'm the one that made the offer.

[tra...@optonline.net]

> think you are on solid ground.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just saying that the waste
pipe was cleaned out X years ago and not disclosing that
you know it has been cleaned out repeatedly every few years
because of tree roots doesn't meet your test of is it a
materially fact that would affect the price. Would you pay the
same amount for these two houses:

A - Had a sewer blockage of unknown cause once

B - Had a sewer blockage every couple of years due to tree roots?

[tra...@optonline.net]

> transaction). "- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's pretty much my understanding too. Absent a specific
guarantee, real estate sales are "as is" anyway. By advertising
it "as-is" to me means the seller doesn't want to do any repairs.
So, if the place needs paint, the dishwasher doesn't work, the
deck needs some repairs, obvious stuff that can be easily seen,
I would not expect them to fix that or ask for a further discount.
But if an inspection turns up that the septic system is shot or
there is extensive termite damage and
that was not disclosed, perhaps not even known to the seller,
then you can bet I'd be asking for a price reduction or I walk.
And the seller now knows that it needs a septic system, so
they will have to disclose that to other potential buyers.

[Oren]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teama...@eznet.net> wrote:

> (all negotiable in your transaction).

ding, ding DING!

I look at disclosure this way: Know when to stand up and know when to
shut up. (applies to other parts of life).

[bob haller]

I have a root infested sewer. every joint from under the house to the
street has roots. I ROCK SALT the sewer line a few times a year. Mix
very hot water with rock salt and let lay in line for day. Go to work
use no water at all.

cost about 3 bucks for 25 pounds of salt, salt kills roots FAST but
does not hurt trees. Been doing this for 15 years at least.... The
line at the street is over 12 feet deep and probably 15 grand to
replace:( not including new basement and garage floor, new driveway,
and new wall and part of sidewalk

Incidently a mature trees roots can be 2 to 3 times the size of its
drip edge.... and bushes can get int sewers too.

I would ABSOLUTELY disclose this at home sale time, or risk a nasty
lawsuit

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

No problem if the price is "right". Quite a few houses are advertized
as "as is -handyman special" or "needs some attention" or "TLC
required". The buyer goes in with eyes wide open - what he sees (or
doesn't see) is what he gets. The price reflects this - but let's
face it. If a house needs $20,000 to bring it up to "condition" to
sell, you are unlikely to get $20,000 less selling it as is. The new
owner is going to make modifications anyway - so drop the price the
estimated cost of the "required" repair and you come out ahead. A
prospective buyer who is not going to be doing upgrades is unlikely to
buy the house at any rate. The guy doing major renovations will spend
less on the repair, in many cases, than you will - because it's part
of a bigger job he'll be doing anyway - even if you spent the $20,000
in repairs.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

What happens when you buy a house from the bank in a mortgage sale???
What kind of disclosure can you get from someone who knows nothing
about the property other than the balance owing? The defaulted owner
is not going to be involved in the sale, so you buy it from the bank
"as is".

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

"full disclosure" could be as simple as "great grandad lived here
since he was born in 1913, and has done basically nothing to the house
in the last 50 years. The outhouse was replaced with a septic system
at that time, and water and hydro and central heating were installed
at the same time"

The buyer then knows exactly what he is buying - a pig in a poke.

[Ashton Crusher]

I agree with your general observation. In the example I gave I was
thinking that the X would be some reasonable period of years, such as
5+ years ago. If it was 6 months ago and that was the third time in a
year than yes, just mentioning the last 6 months but not the last year
would be iffy.

[tra...@optonline.net]

> fight for compensation?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

A quick google shows that it's probably 3 years in CT, at
least. Probably varies from state to state.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0585.htm

But obviously that aside, the longer it goes, in general the
less likely the buyer is to prevail. But then again, the roots
thing is a recurrent problem that takes a while to develop.
It's not like a leaking roof, which you'd expect would be
found quickly.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Not saying they shouldn't disclose it. But I wouldn't be so
fearful of a nasty lawsuit either. If he discloses it, he's very
likely
going to have to pay for the repair. If he doesn't and the buyer has
a problem
in a year, then they buyer is going to have to get
it fixed. Their potential recovery is pretty much what it
cost to get the tree roots cleaned out and then to presumably
replace the sewer line. I guess if the house has a basement
bathroom and there is the potential for the place to get filled
up with sewage, because some dummy keeps flushing the
toilet, that could be a factor. But it also usually costs money to
bring a
lawsuit, it's not trivial and there is no guarantee of winning
after you shell out all the legal fees. If the sewer line cost $5k
or $10K, are you going to go to war over that? Especially if
the seller says I'll pay it, or most of it? I mean the court is going
to award actual damages, not a $100K pay day.

The seller might find that a year later if the problem actually
happens, the buyer contacts him, he might just settle it with
the buyer for about the same amount it would have cost him
to replace the sewer himself. Again, not saying that's the ethical
or right thing to do in this case, just making the observation.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 4, 5:31 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:46:23 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>
>
>
>
>

> The buyer then knows exactly what he is buying - a pig in a poke.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It could be that simple, if that is all true and it's all that the
seller really
knows.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 4, 5:26 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:24:41 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"

> "as is".- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Is that what we're talking about here? I must have missed that
part. I thought it was a house being sold where the owner lives
there,
has had problems with tree roots every few years, etc, etc
And even in a foreclosure, I believe the bank probably still isn't
exempt from
state disclosure laws. They may wind up answering "no, I know
nothing" to
every question, but I'll bet they still have to fill out the forms, at
least in some states. You're confusing a situation where a seller
truly doesn't know about material defects, so they have nothing to
disclose and one where they do, but don't disclose it. And I say
if you do the latter, you've violated the law in most states and
you're
not going to hide behind calling it an "as-is" sale.

