Comments on: While I was away…..

By: thorn ward

thorn ward — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:24:19 +0000

So, in the new NWMLS Form 21, Purchase and Sale Agreement, which of the choices is best from an E & O point of view — Buyer will or Buyer will not?

Item 9: Disclosures in Form 17: Buyer will ; will not  have a remedy for Seller’s negligent errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in Form 17.

By: NWMLS Form Changes - (RainCity post) | The Seattle Specialist

NWMLS Form Changes - (RainCity post) | The Seattle Specialist — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:32:48 +0000

[...] Coldwell Banker Bain (and I assume others) will drop the usage of their “own” optional clauses forms which will make co-op transactions smoother and easier for all agents. Lots of discussion was given to the Washington State Supreme Court decision Alejandre v. Bull, which was the impetus for many of these changes. I won’t bore you with the details here. But they ruled “economic loss rule” prohibits the Buyer from suing the Seller for negligent misrepresentation regarding the condition of real property when the parties relationship is governed by a contract. The courts want to see the allocation of risk of economic loss in the Purchase and Sale Agreements – Hence the changes. [...]

By: NWMLS Form Changes | Rain City Guide | A Seattle Real Estate Blog...

NWMLS Form Changes | Rain City Guide | A Seattle Real Estate Blog... — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:32:47 +0000

[...] Lots of discussion was given to the Washington State Supreme Court decision Alejandre v. Bull, which was the impetus for many of these changes. I won’t bore you with the details here. But they ruled “economic loss rule” prohibits the Buyer from suing the Seller for negligent misrepresentation regarding the condition of real property when the parties relationship is governed by a contract. The courts want to see the allocation of risk of economic loss in the Purchase and Sale Agreements – Hence the changes. [...]

By: Lisa Jones

Lisa Jones — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:08:27 +0000

Question:
What if a buyer purchases a property in a 100 year flood plane and then later find that the County 5 years before purchase had enacted limits on rebuilding/remodeling in that area ( 40% limit of value, even if house burned down) though still taxing this area at 100% rebuildable.
Yet during a check with the clerks office at time of pending purchase, buyer was informed that while on 100 year flood plane there were no issues. No disclosure of limitations, so buyer purchases and finds out years later that property has no real value because of this and is pretty much unsaleable except for land value
Is the state/ county required to let buyers know of these restrictions? If knowledge had been available or disclosed buyer would NOT have purchased. It is believed that the original homeowner was also unaware of limitations since most residents in this zone also just found out about the restrictions.
What are the County/ State responsibility for disclosures such as this to a homeowner or new buyer? Theres about 250 homes facing what appears to be a land grab by the County starting with the restrictions or devaluation of property and we’re looking for some answers. Thanks, Lisa

By: Lisa Anderson

Lisa Anderson — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:07:57 +0000

We had a new home built in 2003. We discovered water damage this year that resulted from two different building code violations. The worst was a spigot that was placed on our porch in front of the house, which did not have the proper way to drain. We’re now in for the tune of $20,000 in repairs. After pulling out the walls and affected floors, we’ve found that dirt was poured against the wood, which is another major no-no. We have damage and mold in a major structural beam running up our house, and our new contracter says we’d have a case if we sued our builder. Since it’s been 4 years, how far do we have to go proving “inhabitability” to try to win compensation for the damage. Put more simply, do we have a case, based on what I’ve told you?

By: nancy booth

nancy booth — Thu, 17 May 2007 07:00:12 +0000

I bought a home last fall in 2006. The seller, an owner of a local real estate firm sold it to me. He failed to disclose to me that the sump pump is on all the time ( he said once in a while). Since I have moved in, the underground spring as all of my neighbors in the area have confirmed to- floods my basement. When it rains, it floods, when my sprinklers are on, it floods. What can I do now with this new ruling? The sump pump has never failed~ However, sometimes, it can’t keep up with the flow of water. Please help.

By: The Legislature Volleys Back…. | Rain City Guide | A Seattle Real Estate Blog...

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:06:35 +0000

[...] The Legislature Volleys Back…. May 1, 2007 Recently, I wrote about new case law in Washington that was making it more difficult for buyers of real property to make post-closing claims against the seller for property condition related matters. The Washington legislature has just amended the state’s residential property condition disclosure law to put additional burdens on sellers and will soon require a disclosure form when “unimproved” residential property is sold. [...]

By: The (legal) importance of a home iinspection | Rain City Guide | A Seattle Real Estate Blog...

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:19:39 +0000

[...] Recently, Russ authored a post discussing the recent Supreme Court case of Alejandre v. Bull (beating me to the punch, in the process). This is indeed an important case for several reasons, one of which Russ and the subsequent comments touch upon: the importance of a thorough home inspection. [...]

By: shane

shane — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:10:49 +0000

Russ,

Congrats on the move and welcome back. The one thing I love about law is that there is always something sticky to poke at.

I think that this ruling is doing mutable things here. First it is strongly encouraging the use of inspectors and more in-depth contract language. With these two things it is encouraging the use of more professionals therefore more eyes and ultimately more quality control in the real estate process. Further it strengthens the insurance of government setting forth it’s right to ensure that property is in an inhabitable state through the use of more professionals while still not requiring the government to enact on any of its police powers in real estate. By putting pressure on real estate professionals to encourage proper disclosure by home sellers through the use other professionals such as appraisers, home inspectors and attorneys it as well gives relief to the peoples resources in lessening the suits (similar to insurance and bankruptcy suits). Most items on the disclosure form unless obvious could fall under the “did not know” category, and the court must surly understand this otherwise they would have held the disclosure into some regard if nothing less then an extension of the terms that make up the consideration of the contract.

I think that this is a good ruling in the fact that it does encourage the use of additional professionals. Even brokerages like Redfin can insist on the use of these additional professionals in the deals and still keep with in their business plan.

Great Post and thank you for the mind exercise with in it.

By: Russ Cofano

Russ Cofano — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:02:29 +0000

Ardell

There is a big difference between how the law protects consumers vis a vis service professionals and the rights of private parties to contract as they see fit. The law assumes (sometimes wrongly so) that there should be inherent protections when professional contracts with consumer vs. consumer to consumer.

The point you make about market conditions being irrelevant misses the point. The flip side is that in a bad market, a buyer has the ability to extract warranties from the seller that contractually guarantees seller accountability.

You tend to look at things from a buyer’s perspective. Why should a seller not be able to sell their property “as is”. Why must there always be protections for the buyer? Their protection is the ability to walk away if the deal doesn’t fit. While owning a home is the “American Dream”, it is not a fundamental right. As I have heard many say over the years, if you don’t like the market, wait around and you will like it eventually.

-Russ