Do "roots in the sewer in the past" require disclosure?

[DerbyDad03]

Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of mind" exercise?

[trader4]

One data point would be to look up the specific law and/or disclosure form that is required where the house is located. NJ has a form the seller must fill out and it has a long list of specific items and questions. Last time I looked, it was really dumb, like what an elementary school kid would put together. Questions like, "Have any repairs been made to the roof?" So, if you replaced one shingle in 1994, you're apparently required to disclose that. I guess houses should have a log book like an airplane.....

If a question like that is on the list for where the house is located, what exactly that question is and what it requires would be very important.

Beyond that, I don't know. It's an interesting question. I don't necessarily buy the fact that roots are routine maintenance. Painting the house, cleaning gutters, that's routine maintenance. A sewer system with root intrusion is not normal and the problem is significant. In his case, they were known to exist and to recur. I would tend to say it's something that needs to be disclosed.

[carson ridder]

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals, that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the

80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they 'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself. Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:

• Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

[DerbyDad03]

re: "the inspector saw water stains on a garage wall suggesting a past leak"

I've actually been wondering about that in my own house. Many years ago we had some ice dam issues and water leaked into the house. There is a section of the attached garage ceiling where not only is there a brown stain, there is also a few small holes where I opened it up to let the water drain out. (We don't park in the garage, so the holes don't bother me)

Fixing the holes won't be an issue, and I guess I could paint the ceiling, but I've often wondered how I would explain the stains if I decided to sell. The house been re-roofed using modern (2012) methods and we made it though this past winter without a single ice dam problem, even doing without the ice melt cables for the first time in

10 years.

Still, if you look at the joists in the basement and parts of the garage, you can see evidence of the ice dam problem from a decade ago. I can't imagine that they won't be noted during an inspection, which will then lead to a need for me to give an explanation.

I guess I could pull out the pictures of the ice dams, show them the dates and hope any potential buyer (or inspector) believes that the problem occurred a very long time ago. Still, it could scare off a buyer that was on the edge anyway.

I'm not losing sleep over it, it's just something that I think about every now and then.

[andrew s]

DerbyDad03 wrote on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:02:21 -0700:

I bought two houses, "as is", without even a home inspection (except for the well water and a search for code violations).

So, one option for the seller is "as is".

[DerbyDad03]

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking". That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

[DerbyDad03]

...and one option for the buyer is "no way".

These days, I think you would be seriously limiting your buyer pool if you refused any and all offers that required an inspection.

Buying a house without wanting an inspection, as you did, is easy. Selling one while refusing to let an inspection be part of the deal might not be.

[DerbyDad03]

If I knew that ice dams were known to exist and known to recur, but have since stopped being a problem after the roof, insulation and ventilation were upgraded, would I still need to disclose that the house had serious ice dam problems prior to the upgrade?

That would be one of those situations where you really don't know if the problem has been fixed until it happens again. At that point you'll know that it *hasn't* been fixed. It's not like it's something you can test.

In other words, a specific set of conditions has to be in place for the ice dam to cause water infiltration, so not having infiltration since the upgrade might mean the roofing upgrade solved the problem or it might mean that the specific set of conditions has not yet reoccurred.

One could argue that a specific set of circumstances has to exist for roots to enter the pipe, so one wouldn't know if it was the RootX or the lack of the specific conditions that has eliminated the issue. I was told by a guy from a plumbing company 2 winters ago they had very few calls for frozen pipes due to the mild weather, but that they expected a very busy spring dealing with roots for the same reason. The roots didn't get the water they needed from the snow melt, so they will go looking for it elsewhere. My point is that roots can be an ongoing problem but could also stop being a problem for different reasons - RootX or Mother Nature.

Granted, I am aware that in this case the owner has been using RootX for a number of years, and I guess someone could track down the purchase records as proof that the owner hid the fact that he had been "fighting" roots for many years. I guess it would depend on how long after the house changed hands that the root problem showed up again - assuming that it was the RootX that kept them at bay.

What is the statute of limitations on disclosures? Can the buyer come back 3 springs later if he has a partial blockage due to roots and fight for compensation?

[trader4]

Any chance of getting rid of the tree that is the source of the roots? If the tree were gone, then you've largely eliminated the problem. I say largely, because with a truly intact sewer system, roots couldn't get in. So, something isn't quite right, right?

And as you say, once you start down the disclosure path, even if the tree is gone, once the buyer knows, then they may say that the roots getting in is really secondary to the sewer not being in proper condition, being old, starting to fail, etc. And they want it replaced.

[DerbyDad03]

$25K off the asking price doesn't mean much to those of us that don't know the asking price.

$25K off an asking price of $100,000 is huge. $25K off an asking price of $1,000,000 isn't much more than an annoyance.

We need both numbers or perhaps a "percentage" off the asking price to get a feel for how much the "as-is" offer was really worth.

[trader4]

I don't think the "as is" sale is really a viable option for this root problem. What kind of haircut do you think you'd wind up with if you start raising red flags on the whole house by doing that? My guess is a lot more than the cost of fixing the sewer.

Also you might want to check with a lawyer about what exacly "as-is" means in your state. I don't think it exempts you from following the state disclosure laws. So, you could sell a house stating it's "as is" and if you had a failed septic system that you knew about, had a history of problems with, etc, and didn't disclose it, I think the buyer could still sue you and win.