[Bill Graham]

I spent the years between 1940 and 1950 in Lynbrook, New York. (on Long
Island) We had cesspools dug in our front lawns. these were bottle shaped
chambers about 15 feet deep by 10 feet in diameter, with concrete covers
aroud 4 feet in diameter and a couple of feet under the lawn that were lined
with concrete blocks with popenings through them for water to seep through.
All of our sewage went into these things, and they were pumped out
periodically when they got full and didn;t work any more. The trucks that
pumped them out brought the sewage to a treatment plant somewhere, just as
sewer systems today take it through pipes to these same plants. At the
plant, it received, "primary" treatment before it was pumped into the ocean
where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.

[Ashton Crusher]

Many disclosures are not problems. It could simply be notice. For
example, we all know water heaters don't last forever. If you
replaced it 8 years ago why not just disclose that when the question
asked on the form is "Condition of water heater". Just say "Replaced
8 years ago". Then you won't have a buyer move in and have it leak
and claim they it "looked like new" and they thought it was new and if
it was "so old" you should have disclosed it. Another option is to
simply sell "as-is" even if you still disclose. And NOTHING has to be
dealt with to the buyers satisfaction unless that's what the contract
says. Most standard contracts make provisions for...

1 - A required disclosure by the owner (the owner can answer "unknown"
to everything if they wish but if they really knew something that can
be risky)
2 - A ten day inspection period. Usually with a NOTE suggesting the
buyer hire a professional inspection service.
3 - a requirement for the Buyer to request in writing the repair of
those things deemed in need of repair. There is usually a time frame
during which they need to make this request, perhaps within 5 days
after the inspection period expires.
4 - Acceptance or rejection by the Seller of the buyers demands.
5a - If accepted, then it gets fixed, reinspected, and sale moves
forward.
5b. - if rejected, then the buyer needs to decide whether to accept it
without repairs or propose a reduction in price or ???. Whether to
accept it is up to the seller.

The above presumes there is no preset dollar amount within the seller
"must repair" or other similar provision. Basically the inspection
period is a 10 day window for the buyer to get cold feet -- here in AZ
they can basically claim their detailed inspection just makes them
leery of the house and reject it. Technically, they need a real
reason but no one wants to go to court and have their home sale tied
up for a couple years so sellers won't challenge a rejection.

Similarly, if a seller wants out they can reject all repair requests
and hope the buyer walks away but the seller has the upper hand since
they can just accept the defects and proceed with the sale. That
said, you really can't force someone to sell if they change their
mind, the best you could do is sue them for damages, assuming you can
prove damages from not being able to buy that house.

[Tony Hwang]

DerbyDad03 wrote:
> Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
> PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
> their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
> blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
> toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
> solve the problem for a couple of years.
>
> Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
> RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
> or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
> the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
> reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
> RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
> not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
> RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.
>
> Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
> the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
> to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
> puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
> he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
> mind" exercise?
>

Hi,
In my neighborhood, there is a house for sale for over 2 years. Nice
house but it suffered a sewage back up causing big professional clean up
and repairing the collapsed pipe. I think no one wants to buy i because
of that history. If there was no damage inside the house
it would've been different story.

[Oren]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:26:28 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> What happens when you buy a house from the bank in a mortgage sale???
>What kind of disclosure can you get from someone who knows nothing
>about the property other than the balance owing? The defaulted owner
>is not going to be involved in the sale, so you buy it from the bank
>"as is".

Banks have been selling property _as-is_. They are smart. Want no
part of potential liability. Say the house has been being stripped --
AC, kitchen cabinet. lawn jockey or something. Some bank sales have
the windows covered over, you cannot peer inside.

[bob haller]

Selling as is is great as long as your willing to accept a very low
price for the home:( and dont care how long it taes to sell:(

90% of buyers want a move in ready home with no work necessary. later
they will redecorate, but they demand move my stuff in and were done.

as is makes home selling hard most customers arent interested, and
those who are want give away prices.....

[bob haller]

On Apr 4, 6:00 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

lawyers who work on contigency are not a sellers friend.

mr X buys a home and 9 months later the tree roots back up the sewer.
the plumber is called and after snaking and a camera inspection the
new owner gets the bad news, new sewer line needed....

he mentions it to his next door neighbor who reports XYZ plumbing came
in the past. They have the BiG RED Truck with the graphics, its hard
to miss:)

a quick call to XYZ plumbing confirms......

the new owner has little money and a new mortage. so he finds a lawyer
who only gets paid if he wins the case.

the lawyer asks what about the damages from the back up?? any mold in
your basement now?
how about restoration? sidewalks permits, large tree removal to get
macine in to do work...... etc etc.

lawyer gets percentage of win so lets run the bill up......

old owner spent home sales money on something else, and once the
courts are done with him and he ha paid lawyer to attempt to defend
him its a big mess......

all avoided by disclosing...

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:00:22 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

And you often still come out ahead over spending to fix everything
any potential customer MIGHT find objectionable. And there is almost
always somebody looking for a fixer-upper to "flip". Let HIM take the
risk, unless YOU are knowlegeable enough and capable of doing the
repairs yourself - in which case why the heck have you not fixed it
already?????

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 5, 6:23 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> lawyers who work on contigency are not a sellers friend.

Lawyers don't typically take a case for recovering $5k
for a sewer line on a contingency basis. And even if
they do, when they send you a demand letter, you can
negotiate and settle.

>
> mr X buys a home and 9 months later the tree roots back up the sewer.
> the plumber is called and after snaking and a camera inspection the
> new owner gets the bad news, new sewer line needed....
>
> he mentions it to his next door neighbor who reports XYZ plumbing came
> in the past. They have the BiG RED Truck with the graphics, its hard
> to miss:)
>
> a quick call to XYZ plumbing confirms......
>
> the new owner has little money and a new mortage. so he finds a lawyer
> who only gets paid  if he wins the case.

