:Newsgroups: alt.home.repair : :In article , Dan Musicant : wrote: : :>?Well, they're already coated with roof coating. Did that around 6 weeks :>?ago. They're nice and water tight, for the moment. I'm just wondering if :>?I should be concerned about them. Will my little lakes be water tight :>?for 3 to 5 years, when I figure I will hopefully be in a position to :>?tear the roof off and replace it with a new roof complete with properly :>?designed rain gutters that will drain away from the house. : :No. : :-- :Lyle B. Harwood, President :Phoenix Homes, Inc. :(206) 523-9500
formatting link
Followup!
It's now 5 years later and I'm reporting. I did do the repair of the funky Dutch gutters at my roof edges, which were leaking into my house. I did it with cut up pieces of asphalt roofing material and a fair amount of roofing cement, built up in layers until there were no depressions for water to accumulate. That has kept those leaks from reappearing and I'm going to have the whole roof torn off and replaced as stated above, the last week of the month. Fingers crossed that it comes out OK. There's lots of dry rot that will have to be replaced. I hope they do the job right.
Me and my wife were first time home buyers. We bought our home December
2004. Come January 2005, we noticed that our roof was leaking. We called up our agent regarding this problem and she said that there was nothing we can do since we bought the house "as is". I had couple of roofing guys come out and fix the roof, although it kept us dry for couple of months, but when it starts to rain really hard, my roof starts to leak again. None of the roofing guys wanted to have a warranty on their work since they said , its a recurring problem. We have noticed to that there was some repairs done by the previous owner at the ceiling (looks like they patched the ceiling with a piece of ply wood and used joint compoud and paint to cover it. Now it is showing since water statrs to bubble where the joint compound is). I talked to my friend who's a real estate agent and he said that everything should have been disclosed to us even though we bought the house as is. Also he said that we should have had a home inspection/roof inspection even before we bought the house. I called up my agent, whom I trusted then, and asked her why didnt we have our home inspection or roof inspection when we were buying this house. ( we didnt know that these were necessary when purchasing a home since we were first time home buyers ). Her reply to me was we did not get any home inspection because we did a 100% financing! ( is this true?!) Now its been raining again and my roofs leaking even worse. I am concerned with our health because now molds are coming out of my drywall, specially I have my 10 month old daughter crawling around the house. Please advise me of the steps that should be taken. It seems like my agent just got her commission and thats it! She didnt even see the house when we were buying it. All she did was deal with the owner of the house over the phone. She represented bought seller and myself on this transaction. Please help....
Your first step is to have the roof fixed. Reading between the lines, you have had the roof patched, and not too well. An attorney * might * take your case on a contingency basis. If the attorneys want money, you would do better to use that money to fix the roof. Water intrusion can lead to rot, general deterioration, and mold. TB
Laws are different in different locations. You need to consult with a local attorney.
Note: all real estate agents represent themselves. The more homes they can sell for the highest price the more they make. They never represent the buyer. For that you need someone who will work or other than commission and represent only you. That could be a real estate agent, but few will work on that bases. An attorney, which has been my choice, works based on time and works for me.
I will suggest that for the roof you are going to end up replacing it and not fixing it. The fact that roofers don't want to warranty their work is very strong evidence that patching is not going to work. In the long run it will be a lot cheaper.
Finally you might start worrying about mold. Not only can it be a real worry, but it often is regulated in such a way that the prior owner may be responsible and that it may get those responsible for the roof to be faster at paying up than they would of only the roof was involved.
B see a attorney immedoiately, and let them take the case only on a contigency basis, they win and share the bucks, they lose costs you nothing but time... for suit.
I dont trust realtors, and you should of been advised to get a home inspection since your house may have other issues some of which might be dangerous...
B see a attorney immedoiately, and let them take the case only on a contigency basis, they win and share the bucks, they lose costs you nothing but time... for suit.
I dont trust realtors, and you should of been advised to get a home inspection since your house may have other issues some of which might be dangerous...
