From: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Who's responsible for hail damage occurring between inspection and closing?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:55:51 +0000 (UTC)

bigjim@backpacker.com writes:
>To win in court the buyers need to PROVE two things:
>  1. There is in fact serious hail damage that occured after (not
>before) their inspection. If damage occurred prior to inspection the
>buyer needs to go after inspector.
>  2. That the sellers knew of said hail damage and did n ot repair
>and/or disclose such damage.

If, indeed, trader4 is correct that the law requires the house to be
delivered at closing in essentially the same condition it was in when
the P&S was signed, then the second condition you list above is simply
not necessary.

>  Without those two things, byer is just wasting time. They should have
>made a closer inspection at walkthrough.  Thats what a judge will say.
>AS-IS means just that.

The question is whether the legal concept of the house being sold
"as-is" means "as-is at the closing" as opposed to "as-is when the
contract was signed."

To summarize the situation as I see it:

* Whether there really is substantial damage to the roof requiring
repair is still in question.  As others have pointed out, regular hail
shouldn't damage a proper roof that's in good condition, and the people
looking at the roof and claiming that it needs repairs have a vested
interest in saying that and may be assuming that the repair is going to
be paid for by the insurance company.  I think the advice given to the
OP to get a second opinion and to have the roofer who gives that
opinion actually take the owner up on the roof and show him the damage
is a good idea.

* Another question which is still up in the air is whether the seller
was obligated to disclose the possibility of hail damage if they knew
about it.  As I've noted previously, that depends on the state in which
the house is located; some states require disclosure of all material
facts, while others do not.

* It is not at all clear-cut whether the seller is liable to for
repairing the cost of the damage because the house was delivered was
not in the same condition as it was in when the P&S was signed.  There
are some people asserting here that such liability exists and others
asserting that it does not; I suspect that none of the people
asserting either opinion are real estate lawyers, and even if they
are, none of them know what state the house is located in, so they
can't know specifically what the laws in that state would require.

* Even if the seller is liable, if lawyers end up being involved in
forcing them to pay, the lawyers will cost thousands of dollars.  It
is therefore almost certainly not cost-effective to pursue legal
action against the sellers.  The exception to this would be if the
buyer can prove that the sellers knew or should have known about the
damage AND the state in which the house is located has a mandatory
disclosure law AND that mandatory disclosure law allows the seller to
recover legal expenses from the buyer if a lawsuit derives from a
failure to disclose.

* The advice I offered before still seems like the best course of
action for the OP.  Find a good lawyer and ask for a free consultation
to find out whether you've got a case.

-- 
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/