Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
I bought a house that I don't feel safe living in. Since I took ownership of it, there has been a continuing barrage of theft, vandalism, and opened mail. After over eight months of it, I am exasperated at the possibility that it will never end. I have learned that the former owners of the property who lost it foreclosure are members of Hell's Angel's and were running a big drug operation there. One of them is actually facing murder charges right now. I'm getting a distinct message that someone thinks I shouldn't be there. As a single woman, I don't want to live there. I'm trying to sell it, but the market is way down from when I bought it. My question is this: should the bank who sold me this place be liable for not disclosing who the former owners were?
4 Answers from Attorneys
No. The former owners' names were a matter of public record. How would the bank know they were Hell's Angels?
While I share most people's dislike of the banks, the foreclosing lender probably had no idea of what the prior owner did; they would know of vandalism and might have a duty to inform you if it was abnormally high for that neighborhood. You would have to show they had knowledge of a dangerous condition you could not be aware of.
The general rule is that a seller need disclose only what it knows. A seller is not required to make an investigation, nor does the seller or the trustee make any warranty of safety or suitability. If you were represented by a buyer's broker or agent, you might have a claim against her or him.
I agree that the bank is not responsible for what it did not know. It would be worth talking directly to an attorney, however, about what liability the agents and brokers involved in the sale to you might have.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