A lawyer typically isn't going to take a case for a
$5K sewer line on contigency. And even if they did,
before it got to that, don't you think the buyer is going
to contact the seller and present the $5K bill? So,
you pay the $5k bill. Your method seems to be for
the seller to repair, replace every last thing that any
potential buyer might someday object to or someday
after the sale sue over. All I'm saying is that
in a case like the above, you're spending $5K for sure
on the small chance you're going to have to spend it
later because something goes wrong. Which way are
you better off?

A - Replace 20 things today because someday a buyer
might want it fixed during inspection, or later sue you for
it.

B - Replace a couple things at inspection or later reimburse
the buyer if they come after you?

>
> the lawyer asks what about the damages from the back up?? any mold in
> your basement now?
> how about restoration? sidewalks permits, large tree removal to get
> macine in to do work...... etc etc.

How about the buyer has to PROVE they actually had a backup
that amounted to something? That they reallyspent that money.
If they have a problem with the sewer, do you think they
are gonna shell out $25K for a job that could be done for $5k, on the
CHANCE they might recover the $25K later?
How about they win and then the seller is judgement proof,
ie they can't collect? Any rational person is going to do what
work really needs to be done in a cost effective way.

>
> lawyer gets percentage of win so lets run the bill up......

Only if some buyer is stupid enough to actually do that.
I say very few are.

>
> old owner spent home sales money on something else, and  once the
> courts are done with him and he ha paid lawyer to attempt to defend
> him its a big mess......

If he has no money, then how in the hell is a lawyer going
to make money taking a case on contigency? Answer:
they won't. They like slip and falls or auto accidents where
there is an insurance company with deep pockets. And
where it's a lot easier to find a doctor to treat neck pain.
Who can prove if a person actually feels pain that
could last a lifetime? And juries feel sympathy for someone in a car
accident.
Over a sewer? Not so much. It's a
lot easier to defend a claim over a sewer. Like real bills,
real canceled checks, showing you actually spent the money.



>
> all avoided by disclosing...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Again, I'm not saying not to disclose. Just that you're creating a
strawman over fear of being sued that largely doesn't exist. Yeah,
a buyer may come back at your for something, at some point.
But if they do, it's all negotiable and not the end of the world.

[Don Phillipson]

"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:be6ccb03-5828-4c0d...@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

> Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
> the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
> to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
> puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
> he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
> mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. It is also relative to
time. Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?


--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[bob haller]

On Apr 4, 5:19 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "DerbyDad03" <teamarr...@eznet.net> wrote in message

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles

[tra...@optonline.net]

Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. Even the 12K sounds
high. Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? $20K?

>
> nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
> which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.

>
> the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,

> replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

[DerbyDad03]

> it would've been different story.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If everything has been repaired, including the "root" cause (no pun
intended) then why would people be leery of buying a house that had a
sewage backup more than 2 years ago?

There must be something else wrong with this "nice house".

[DerbyDad03]

On Apr 5, 10:46 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

Lining a sewer pipe far cheaper than replacing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhE8UhWOnM0

BTW...where are you that you need to bury pipe 15 - 20 feet to prevent
freezing?

How deep do post holes for a deck have to be?

>
> nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
> which floods the sewer plant.
>
> the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,

> replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

[DerbyDad03]

> where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

..and this little story applies to the current thread ...wait for
it... how?

[bob haller]

On Apr 5, 11:47 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

The FEDS ordered a complete end to storm water runoff into sanitary
sewers. some were co mingled from the start of sewers in the
pittsburgh area. previously sewer water overflowed into rivers which
provide drinking water and recreation.connecting downspouts to sewer
lines were common till recently. now every home gets die test before
sale.

because of the very hilly terrain many lines are super deep, for not
only freeze protection but natural drainage to sewer plants. even with
all this many areas have lift stations.

a friend looked at a bargain home it was super cheap except the sewer
line went out of the back of the home to a stream bed 200
feet ........ 20 grand to replace the collapsed line. he looked at
another home, it was wrongly connected to storm sewerrather than
sanitary sewer. 18 to 20 grand, very deep plus street must be dug up
and replaved by bonded registered contractors.

allegheny county has rules out the wazoole. and so does most of
pennsylvania

[deadrat]

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure. The
appropriate response is "Thanks for sharing."

[bob haller]

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

[Oren]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

[bob haller]

The other side of that is not telling enough and getting sued:( even
if you win the lawsuit it will cost big bucks and lots of
stress.......

neither of which are good for anyone.

[deadrat]

Maybe for you. I was actually joking about people who tell their life
stories for no discernible reason. Perhaps I should have written "too
much 'disclosure.'"

[Oren]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

>neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
>twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

>sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,
>
>currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

[k...@attt.bizz]

In VT it wasn't unheard of for water pipes to freexe and burst eight
feet down. I remember a main that broke at the top of a big hill in
Burlington. Lotsa ice! ;-)

>How deep do post holes for a deck have to be?

4' wasn't enough!

[k...@attt.bizz]

I think it's called "TMI". ;-)

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:



>
>Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
>sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. Even the 12K sounds
>high. Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
>Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
>is every obstruction imaginable in the way. But for
>the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
>bushes, maybe a sidewalk? $20K?
>

I can easily see the 12K. I had a sewer problem. The town came out
and checked their part and it was OK. I had a guy come and check my
end and they found the problem, cause by the electric company hitting
my sewer line with the new pole.
Backhoe, repair of the line was $3500. They only dug a 3" wide hole.
So much for Dig Safe. They told the utility where to drill.

[Oren]

...talkin' to an FBI agent one day - my jail is full, what the hell
are you guys doing out there...

Reply: "We have to slap 'em to shut 'em up!"

One big mouth leads to another big mouth.

[Bill Graham]

It is informative. If you don't learn anything from it, then don't comment
on it.

