Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Naive homebuyer was intentionally de-frauded
Purchased 1st hm 3 yrs ago. 100% relied on RE Agent. Owners R flippers-orig. pest inspection from their �AS IS� purch. shows extent of dry rot/mold damage & covered it up. sold house 3 months ltr w/out disclosure. Contract req Sect 1&2 Clearances, got neither & didn't know. got a ''walkthrough inspection'' from new pest company-looked clean. Didn't know difference b/ween report/clearance-no one including finance/title company questioned it.requested 2yr roof cert. cert 4 their purchase-no transfer docs-not 4 our purchase. Flooring rotted out/tiled over in 2 baths-H2O from roof leaked into walls creating rot & mold. Floors, roofing + entire wall (2x4s, insulation, stucco, sheetrock etc.) 4master bath needs 2 B 100% replaced. Found damage 5 mths ago w/patio roof removal. damage visible as roof was removed. Pulled docs out & came across notes showing reports missing, & no clearances issued. Have 3 quotes- $40k in costs. Need a lwyr 2 go after BOTH RE Agents, Owners, finance/title co. Etc. We were TOLD all was clear, TOLD about certs & clearances that didn't' exist. We were SO na�ve 2 trust these people & need help now. Amost out of time 2 go after them 4 damages & don't know how.

Asked on 1/05/06, 2:49 pm

4 Answers from Attorneys

H.M. Torrey The Law Offices of H.M. Torrey

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

Re: Naive homebuyer was intentionally de-frauded

You are absolutely correct, if intentional non-disclosure and "cover up" can be proven to support your fraud claim. As such, you would be entitled to damages under the law, and/or equitable relief as well. if you would like a free phone consultation, contact us directly this week.

Answered on 1/05/06, 6:06 pm

Mark as helpful

JOHN GUERRINI THE GUERRINI LAW FIRM - COLLECTION LAWYERS

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

Re: Naive homebuyer was intentionally de-frauded

Statute of limitations may have already expired against the agents. Statute of limitations for fraud is generally three years from discovery. There are other statutes to be concerned with. A thorough review of the underlying documents will be necessary to determine against whom you proceed. You will need to retain a qualified real estate litigation attorney familiar with non-disclosure and misrepresentation within the real estate transaction context.

Answered on 1/05/06, 10:33 pm

Mark as helpful

Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

Re: Naive homebuyer was intentionally de-frauded

Your ZIP code suggests Modesto, which is a little far away for me to be effective, but there should be a lot of good real estate lawyers in your area who would be willing to give you a free initial consultation.

There are maybe two important factors to mention. The first is statutes of limitations, which require that lawsuits be brought within a particular time frame. The limit for actions based upon breach of written contract is four years, and some of your claims may fall into this category. Many fraud actions must be brought within three years of the time the fraud was discovered, or with reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. So, you should not tarry in finding a lawyer and getting the suit filed, if the lawyer decides this should be done.

The second thing is proof. Proving fraud is not that easy. You need to think about, marshal and preserve your evidence as to both the facts showing fraud and the dollar amount of the resulting harm. You also need to think about witnesses, both eyewitnesses and expert witnesses, who will verify the fraud and the damage on the witness stand.

Answered on 1/05/06, 3:39 pm

Mark as helpful