Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Being sued by buyer in small claims for replacement of carpet
The home we sold in April of this year had an unconcealed matching carpet patch in the entry walkway on which a corner approx 1'' X 3'' was beginning to come unglued and lifting. This patch existed in the carpeting prior to our ownership of the home and the lifting corner had been that way for well over a year prior to our listing of the home. We considered it to be a minor cosmetic blemish. We did not cover or conceal the area during the showings of the home or during the subsequent visits by the buyer or the inspection of the home. We did not include anything about it on the disclosure form as it didn't even enter our mind that something as minor as this would need to be on the form. The buyer is now claiming that she never noticed the carpet area in question and that we wilfully concealed it. She had all of the home's carpeting replaced within a week or so of moving into the home. She sent us a demand letter for the replacement cost and we responded that while we hadn't concealed it and didn't think it needed to be on any disclosures, we were willing to pay her 20% of the cost of replacement. She has subsequently filed a small claims suit for the full value. Any advice?
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Being sued by buyer in small claims for replacement of carpet
The most the plaintiff should be entitled to (unless you really intended to conceal) would be the cost to repair the carpet. I assume a good carpet installer could have stitched the patch back nice and tight.
The plaintiff now has a house full of brand new carpet, which is much more valuable than what she thought she was buying. That is sometimes called a "betterment."
Just politely and calmly tell the judge that it was an insignificant detail which you never considered disclosing and which you probably wouldn't have disclosed anyway (even if it had dawned on you at the time of sale) in light of its insignificance. Say it would be like disclosing that you had to patch some nail holes in the drywall two years ago. Homes suffer these routine blemishes from time to time. Such things are not material. (Material = a fact which has a substantial impact on a potential buyer's decision as to how much he/she will pay.) You can typically only be liable for failing to disclose material facts.
Then tell the judge that, IF this tiny carpet patch is, in fact, a material fact that should have been disclosed, you believe plaintiff should not be entitled to an entire house full of carpet.
Don't be surprised if the plaintiff brings in photos which seem to exaggerate the actual condition.
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.