[DerbyDad03]

The tree belongs to a neighbor.

Well, here's where things get a little messy, but I'm sure the homeowner has no recourse.

I don't know exactly when, but many years ago the town came through and dug up everyone's easement (?) and replaced the cast iron with PVC at the property lines. (The town owns about 10' of everyone's front yard). They also installed a PVC cleanout so that they didn't have to go into basements anymore if someone called the town about a blocked sewer. They would snake from the cleanout to street and if that solved the problem, good. If not, it was the homeowner's problem to deal with the cast iron section. To be more specific, it is the homeowner's problem to deal with anything from the cleanout back towards the house.

OK, so picture a PVC cleanout similar to this, with the "flow" pipe being the homeowner's cast iron sewer and the rest being the town's PVC.

The town considers the junction of the cast iron "flow" pipe and the PVC cleanout to be "before the cleanout" and therefore the homeowner's responsibility. The homeowner told me that the town brought over a scope the last time he had a partial blockage (5 years ago). It showed that the town's section was clear and that the roots were coming in at the junction of the PVC and the cast iron. So, even though the town could be blamed for causing the problem, they also claim that it is the homeowner's problem to fix it.

The homeowner snaked the piped, cleared the blockage and has been using RootX ever since.

The other night we were chatting about our houses and the discussion of "if you were to sell, what would you disclose" came up. he told me about his sewer and that's what prompted this question.

[Ashton Crusher]

One test is to ask "Is it a material fact that would affect the compensation to be paid?" Obviously you think it would negatively affect the price or you wouldn't be looking for a rationale not to disclose it. I understand your feelings, my house has some slab cracks and small separations in the ceiling sheet rock that occurred years ago and haven't moved since. But if not disclosed and later discovered it could get ugly if the buyers so choose. If their has not been a problem in years your disclosure can say "waste pipe cleaned out X years ago" and leave it at that. You've disclosed. If they care they can ask more about it. If everything is draining properly at the time of sale and you've made that disclosure I tend to think you are on solid ground.

[DerbyDad03]

That's my understanding also. "As is" doesn't eliminate the requirement to disclose items that may impact the buyer's decision.

I found this from an agent in California. This is exactly how I thought it works, although I haven't bought or sold a house in a long time, so it could be wrong or different in different locations.

"The California Residential Purchase agreement states that the sale is "as-is." It also gives the buyer the right to investigate the condition of the home and the obligation for you to disclose any materials facts about the condition of the home that will or could affect the buyer's decision to purchase. The buyer can then request repairs which you can refuse to make or agree to pay for and make or agree to a price reduction for the cost of the repairs or to pay the buyer for the repairs at close of escrow (all negotiable in your transaction). "

[trader4]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just saying that the waste pipe was cleaned out X years ago and not disclosing that you know it has been cleaned out repeatedly every few years because of tree roots doesn't meet your test of is it a materially fact that would affect the price. Would you pay the same amount for these two houses:

A - Had a sewer blockage of unknown cause once

B - Had a sewer blockage every couple of years due to tree roots?

[trader4]

That's pretty much my understanding too. Absent a specific guarantee, real estate sales are "as is" anyway. By advertising it "as-is" to me means the seller doesn't want to do any repairs. So, if the place needs paint, the dishwasher doesn't work, the deck needs some repairs, obvious stuff that can be easily seen, I would not expect them to fix that or ask for a further discount. But if an inspection turns up that the septic system is shot or there is extensive termite damage and that was not disclosed, perhaps not even known to the seller, then you can bet I'd be asking for a price reduction or I walk. And the seller now knows that it needs a septic system, so they will have to disclose that to other potential buyers.

[bob haller]

I have a root infested sewer. every joint from under the house to the street has roots. I ROCK SALT the sewer line a few times a year. Mix very hot water with rock salt and let lay in line for day. Go to work use no water at all.

cost about 3 bucks for 25 pounds of salt, salt kills roots FAST but does not hurt trees. Been doing this for 15 years at least.... The line at the street is over 12 feet deep and probably 15 grand to replace:( not including new basement and garage floor, new driveway, and new wall and part of sidewalk

Incidently a mature trees roots can be 2 to 3 times the size of its drip edge.... and bushes can get int sewers too.

I would ABSOLUTELY disclose this at home sale time, or risk a nasty lawsuit

[Don Phillipson]

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the country or state in which the vendor lives. It is also relative to time. Who knows what local consumer protection law may require in 2023?

[clare]

No problem if the price is "right". Quite a few houses are advertized as "as is -handyman special" or "needs some attention" or "TLC required". The buyer goes in with eyes wide open - what he sees (or doesn't see) is what he gets. The price reflects this - but let's face it. If a house needs $20,000 to bring it up to "condition" to sell, you are unlikely to get $20,000 less selling it as is. The new owner is going to make modifications anyway - so drop the price the estimated cost of the "required" repair and you come out ahead. A prospective buyer who is not going to be doing upgrades is unlikely to buy the house at any rate. The guy doing major renovations will spend less on the repair, in many cases, than you will - because it's part of a bigger job he'll be doing anyway - even if you spent the $20,000 in repairs.

[clare]

What happens when you buy a house from the bank in a mortgage sale??? What kind of disclosure can you get from someone who knows nothing about the property other than the balance owing? The defaulted owner is not going to be involved in the sale, so you buy it from the bank "as is".