[Bill Graham]

Newer cities usually have a seperaqte sewer and storm drainage system. but
in the older ones, sometimes this isn't the case, and during heavy rains,
the system becomes overloaded with water, and the sewage treatment plant has
to be bypassed, and the water allowed to go in the river, lake, or ocean
without treatment. (information only.... I was almost a sewage treatment
plant operator before I became an engineer)

[Oren]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:23:49 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

Sir,

I understood. Some folks want to be a Town Crier, and get to ring a
bell.

[Oren]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
>twice the normal flow, or something like that.

...so you just poop on dry days or "something like that."

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:47:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Again, you state the obvious.

[bob haller]

On Apr 5, 4:44 pm, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> >The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
> >twice the normal flow, or something like that.
>
> I think that deserves a citation.  Note that many communities
> (including NYC) only have one sewer system.
>
> >sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,
>
> >currently sewage costs far more than water
>
> Maybe where you live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_Sanitary_Authority

[bob haller]

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_Sanitary_Authority

Alcosan isnt all of allegheny county, just a part of it.

I live in mc candless, and our sewage is treated by the MTSA mc
candless twp sanitary authority. They replaced a mile or so of main
line some years ago in front of my home, the job took all summer. It
was root infested terracota.

the line turns and runs between me and a neighbor, and because
residents didnt follow the rules runs under a 20 by 20 foot shed in
another neighbors yard, and under a large fancy patio....

neither of which had a building permit or they wouldnt be
allowed.......

The sanitary authority tells me the line is as much as 15 feet deep
because of where it goes, and it was installed around 1949.

Replacing this section of just over 300 feet will cost a fortune, and
the neighbor with the offending shed and patio threatened legal
action. The sanitary company wanted the owner to pay restoration
costs.

I had a fence erected along the area and had no choice but to agree to
pay removal and restoration if work on the line is necessary

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 17:57:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

We pay for our water twice - in and out. Sewage charge is currently
equal to the water charge but it is going up, and we are also paying a
stormwater management fee as well.

In Canada

[bob haller]

On Apr 5, 10:03 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 17:57:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

here sewage is now about 3 times the cost of water...and going up more

allegheny county has strict inspection requirements on sewer lines.
the inspections are done by retired plumbers.

they give anyone replacing say their own sewer main to their house a
horrible time....

they only want registered plumbers to do plumbing

[gregz]

I got the tour from my brother many times. I'm not sure here, but the other
borough made their rounds checking all houses for proper exits. I just had
some interior work done. Always wondered how it was piped. Originally had
septic and clean water, which I guess the clean water went into the yard,
and clean water from roof.
Im sure Pittsburgh let's the flood gates open, but improvements were on the
way.
I pay a little less than 50% of my water bill for sewage.

Greg

[Bill Graham]

It may be obvious to you, but in my experience, many people don;t know that
the sewer system and the storm drainage system are, or should be two
seperwate systems, and when they are not, heavy rains can stop the sewage
treatment plantss from working.

[Bill Graham]

My water/sewage bill here in Oregon runs about $100 a month for my wife and
myself, and we donlt water the lawn or any garden plants. Just the two of
us.

[The Daring Dufas]

We had a terrible scandal here in Jefferson County Alabama involving
billions of dollars meant to be use to rebuild and modernize the sewer
system. The county commissioners and people involved including Wall
Street companies handling bonds and the huge sums of money just went
bonkers and turned the whole affair into one giant cluster coitus. Now
many of those involved are in prison and we the peasants are stuck with
huge sewer bills that are often higher than the water bill in which both
charges are combined. Long gone are the days when we had a water bill of
$10 or perhaps a whopping $20. It's a travesty of justice for the people
of the county and those in surrounding areas who may be dependent on the
county sewer system. o_O

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/07/gary_whites_sentence_10_years.html

TDD

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:09:48 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:



>>>

>>>> currently sewage costs far more than water
>>>
>>> Maybe where you live.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_Sanitary_Authority
>
>My water/sewage bill here in Oregon runs about $100 a month for my wife and
>myself, and we donlt water the lawn or any garden plants. Just the two of
>us.

In my CT town we get billed quarterly. My water is $148, the sewer
$92. That averages $73 a month combined. Rates went up this years
to pay for a major overhaul of the sewer treatment plant.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 5, 2:53 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:47 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>

> > Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
> > Here in nyc area it's 4ft.  I think somewhere around twice that
> > is near the extreme for the lower 48.
> > I think you're going off the deep end again......

>
> > Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
> > sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ.  Even the 12K sounds
> > high.  Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
> > Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
> > is every obstruction imaginable in the way.  But for

> > the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
> > bushes, maybe a sidewalk?  $20K?

>
> > > nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
> > > which floods the sewer plant.
>

> > I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
> > there.

> > > the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
> > > replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -
>

> The FEDS ordered a complete end to storm water runoff into sanitary
> sewers. some were co mingled from the start of sewers in the
> pittsburgh area. previously sewer water overflowed into rivers which
> provide drinking water and recreation.connecting downspouts to sewer
> lines were common till recently. now every home gets die test before
> sale.
>
> because of the very hilly terrain many lines are super deep, for not
> only freeze protection but natural drainage to sewer plants. even with
> all this many areas have lift stations.
>
> a friend looked at a bargain home it was super cheap except the sewer
> line went out of the back of the home to a stream bed 200
> feet ........
20 grand to replace the collapsed line.

Sure, if it's 200 ft, I can see that. I'll bet DerbyDad's isn't
200ft though, which is more than 2x the distance of the
sewer line in any house I've lived in.



he looked at
> another home, it was wrongly connected to storm sewerrather than
> sanitary sewer. 18 to 20 grand, very deep plus street must be dug up
> and replaved by bonded registered contractors.