While this might well be true, is probably true, one shouldn't try to get legal advice from a real estate agent. First they're not lawyers. Second you say she represented the seller as well as you. Well that is a conflict of interest (which is not inherently illegal, at least in some fields, but when there are problems, it presents a conflict.) There's a time when she can only represent one of you.
Laws vary from state to state, but I have heard of this law.
If you are going to do one, "before" is the time to do it.
Offhand, it sounds like double talk. When someone is financing a house, the lender also has an interest in making sure that the house is worth at least what the lender lends, in case the owners don't pay the mortgage. So here in Md. I think the lenders insist on termite inspection and could insist on other things. If you make a substantial downpaymnent, maybe 20%, a lot of lenders will feel that they are safe, that your house is at least worth 80% of what you paid for it.**, but the fact that the lender feel secure doesn't mean that the owner should. The owner not only stands to lose money doing repairs, but to have the sort of inconvenience you're having.
**(They also verify that you didn't pay much more than other similar houses sold for).
That said, not everyone gets a home inspection. Some people do the best job they can of inspecting themselves, and others just gamble. Since the house I bought was only 4 years old, I thought the gamble was small.
Yet 5 months after I moved in, I awoke on Thanksgiving day to see water dripping from my bedroom ceiling. When I went up the hatch into the attic, I saw that it was coming from one of the galvanized chimneys that passed through the roof.
I think it was too cold for me to go up on the roof to fix it. (when I did I found that a skirt that was on my other chimney and my neighbors' chimneys was missing from this one.)
I also saw that the man I bought the house from had tried to stem the leak by putting, from the attic side, silicone cement from a caulking gun up into the cone that surrounded the chimney, a task impossible to succeed at. I don't think Md. at the time had any requirement to disclose, and I specifically don't ask to many questions when I buy a car (and I guiess a house) because I don't want to make liars out of the seller and then be angry at him later. I'd rather risk losing money on repairs.
I was able, and you might be too, to channel the leak away from the ceiling and either into a pot or to the edge of the house where it can drain through the soffitt screen.
My water was running down the side of the galvanized chimney, but I was still able to -- I forget, wick it away with some cloth so that it flowed to a channel I made on top of a piece of 16" by 8 foot plywood, or maybe I put some sort of skirt on the chimney without using any cloth.
You have to start some of this when it is dry, and some you have to do when it is raining to see what you are accomplishing. If you have no floor in the attic, be very careful you don'pt put holes in your ceiling or fall through. You can get some plywood, even scrap sometimes and put it up there.
Probably true.
She expected you to look at it. Did she say it was a good house to buy? If so, that's because she represented the seller.
I thought in some states it was illegal for even a real estate agent to represent both sides, but even if I'm right, punishment will only be administrative and she will deny that she ever told you she was representing you. I didn't know about this either when I bought a house and I had taken Real Property in law school. Of course I wasn't a good student and didn't graduate, so they might have said it and I missed it. (although property law is a big topic and discussing agents is sort of tangential.)
Generally the agent represents the seller, iiuc. That was certainly the case with me, as I learned later. In my case it wasn't the condition of the house, but the fact that I wanted to have a guaranteed move-in, and I made an offer to the agent to buy the house, with the promise that I could move in and rent if the mortgage didn't come through on time, because I was moving from out of state, and I had to be at work on a certain date. She said that would be a bad idea and the seller wouldn't want to do it (because I might move in, never get a mortgage, not want to move out, damage the house, etc.) I asked the owner of the real estate brokerage as he walked by and his answer was also that it was a bad idea.
But the law required them to relay any good-faith offer to the seller, and they didn't do that. I ended up postponing when I would start work by 2 weeks, and I needed the time to pack, but that doesn't make their behaviour any better. But since I didn't know the law at the time, and I knew they would just say I had suggested it, not made an actual offer, I didn't complain to any agency. I did however point out to them that I was in my 30's and I would meet dozens or hundreds of people in the neighborhoods they worked in who were about to buy their first house or a house, or sell their other house, and would want an agent, and I would never say anything good about them, or worse. (Two women working together, not counting the manager.) They seemed distressed, and that was fine. The whole company went out of business a few years later but I don't know why. I never talked to the boss except that one night before I bought the house.
