Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

It depends upon many factors. First, did the Sellers disclose to you that the roof leaked, or did they disclose that the roof was installed by an unlicensed contractor? Did you discover the fact that the roof was installed by an unlicensed contractor before you closed escrow? There are many facts that would need to be reviewed before a solid answer to your question can be provided. That being said, demand from the Seller, the Seller's real estate agent and the contractor that you want it fixed immediately, and at no charge to you.

The response you will probably get is this. First, an unlicensed contractor is probably not going to warranty his or her work. They will almost certainly just ignore you completely, hoping you will go away. The Sellers are going to tell you that they disclosed either the leak, or that the roof was installed by an unlicensed roofer, OR they are going to claim that you should have discovered that fact as a part of your due diligence when you bought the home, and by closing escrow, you accepted it, warts and all. Again, without a thorough analysis of all of the facts, this is all just stabbing in the dark. You need to meet with a local real estate attorney to go over more specific facts, the purchase agreement and disclosures you were given, and then someone can properly advise you as to how best to proceed.

*Due to the limitations of the LawGuru Forums, The Gibbs Law Firm, APC's (the "Firm") participation in responding to questions posted herein does not constitute legal advice, nor legal representation of the person or entity posting a question. No Attorney/Client relationship is or shall be construed to be created hereby. The information provided is general and requires that the poster obtain specific legal advice from an attorney. The poster shall not rely upon the information provided herein as legal advice nor as the basis for making any decisions of legal consequence.

Mr. Gibbs gave you a thorough answer. I would just add that the license status of the contractor does not give rise to a presumtion that you knew or should have known the roof leaked. If the sellers or their agent knew or should have known about the leak, and didn't disclose it, only disclosed that the contractor was unlicensed, you still have a claim against the sellers and/or their agent.

I have a few comments to make as well. First, a seller is under no obligation to disclose facts of which they have no knowledge or reason to suspect. You can't disclose what you don't know. Eight months ago points to April, and in many parts of the state it didn't rain much in April or afterwards, until about November. Especially in 92240.

Next, a contractor's license status does not affect whether there is a warranty or not. I think anyone, licensed or not, who holds himself out to do roofing work is giving the owner of the roof his implied warranty that the roof won't leak anytime soon due to materials or workmanship issues. At least, I would so argue. I'd target the contractor for a vigorous demand - keeping in mind that suit may be a bad financial gamble due to the guy's possible (probable?) inability to pay a judgment.

The amount of money in question is always an important factor in deciding whether to sue, and if so, whether to file in Small Claims or Superior Court. Other factors are the defendants' ability (and propensity) to pay a judgment, and whether the contract contains mediation, arbitration and/or attorney-fee provisions, and what they say.