Sure if it's 12 to 15 ft deep, which is what you claim they
are where you are located. And if the street has to be dug up too,
etc. But again, those are not the more typical case.



>
> allegheny county has rules out the wazoole. and so does most of
> pennsylvania- Hide quoted text -

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 5, 4:41 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

[bob haller]

On Apr 6, 9:42 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

well if you had a choice would you like to be sued? and even if you
win theres still lawyers fees.... they can amount to thousands...

all easily prevented by disclosure... hey the sewer has backed up a
few times roto rooter cleared them

now I live in pittsburgha very hilly area with freeze thaw cycles that
make the ground move, two old friends do backhoe work, they report
lines deeper around here to minimize earth movement and breaking
lines.. Its very common to see a dig around here with those heavy
steel plates supported by heavy steel rods holding them apart, to keep
ditches from collapsing.

my neighborhood water line is 6 foot deep, its broken a few times and
it gets fixed... my dads water line in phoenix is just a foot deep at
best.,.

it all depends on where you live

[Oren]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:08:51 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

... some body nudge him. Bob is stuck on being sued..

>all easily prevented by disclosure... hey the sewer has backed up a
>few times roto rooter cleared them
>

Did the law require you to disclose a sewer back up?

>now I live in pittsburgha very hilly area with freeze thaw cycles that
>make the ground move, two old friends do backhoe work, they report
>lines deeper around here to minimize earth movement and breaking
>lines.. Its very common to see a dig around here with those heavy
>steel plates supported by heavy steel rods holding them apart, to keep
>ditches from collapsing.
>

True

>my neighborhood water line is 6 foot deep, its broken a few times and
>it gets fixed... my dads water line in phoenix is just a foot deep at
>best.,.
>
>it all depends on where you live

We get it.

[Oren]

I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.

I've been through this property disclosure at least seven times. I'm
kickin'. No beans off my plate.

[deadrat]

No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit. If
you allege specific harm to yourself, you have standing to sue. That
doesn't mean your case has enough merit to survive summary dismissal on
other grounds.

[bob haller]

anyone can sue anyone for any reason. but even a lawsuit brought
against you that has little viability can cost legal fees, and perhaps
hurting your reputation in the community....

while it may get tossed eventually it can still be a big hassle that
costs large sums of money.....

but hey dont disclose, your paying legal fees does not effect me at
all....

when i was a child my family sold a home with a collapsing wall, you
could put your hand outside from in the basement the bow was that bad.
the new owner had to fix it......

if that happened today my family would of been sued....

[Oren]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:52:57 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>> I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
>> case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.
>
>No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit.

I thought I said exactly that. Without standing, it can or will be
tossed out the doors of the court house.

[deadrat]

On 4/6/13 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:52:57 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
>>> case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.
>>
>> No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit.
>
> I thought I said exactly that.

Not quite.

> Without standing, it can or will be
> tossed out the doors of the court house.

There are many reasons why suits can be "tossed out the doors" (which I
take to mean before the merits of the case get heard). Failure to state
an actionable claim, collateral estoppel, incorrect jurisdiction come to
mind. These are all different from lacking standing.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 14:51:47 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

You are saying people are so blind they couldn't see a wall
collapsing so bad you could put your hand through it????
And that any court would hold a seller responsible???

If that could happen in the USA I'm even more glad I don't live
there!!!!
OF COURSE the new owner had to fix it, or the house would have
collapsed. Never heard of Caveat Emptor? Buyer beware. Eyes Open!!!!

[bob haller]

On Apr 6, 9:16 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 14:51:47 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

The bad wall was one side of a block porch. The insde had access
blocked by shelving and many boxes, the outside couldnt be seen
because of dense scratchy bushes. I as a small child climbed up on the
inside and put my hand outside. my grandma left the boxes for the new
owner.

A adult would of never been able to get where I was......

Of course this was 1972? or there abouts. Back then there were no
disclosure laws, and people didnt tend to be sue happy

[John Albert]

On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
> I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
> (except for the well water and a search for code violations).
> So, one option for the seller is "as is".

Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
"as is"?

I'm in a 100-year-old house in a declining neighborhood,
that I've owned since 1988.

It has LOTS of problems. Such as
- messy combination of knob-and-tube/BX wiring (60 amp
service w/fuses). Looks to have been "converted" in the 40's
or 50's, don't know how much is BX and if any of the K&T is
still in use. Almost all house wiring is "2-wire" (no grounds).
- siding old, loose in spots, really needs to be torn off
and replaced.
- windows all old in need of replacement.
- main bath shower has loose and missing tiles, ceiling
plaster peeling (really needs an entirely new bath)
- sewer needs root cleanout every 3-4 years
- cellar entrance needs replacement, back steps need replacement
- 40-50 year old wallpaper everywhere -- awful stuff
- kitchen looks to have had some updating in 40's or 50's,
but needs replacement

Over the years, I've had work done when it absolutely needed
to be done, but I have refrained from a full remodeling
(which would be EXTENSIVE) because I see no point in dumping
money into the house in a neighborhood that isn't what it
used to be (the small city I live in has been taken over by
illegals).

The house is in an area where 2-family (or multi-family)
conversions are common. In fact, the house next door (same
size as mine) was converted into a "Mexican hotel", doubled
in size, property paved over -- a mess.

I have no illusions about what this place is worth. I'll
sell it for what it brings and be satisfied with what I get.

I'm thinking this could be a decent 2-family conversion
(it's a 2-story and the interior could be easily
"convertible") -- IF whoever did it was willing to rip out
the entire interior down to the framing, and then do new
wiring, put in new interior walls, insulate, reside the
exterior, new windows, etc. (The roof is new in 2012 --
couldn't wait any longer). But literally EVERYTHING inside
would have to be rebuilt along with the exterior.