I certainly wouldn't go to your agent again for any purpose, and I might complain to her boss, but be sure not to make false statments that could result in a libel suit. The truth sounds bad enough. Although the boss might not care because he got a share of the commission. Or he might because he wants to promote his company's reputtation.
You don't actually have to make statments against the agent. You can just say you're not satisfied with her and you won't be dealing with the company again or saying anything good about them. You'll tell your friends not to deal with the company. Those are not false statments and they're not libel.
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let me know if you have posted also.
look forward to your nice and dry future in your new home by protecting it with a new roof and gutter drainage system. call a roofer and plan to spend the $ your new home needs. lawyers aren't roofers. in buffalo ny we use and recommend:
I think your big problem right now is the leaking roof. You must stop this. Tarps right now and a good roofer as soon as it is warm enough. Hopefully once you fix the leak the house will dry out. You should start saving now for a complete new roof in the Spring. New deck, new boots, new flashing, new gutters, with luck some of the old stuff will be reusable. This will be very expensive. Get the tarps up now.
Sigh. Lawyers again. I wouldn't waste my time with an attorney at this point. The first thing is the roof needs to be fixed properly. It's unclear exactly what is wrong with it. You say the roofers that fixed it said they would not guarantee it because it's a recurring problem. I would think at that point you would have asked a lot of questions, as to what needs to be done to fix it properly. It may be that you need an entire new roof. But you need to find out and I would do it quickly before an even bigger problem, like mold results.
Second, I would get a home inspector in there now to evaluate the roof, and problems/damage directly related to it and to go over the rest of the house. It's better you find out now what else is wrong. You should have had an inspection prior to closing and it should have been spelled out in the purchase contract. I bet you didn't have a lawyer representing you involved either, right? The real estate agent represents the seller, who is paying the commission, not you. Her explanation for the lack of inspection is that since there was no financing that required one, it didn't need to be done. That is true, but anyone buying a home should have it inspected. And any real estate agent that is ethical should have it in the contract. Does that give you any real recourse against the agent? Doubtful.
Depending on what you find, you may or may not have a case against someone. The real question here is what is the extent of the problem. If it can be fixed with a new roof, you can forget about legal action with an attorney, cause it's not practical. No attorney is gonna take this kind of case on a contigency. And to pursue it you would be throwing good money after bad, with little chance of prevailing. How old is the roof? If it's seen a good portion of it's expected life, then that fact and the general condition of the roof would have been obvious to anyone who did a proper inspection before they bought it, even if the seller did know about some specific leaking area. And the seller is gonna say they had the leak fixed and as far as they knew, it was OK. Can you prove otherwise? Usually, that's pretty hard to do. If the amount turns out to be modest, you could file a case in small claims court, which gives you the best shot at recovering something. IMO, if you get off with the cost of a new roof, you really aren't that bad off.
On the other hand, if you find that there is a serious problem, like a bad mold problem, and it's gonna cost $50K to fix, then having an attorney work on it may be worth it.
Your friend is correct... even in "as is" sales, the seller is obligated to disclose any problems with the house. Your number one priority is to fix the roof properly. If there is mold, I would have the affected drywall on the ceiling replaced. Second, I would go back to the realtor's boss (the broker at the agency) and discuss the situation with him. They have liability insurance to cover their "mistakes". I would ask them who their insurance carrier is and perhaps that will light a fire and encourage him to do something for you. Unfortunately, the realtor may not have known that the seller was not disclosing pertinent information. Regardless, she she certainly did not represent you well by not strongly recommending that you get a home inspection. Good luck!
