statute of limitations

[Chris]

Does anyone know what the statute of limitiations in the state of maryland is for filing a suit against a home seller and or a real estate agent for not disclosing a defect, and possibly making a fraudulent claim about the house's integrity?

short story--

house was advertised to me as having waterproof basement. not so. half of the basement has a french drain. the other half has a trench to collect water and divert it to the drain..

I have consulted a few people about this.. they said "Oh, that's the old way of doing it." (the drain was installed in the 80's.) but, a water proofing company was here tonight, and flat out told me that whatever I was told was wrong-- that it is not a waterproofed basement.. and, I could bring this against the seller and the real estate agent. Only half of the basement is water proofed, the other half is some hodgepodge system that was probably done by the old owner. He only had the half that was a real problem done, and just fudged the rest (even putting up wood panelled walls up to hide the trench.

I wasn't paying this any mind, because whatever this system was was working ok and I just thought it was the "old way", but I found an area that isn't, and it is getting worse.. and it was masked by the makeshift wall..

I have lived in the house for 2 1/4 years.. the guy here tonight thinks that the statute is 3 years.

[bigjim]

[HeyBub]

Three years.

[trader4]

There is no such thing as a "wateproof" basement. There are a variety of solutions that will attempt to limit water and moisture intrusion into a basement, but from a practical standpoint, nothing can really guarantee that a basement is waterproof. And what exactly does waterproof mean? The seller could very well argue that whatever system he had in place, which you say was working so you paid it no mind for 2 1/2 years, was in fact, waterproofing, because it kept the basement floor dry.

I think you're going to have a very difficult time prevailing in a basement water case when you didn't make any claim until 2 1/2 years after the sale. And from a practical standpoint, you're limited to small claims, because it isn't going to be worth the legal expense to pursue this, unless you want to throw good money after bad.

[J.A. Michel]

There's no such thing as a waterproof basement. Getting the home inspected prior to buying might have been a good idea.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Have you had water in the basement? If no, then it must be waterproof. What is "getting worse" ?

If yes, you may have a difficult time proving anything. Do you have copies of the advertisement? The seller may have been mis-led by a sleazy contractor. What damages have you had? What do you expect to get? I can see you pissing away a lot of money and your lawyer buying a new car while you can't afford a scooter after paying him. Basing a lawsuite on what one "expert" told you is not very good as the other side will have plenty of experts also. And they all get paid to testify or give depositions.

[mm]

His case may not be typical.

Even with an 'as is' sale, the seller can be liable for false representations**. You'll be happy to know that if you ever get screwed.

Whether the OP was screwed or not is another question.

Basically I agree with Trader4

**Contracts for the sale of land have to be in writing. I don't remember if that would mean that a representation that something is waterproof, or has 200amp service, or whatever, would also have to be in writing.

[Steve B]

Get yourself to an attorney and very very soon.

Steve

[dpb]

That it took over 2 years is a big strike against you, but if (as someone apparently found) it is 3 years under statute of limitations, your claim could still be valid. Steve B has the right answer on whether you have a claim or not -- you'll need to talk w/ an attorney and provide him w/ the facts of the representation. I'm presuming as in most states Maryland has a disclosure form that must be filled out that is supposed to itemize known issues. What that document says in its assertion is probably the only real representation made by the seller/agent that is sustainable as a claim. If it doesn't make excessive claims, then you probably don't sufficient evidence of misrepresentation and/or fraud to get a judgement. The finished wall would be hard on the existence only to prove as cover-up -- it may well be the previous owner was simply too optimistic (as many are).

[Art]

Do you know whether there is an outside perimeter drain?

[aemeijers]

I quite agree- money spent chasing this would be better spent saving up to get it fixed correctly, assuming the foundation is otherwise in good shape. Ie, dig up the outside of that half of basement, seal properly, add footer drains, backfill properly, etc. Lawyers ain't cheap.

aem sends....

[Toller]

I agree, but it is worse than that. The law would only cover something that was not readily apparent. What he describes should be pretty obvious.

And he does not seem to have been damaged. He hasn't suffered a loss, and can hardly demand the cost of making the basement "waterproof". So even if he could show they deceived him, he would still lose.

[bigjim]

[longshot]

i see you wasting lots of money on lawyers & winning nothing. what would you like to accomplish? him refunding your money & taking the house back? that would probably be a sweet deal for him, unless your market has tanked. your mortgage payments would probably be considered "rent" for the time you have been there. JMO

[deke]

When fraud is involved, the statute doesn't start to run until the fraud is discovered.

You are in luck. Your title insurance will pay you 4 million dollars and you can still sue the owner and agent for 10 million and win every time. You can bank on it.

[Banty]

The inspection likely would have missed it, it being on the other side of a wall.

You're right that this all depends on the definition of "waterproofed". What I think he describes is an older-type "cove" system. That is one way of dealing with it. A waterproofing company saying it wasn't waterproofed is no more than a sales pitch to have their system put in instead, hoping you'd contract with them expecting some future settlement!

So, in pursuing this legally, he faces:

1. What he or the owner meant by "waterproofed". He'd need an engineer, and a

*disinterested* engineer, to make a statement on that.

1. If the previous owner intended to cover up. It isnt' known when the wall went up. Was the previous owner the first owner of the house?? And, again, there's the whole question if he truly honestly considered it waterproofed. And if that may possibly may *still* be said, only that the waterproofing system needs some repair.

I agree with others here - best to put the money to a solution. The first thing I see that needs to be done is for him to consult an independant engineer.

Banty

[hallerb]

d=2E =A0And

lets say a neighbor was aware of water troubles but it wasnt disclosed on that form YOU WIN the seller pays for water control on the basement.

fear of this keeps sellers honest.

so how much $$ will fixing it cost?

[Banty]

Meaning - what. The OP should talk to his neighbors about it? OK, maybe. Would said neighbor care to get involved in a lawsuit, though?

Depends on the problem and the fix.

Not sure about your points...

Banty

[Goedjn]

You got "waterproof" in writing?

[Goedjn]

Yes, but this guy is asking for legal advice on Usenet, and jurys are often more sympathetic when the plaintif is mentally defective. Taking advantage of speds is just plain wrong.