When it's time to sell, I'll tell any potential buyer
everything I can, but I'm sure there could be problems I
don't see.

With a house in need of this much work, how does the seller
proceed?
Disclose everything about which you know, and then say that
the sale must be "as is"?

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:42:58 -0400, John Albert <j.al...@snet.net>
wrote:

>On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
>> I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
>> (except for the well water and a search for code violations).
>> So, one option for the seller is "as is".
>
>Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
>"as is"?

Certainly. It may have different meanings depending on custom and
law.

It depends on where you are. How about discussing it with a realtor?

[tra...@optonline.net]

I have to agree with deadrat on that one. Standing means
that you have the legal right to bring the lawsuit, the most
basic first step. As an example, your mother buys a house.
She claims the seller deceived her by not disclosing that
there was a sewer problem that the seller knew about. She
can bring the lawsuit. You cannnot, because you don't have
standing.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Again, if some buyer has a dispute after a sale, they are almost
never going to just file a suit. First, they are likely to contact
you
and say the sewer had a problem, we believe you knew about it,
it cost $10K to fix and we want you to pay for it. So, if you're
super
worried about a lawsuit and/or you think they have a legitimate case,
just write a check for $10K. Next step, they may have a lawyer
write you a letter, demanding the $10K.
Eventually, they may sue you. In many states, the best avenue for
that would be small claims court, where some states have limits
that are up to $10K now. So, you may not even need a lawyer.
And at any step in that process, you could offer them say $7k to
settle. That whole process doesn't sound so terrible to me.

>
> while it may get tossed eventually it can still be a big hassle that
> costs large sums of money.....
>
> but hey dont disclose, your paying legal fees does not effect me at
> all....
>

One more time, my first response in this thread was that
the sewer issue in question most likely falls in the category of
things that must be disclosed. What I don't buy is that on every
item that someday *might* be a problem of some sort for a
buyer, that you have to either fix it or put it on a disclosure list
out of an exaggerated fear of a lawsuit.

> when i was a child my family sold a home with a collapsing wall, you
> could put your hand outside from in the basement the bow was that bad.
> the new owner had to fix it......
>

> if that happened today my family would of been sued....- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Why couldn't they just write a check to the buyer for the repair?

I recently gave an example of someone threatening to sue me when
I sold a house years ago. A buyer showed up, signed a contract,
gave me $3500 deposit. They were applying for a 5 or 10% down
mortgage at a local bank. I asked them if the bank would make such
a loan and they said yes, there was no problem. The contract had
the usual mortgage contigency clause.

After about six weeks, they sent a letter from the bank with the
mortgage committment. Then, a day or two before closing, the
buyer calls me up and says there is a problem, the bank pulled
the mortgage committment. Upon questioning, it turns out that
he owes $50K in back child support. They wanted their
deposit back. I asked it they had disclosed the child support
in the loan application. He said, yes. So, I said, fine, have the
bank send a copy of the loan application to my attorney, who
was holding the deposit and we'll refund it. Needless to say, no
such letter was forthcoming. But we did get a letter from their
attorney, saying if we didn't hand it over, they were going to sue
me. I didn't panic and roll over. I told my lawyer to right a
letter
saying:

"Dear Mr. Attorney:

While I usually advise my clients to avoid litigation, sometimes
that is the only way to establish all of the facts as to what really
went on......."

In other words, go ahead, sue me and let's go to court so your
client can tell the judge he committed a felony and wants his
$3500 back. We never heard from him again.

[bob haller]

On Apr 7, 9:12 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

The problem with JUST writing the check:(

Seller fails to disclose root problem in sewer, property sold new
owner discovers flooded basement and learns seller knew of problem.

so new owner gets a bunch of quotes for everything, including a pricey
restoration and demands boatloads of bucks from old owner who is
forced to pay....

but rather than old owner getting people he knows to do the line
replacement for $7000, his buddies a plumber, and one with a backhoe,
with him the old owner doing the restoration.....

the new owner goes top notch for 14 grand, which is still the lowest 3
bids of the hghest cost bidders.....

where the old owner would try and get it dones as affordably as
possible, the new owner doesnt care and might enjoy sticking it to the
old owner. new owner discovered some really minor issues after moving
in, and figures it evens the score.

most buyers and sellers dont like one another....

its always better to disclose

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 7, 9:44 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> The problem with JUST writing the check:(
>
> Seller fails to disclose root problem in sewer, property sold new
> owner discovers flooded basement and learns seller knew of problem.

Your taking a worse case scenario that could not even
happen in many, probably most cases, creating a boogey
monster and applying it to all cases. In all
the houses I've owned for example, it's impossible for the
sewer to back up into the basement because there were
no drains, toilets, sinks, etc in the basement. So, if the
sewer got clogged, it's hard to imagine the house
getting overflowing with sewage. Sewers get clogged all
the time, few result in a big disaster or more than a
backed up toilet. Is it possible in some cases? Sure.
But let's worry about the basement flooding with sewage
only in the cases where it could happen, no?

>
> so new owner gets a bunch of quotes for everything, including a pricey
> restoration and demands boatloads of bucks from old owner who is
> forced to pay....

First there has to be a real restoration required. Second, if the
sewer
is clogged, then it has to be fixed and if the basement is flooded, it
has
to be cleaned right away. So, the buyer is going to need PROOF
of all that. Pictures of the sewage, insurance claims, bills,
cancelled checks for
the actual work, not just a bunch of quotes. If they don't have
pictures
of a basement flooded with crap, and they don't have bills and
cancelled checks for cleaning it up, well then they don't have much
of a case, do they? I'd tell them show me the proof, which any
person with a legitimate claim is going to be more than willing to
do. If they don't then I tell them to get lost.

>
> but rather than old owner getting people he knows to do the line
> replacement for $7000, his buddies a plumber, and one with a backhoe,
> with him the old owner doing the  restoration.....
>
> the new owner goes top notch for 14 grand, which is still the lowest 3
> bids of the hghest cost bidders.....

