Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Illinois

Generally the MLS will have a disclaimer that the information is not guaranteed. You say the whole house inspection did not "show anything to the contrary." Did the home inspection state that the house was built in 2001? Finally, you would need to show damages. How much less is the house worth because it was not built in 2001?

I agree w/ Mr. Moens. You would have to show the house is not worth as much because of a different year of construction. Many homes are considered "new" because instead of a total demolition requiring a "new construction" permit, homes can be partially torn down and reonstructed under a "remodeling" permit, which is usually less costly AND usually results in a lower tax assessment, so you may actually have gotten a benefit. Furthermore, the real issue may not be the subflooring, but building systems (especially electrical and plumbing), and if the home was really built before 1978, lead paint remaining anywhere.

When a seller puts his house up for sale, the seller is responsible for filling out a "Disclosure" form but it doesn't necessarily report year of construction, so that issue is under the radar. As to lead based paint, again the seller is responsible to inform the broker as to the year of construction. The broker would have had to have had personal knowledge, or strong constructive knowledge of some kind, that the seller was not being truthful in making the required legal disclosures, for the broker to have any liability.

Take all the information, including the listing, to an attorney for review, research and evaluation. This may require a fair amount of inquiry and the likelihood of having to hire an expert appraisal witness, so the relative cost/benefit analysis of filing litigation needs to be carefully weighed.