There are always learning experience for new home buyer, usually the hard way :o) First, before you even think about lawyers and contracts, you need a good roof that does not leak. If you don't know any reliable, licensed roofers, check with neighbors - best reference would come from someone who had reroof several years ago, still looks good, and minor (if any) return trips required for repair/correction.
Take photos of everything, especially shingles, damaged ceiling, and inside of attic space.
100% mortgage? There must have been an inspection done for the lender?
Any shingles missing? Curled? Bare of granules? Cracked? What, roughly, is area of house?
Are there vents or joints in the area above the leak?
If you have no idea when the roof was put on, you may be able to find out by looking for building permit. Installer did not necessarilly obtain one, though.
While I agree with this, the lack of disclosure of an existing problem prior to sale is likely to be a cause of action. Perhaps the buyer wishes to void the sale rather than repair the roof.
I don't know what state you are in but there is no basic legal reqirement to disclose that a roof leaks or to disclose any other problems about a house except for federal disclosures about lead paint , asbestos and buried oil tanks, plus of course any specific sate requirement. Even then the seller is not absolutely liable if he checks "unknown" on his disclosure Q&A; only if the seller made a speciifc claim in the realtor's Q&A sheet or some other verbal claim that the roof does NOT leak MIGHT he be liable. As most posters recognize, the buyers here should be concerned about finding a reliable roofer and getting the problem repaired rather than wasting their eneregy looking to lay blame for their own lack of knowledge and common sense. The buyers must have read at least one article or talked to one person about buying a house and every half baked article on home buying tells the buyer to order a home inspection. Must people be coddled till they reach social security age or are turned into solent green! Get a home inspection; get a new roof; get on with enjoying the new home.
"chattycat" wrote in message news:H4_Of.40369$kp3.37622@fed1read03...
Do you mean by this that you or your family provided all the money? Or that you borrowed all the money from a bank or some other institution?
I thought you meant you borrowed all the money from a bank and since it's your first house, I certainly thought that.
If you provided all the money, there is no lender to impose requirements on you. So yes, it's true that no one would insist that you get one..
I hope this story doesn't offend you, since you have problems of your own, but it is sort of relevant.
In fact this happened to me. The mortgage company told me 30 days. I did nothing to delay them. But the mortgage wasn't ready when the 45 day contract was expiring. Lucky for me I have a brother who had a lot of money in money market, because he was looking for a business to buy. He lent me 55,000 dollars. Because I wasn't borrowing money, no one at the closing insisted that I have homeowner's insurance. No one even mentioned it. (I got it anyhow, of course.)
By this time the interest rates had gone so much lower that even with high application costs, it was cheaper to start over with another lender, and my brother said I could keep the money for 30 days, which is what the second bank said also. Instead it took them 75 days to approve the mortgage, even though I did nothing to slow them down.
So there was a second mini-closing, without the seller, when I signed the mortgage and got the money to repay my brother. And for some reason, no one brought up the subject of homeowners insurance then either. They didn't ask for evideence that I had gotten any. (Could they have looked that up somewhere and seen that I had it without even asking me?)
Don't forget. Even if you do have a claim against the seller or the agent, you have to do everything you can reasonably do to mitigate damages. To make the damage to the house and the cost of repairing it as little as possible. That's the law. I know your intention is not to let it rot, but if you get depressed or something, or thing someone else will pay, you will be responible for anything that got damaged that wouldn't have if you had made diligent efforts to prevent the added damage. So tarps on the roof, even if you have to pay someone to do it, unless you can stop it your self from inside the attic. Depends on where all it is leaking.
I'm in California and we are absolutely legally obligated to disclose issues such as roof leaks. And the lack of disclosure does make the seller liable here in California. I've sold and bought homes "as is" and all it meant was that I was not willing to negotiate who would pay for any necessary repairs.
Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the best course of action is to fix the roof and move on. But I still believe the realtor did not fulfill her legal obligation to represent the the best interests of the buyer by not recommending a home inspection (especially to a first time buyer). California also has strict laws regarding the duties of a realtor. Not passing the blame as you suggest but expecting people to abide by the law.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.