Let's assume you're correct and the buyer gets the work done
for $14K. If you had done it before the sale, it could have been
done for $7K. Worst case, you pay them the $14K and it
cost you an extra $7K. But you're ignoring the part where there
could be three or ten other things that you would also have paid $7K
to
fix on the *possibility* that a buyer might some day come back
after you. That would have cost youu $21K or $70K or whatever.
But it didn't because those things never happened, or if they did,
the buyer just fixed them and paid for it themselves.
So, which way are you better off?

And also, in the above example, you could offer the buyer $7k
or $10K, on the premise that they are better off. The sewer line
was 40 years old, it would never have lasted forever and they
would have had to replace it maybe 5 or ten years from now.
They now have a whole new sewer good for 50 years. Isn't
that worth something to them? Wouldn't most buyers take
the $7K or $10K offer, instead of suing you and winding up
with less or worse case, nothing? Remember, they have to
prove you knew about whatever the problem was. In some
cases, sure, that's possible. But in many it's going to be
impossible.

>
> where the old owner would try and get it dones as affordably as
> possible, the new owner doesnt care and might enjoy sticking it to the
> old owner.

Sticking it to the new owner by going with the highest
quote for a new sewer? Paying for that out of their own pocket
on the *chance* they might someday get it back from you.
Not likely. And if they sue, it only gets worse, because then
they have to pay the lawyer over a $7K or $14K potential lawsuit.

> new owner discovered some really minor issues after moving
> in, and figures it evens the score.

In which case, since you live in fear of a lawsuit, all they have
to do is threaten to sue you over any of that other stuff, which
they could also do, no?

>
> most buyers and sellers dont like one another....
>

> its always better to disclose- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The point is, where does it end? I just don't buy the idea that
you either have to fix every last thing in a house you're selling so
it's like new, or else disclose it, out of a fear of being sued.

[bob haller]

On Apr 7, 11:01 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO DISCLOSE ALL THE POSSIBLE PROBLEMS....

You may get less for the home but can sleep well at night:)

I sold my moms home but disclosed there had been a odor problem from
urine. The buyers had written into the contract they had 2 years to
come after me for odor issues. That didnt bother me at all I had a top
notch odor ending procedure done:)

The problem is oo many try to cover up troubles:( thats why the
disclosure laws were created.

In PA I have been told if you fail to disclose and lose, the seller
has to pay for ALL lawyers fees, including the buyers..........

[bob haller]

On Apr 7, 11:01 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

buyers homeowners insurance will likely pay for colateral damage, like
ruined possesions from sewage flood then go after the old owner. so
rather than a person it could be a big corporation after you.....

[bob haller]

Around here homeowners sewer lines are usually under driveways, walls,
streets sidewalks etc.

Restoration can and does cost more than the direct cost of line
replacement:(

A few years ago someone in state government proposed licensing of all
home contractors, plus all licensed contractors would be required to
report all work on homes over a rather low dollar value like 500
bucks.

at home sales time buyers could look up what contractors had worked on
the new perspective home, the dollar value and purpose of work.....

this would be a form of automatic disclosure....

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 7, 12:45 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO DISCLOSE ALL THE POSSIBLE PROBLEMS....
>
> You may get less for the home but can sleep well at night:)

I can sleep well at night not having disclosed all *possible*
problems. There is no legal obligation to do so. You can be sure
you're going to take quite a haircut if you do. And I would not
expect a seller to disclose all possible problems to me either.

>
> I sold my moms home but disclosed there had been a odor problem from
> urine. The buyers had written into the contract they had 2 years to
> come after me for odor issues. That didnt bother me at all I had a top
> notch odor ending procedure done:)

In your nightmare scenarios of buyers coming back to screw
you over, how about if they have a cat and dog and they piss
the place up, then come back to you and want new carpet, new
padding, odor remediation, etc. 20 months later?

I can't believe you'd actually give them a 2 year warranty.

>
> The problem is oo many try to cover up troubles:( thats why the
> disclosure laws were created.
>
> In PA I have been told if you fail to disclose and lose, the seller

> has to pay for ALL lawyers fees, including the buyers..........- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Again, it's like the monopoly game, where you go straight to jail.
Instead here you always go straight to court with a big old
honking catastrophic lawsuit. Not that the buyer calls you up and
says they have a $5K repair they think you should pay for. Not that
you then ask for proof, check it out, pay it, or negotiate to pay
half,
no straight to court you go!

Here are some hypothetical cases:

A few shingles blew off in a storm 6 months ago. You had them
replaced and the roof doesn't leak. The roofer told you that the
roof is old, the shingles are starting to get brittle and curl, etc,
probably has
just a few more years before it needs to be replaced.


You've had water heaters fail at about 10 years, 3 times before.
The current one is 8 years old.


The 10 year olddishwasher had a problem a year ago and while fixing
it, you noticed that parts underneath were rusting and you're not sure
how much longer it will last


The AC system was checked 3 months ago. The tech found it low
on refrigerant. They tested it, checked for leaks, could not find any
and topped it off.


What do you do about all those? I get the feeling that you would
tell a buyer about all of them? Do you think most people would?
Or that there is a legal obligation to do so?

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:42:58 -0400, John Albert <j.al...@snet.net>
wrote:

Sell it "as is - bulldozer not included" - you are basically selling
a lot. No disclosure required - period. If they want to salveage the
building, that is THEIR concern - not yours.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

Buyers and sellers can get along - no reason for everything to be an
adversarial situation.

Might be common in the USA but not common in my experience in Canada.

[Oren]

Local laws may vary. But my limited understanding is that standing is
determined by the court. The court can say you have none and dismiss
the case.*

Standing is determined:

--begin quote

Standing requirements

There are three standing requirements:

1.Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer
injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete
and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct
and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as
non-economic.

2.Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to
the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the
independent action of some third party who is not before the
court.[15]

3.Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative,
that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[16]

--end quote

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_standing#Standing_requirements>

* A past case here was a person sued the City of North Las Vegas about
a gun law. The court dismissed the case because the plaintiff had no
"standing".

What that boils down to is he had to be harmed by the law, i.e., get
arrested and charged for a felony.

The city is not aggressively enforcing the law by making arrests. When
and if they do, a similar case can be brought by that person. His
injury would be the arrest and felony record. They could simply repeal
the ordinance but so far has refused to do so.

[Oren]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:42:58 -0400, John Albert <j.al...@snet.net>
wrote:

>On 4/4/13 2:06 PM, andrew s wrote:
>> I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection
>> (except for the well water and a search for code violations).
>> So, one option for the seller is "as is".
>
>Can one put a home up for sale, with the specific disclaimer
>"as is"?
>

I bought my house as-is. I made the offer to the seller.

Check with your attorney (in those states) real estate agent or Title
company (in those states).

Used cars are often sold "as-is, where-is"...

[Oren]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>most buyers and sellers dont like one another....
>

Not in my world. Bought 8 homes (4 states) sold 7 of them. The
buyer/seller relationship was respectable and amicable.

>its always better to disclose

Did you miss the thread about things being "negotiable", the thread
about "too much disclosure"? My comments to tell what you know, what
the law requires?

Say the seller never disclosed that my property was once a Mohawk
Indian path? Should I sue him for fear that one day the Mohawk Nation
may try to take my land? See how silly it gets......

[Oren]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

>ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO DISCLOSE ALL THE POSSIBLE PROBLEMS....

Disclosure: "On my street, in 2025, There may be a 100 year flood!"

Well it is POSSIBLE. Disclosure IMHO is not about what is possible.
It is about what you know as fact and what the law requires you
disclose. Nothing more - nothing less.

But I don't live in Pittsburgh; where _anything_ is possible.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Apr 7, 2:30 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 05:44:54 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"

Yes, we all agree on that. In the example that I gave, if you tried
to bring a lawsuit against a seller for a house that your mother
bought, not you, the case would be thrown out, because you
don't have standing.



>

> Standing is determined:
>
> --begin quote
>
> Standing requirements
>
> There are three standing requirements:
>
> 1.Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer
> injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete
> and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct
> and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as
> non-economic.

This is the part where we disagree. Taking the above literally,
the court would have to rule on the merits before the standing issue
can be determined. The above says that the plaintiff must have
suffered or imminently will suffer injury. Well, how can anyone
determine that without an actual trial? That is the whole purpose
of the actual trial. My understanding of the issue
is consistent with deadrat's. To have standing you only have to be
in a position to CLAIM that you were injured. Again, going back to
my example, if you try to sue the seller of a house that your mother
bought, you can't because you don't have standing. The house isnt
yours. Your mother does have standing. She can bring the suit.
She may have been injured, but whether she was actually injured
can only be determined by going to trial. It would pass the standing
test, but could be thrown out or lost for all kinds of subsequent
reasons.

>
> 2.Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and
> the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to
> the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the
> independent action of some third party who is not before the
> court.[15]
>
> 3.Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative,
> that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[16]
>
> --end quote
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_standing#Standing_requirements>
>
> * A past case here was a person sued the City of North Las Vegas about
> a gun law. The court dismissed the case because the plaintiff had no
> "standing".
>
> What that boils down to is he had to be harmed by the law, i.e., get
> arrested and charged for a felony.
>
> The city is not aggressively enforcing the law by making arrests. When
> and if they do, a similar case can be brought by that person. His
> injury would be the arrest and felony record. They could simply repeal

> the ordinance but so far has refused to do so.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Here is the legal dictionary's definition, which I believe is
consistent
with what I'm saying:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

"The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a
dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to
obtain judicial relief.

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the
federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff
can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the
defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a
member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The
person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy."

[nestork]

I'm thinking that Derby Dad has at least proved that the regular use of
RootX will control the problem.

I'm thinking that he should stop using the RootX and see if the problem
returns. If he's only using it once per year, my thought is that the
problem shouldn't return. Roots grow fast during the summer, and if
that connection was still leaking, you'd still have roots growing into
that sewer pipe and the pipe getting clogged up with toilet paper.

If the problem returns, then he should disclose the issue, and tell the
new owner to continue to use RootX once per year. If the problem
doesn't return, he has a credible basis to presume that the roots are no
longer a problem and that it's no longer necessary to continue using
RootX. How much is that experiment gonna cost? $200 at the most to
have the drain pipe snaked at his property line(if he doesn't call a
company that advertises on TV and the radio, and maybe another $100 for
a video inspection. $300 is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the
selling of a house. But, the possible expenditure of that $300 will
resolve this problem one way or the other.

Derby Dad: Go back and read my first post on this matter about reading
court cases that involved the seller's disclosure to the buyer. And, if
your sewer is draining properly now, it might be a good idea to have a
video inspection of the sewer done to take a look at the connection to
the city's sewer. It could be that there's enough storage in the 4 inch
diameter pipe out to the city sewer that your house's sewer hasn't
backed up YET. A video inspection can only be done in an empty pipe, so
your best bet is to spend a few dollars having the inspection done so
you know if the problem has been resolved or not. The worst possible
case is that you might end up having to dig a hole on your property line
to cut those roots and repair that connection. Also, a video casette of
the inspection can be made for $5 extra so that any plumbing contractor
can also see exactly what the camera saw. Ask if you can get that video
on a CD, which shouldn't cost any more, so you can make copies of it on
your own computer.

That's how I'd proceed anyhow, anyhow.




--
nestork