The REAL ESTATE ANSWER I GOT

[Heartnsoul]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune.

[margaretmattson]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune. Tell them a verbal from an "irrigation guy" was not part of your contract. A licensed home inspector IS. If you can't show me a clear report from a licensed home inspector, Deal is off!

If the home inspector returns and sees no issues, you will know with certainty the problem has been fixed. The cost will ONLY be for a second inspection. Attorney fees will be much more.

If the agent refuses, you have the right to call the inspector and have him check the fix. Again, cost will only be for a second inspection.

[Stu from NYC]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune.

Do not recall, have you hired a home inspection company to inspect the house. If so go to them if not, seriously consider hiring one.

Hope all goes well with husband surgery

[Heartnsoul]

Do not recall, have you hired a home inspection company to inspect the house. If so go to them if not, seriously consider hiring one.

Hope all goes well with husband surgery

Yes. He found water damage

[Topspinmo]

I would just call the inspector see what he finds? Then go from there?


Wouldn’t the neighbor be responsible for any damage? IMO this most stupidest thing developer did put popups under the roof overhang house of next door property owner house. IMO that 1 foot are is for drainage and should be nothing in it including irrigation up against neighbors house. If I had those in my yard (which I don’t corner lot) I would remove popups and cap them off relieve me of any responsibility of damaging neighbors property.

This orbit popup will fail due to white bushing deteriorating and cracking. IMO wise to remove and at least replace with different design.

[Aces4]

This is such a tenuous solution and you are under such pressure. I, personally, would NOT close on this property.

If they allow a clause on the sale contract that the seller will be financially responsible for any continuing water difficulties in that area or knock $5,000. off the price, maybe... There is a reason the seller wants out, IMHO.

[retiredguy123]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune.
I wouldn't go through with the closing. You should be able to get an attorney to send a letter to the broker and the escrow company demanding that the sales contract be cancelled. A simple letter shouldn't cost a fortune. The earnest money is in escrow and it does not belong to the broker. It should not be used as a ransom.

[Velvet]

Call D’Angelo - he did my home inspection and you can completely rely on him. One time I called them about a water leak in the garage, he asked me to describe it. And he told me, over the phone, it was the irrigation. When we changed the nozzle, the problem was solved. D’Angelo didn’t charge a penny for his help.

[retiredguy123]

This is such a tenuous solution and you are under such pressure. I, personally, would NOT close on this property.

If they allow a clause on the sale contract that the seller will be financially responsible for any continuing water difficulties in that area or knock $5,000. off the price, maybe... There is a reason the seller wants out, IMHO.
I agree with not closing on the house. But, the title company would never allow a contingency clause like that at the closing.

[Velvet]

Don’t pay the title company UNTIL your terms are met. My agent would not give me the keys to the house no matter how many times I asked because she wanted to be the property manager when I was away as a snowflake. I wrote on the title document that I did not receive the keys and can’t get into the house and therefore, can’t pay for this. The title company called me as I was 2000 miles away and said it wasn’t their concern. But they let the broker know and the keys were delivered to my northern address. Then I paid the title company.

[scubawva]

Do not recall, have you hired a home inspection company to inspect the house. If so go to them if not, seriously consider hiring one.

Hope all goes well with husband surgery
You contact an attorney - the same advice you’ve been receiving for about a week. It won’t be a fortune for help on this issue. RvR on spending a few hundred on an attorney v the cost of settling in this house is significant.
Do NOT accept the word if agent, contact attorney NOW.

[Velvet]

You contact an attorney - the same advice you’ve been receiving for about a week. It won’t be a fortune for help on this issue. RvR on spending a few hundred on an attorney v the cost of settling in this house is significant.
Do NOT accept the word if agent, contact attorney NOW.

I wouldn’t. An attorney can’t fix the leak or tell where it’s from, or what else might be wrong with the house, but they can sure charge!

[Aces4]

I agree with not closing on the house. But, the title company would never allow a contingency clause like that at the closing.


Most likely not but it would give them some ground to stand on for not closing. The current owner cannot guarantee this won't be an ongoing or increasing problem at this point.

[Velvet]

It would depend on the wording of your sales agreement, did it say, you bought the house in “as is” condition, or that all things work based on the findings of your home inspector? If the first case, then you have to go along with the closing. I assume it is not a new house. That would be under warranty. It’s worth looking into this because it may effect your house insurance premium, or even if you get one.

[frayedends]

Wouldn’t the original home inspector just go back and check out the repair? Can’t the seller provide the quote and invoice for the repair. This seems very simple. Apart from that you would look at it during your final walkthrough. If they found an issue and corrected it then this could all be fine. There isn’t always some nefarious intent.

[bagboy]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune.

I just read your original post again. If you hired a professional home inspector per your real estate purchase agreement, and he/she found water damage (that you already said you want no part of), and has documented that in his/her written report, this transaction is done. Absolutely no way you should proceed with the purchase.
In my opinion, you should in writing notify the broker holding your deposit in their escrow account along with a copy of the inspection report, that you are NOT proceeding with the sale, and you want your good faith deposit returned with x number if days. When that time frame expires, if you have not received your funds back, seek out and consult with an independent attorney specializing in real estate law.
This should be a cut and dried situation detailed in your purchase agreement. IMO, the broker and agent(s) know this. Good luck to you and husband, and keep in mind there will be other properties for sale in the future.

[Aces4]

Wouldn’t the original home inspector just go back and check out the repair? Can’t the seller provide the quote and invoice for the repair. This seems very simple. Apart from that you would look at it during your final walkthrough. If they found an issue and corrected it then this could all be fine. There isn’t always some nefarious intent.


Perhaps not, but wouldn't the current owner have noticed a wet closet floor? Why buy a home with unresolved issues when the purchaser has so much on her plate now and a short time until closing? It doesn't make sense to me to risk that much when it's not necessary.

[Velvet]

Wouldn’t the original home inspector just go back and check out the repair? Can’t the seller provide the quote and invoice for the repair. This seems very simple. Apart from that you would look at it during your final walkthrough. If they found an issue and corrected it then this could all be fine. There isn’t always some nefarious intent.

Yes, but…
My agent recommended the home inspector who I found out later, even though I would have paid, was working for her, not me. I used D’Angelo who worked for me. I knew I was working with someone unethical (agent), but I used to be in real estate myself for a short while.

[retiredguy123]

I wouldn’t. An attorney can’t fix the leak or tell where it’s from, or what else might be wrong with the house, but they can sure charge!
I would normally avoid a lawyer like the plague, but not in this case. The broker is licensed by the state and must follow the state's laws of ethics. That means that they have a fiduciary duty to both the buyer and the seller, even if they don't legally represent them. This broker knows that the buyer doesn't want to buy the house, that there is good reason to be concerned about future mold or other consequences related to a water leak, and that the buyer's husband has a serious illness. Yet, the broker is misrepresenting the status of the earnest money that is in escrow so that they can unload an unwanted house to get a commission. The broker cannot legally take the earnest money, but they are telling the buyer that they can as a scare tactic. Outrageous. The OP needs an attorney.

[Topspinmo]

Wouldn’t the original home inspector just go back and check out the repair? Can’t the seller provide the quote and invoice for the repair. This seems very simple. Apart from that you would look at it during your final walkthrough. If they found an issue and corrected it then this could all be fine. There isn’t always some nefarious intent.

The repair was done by neighbor why should seller be responsible for neighbor that damaged his house?

[Velvet]

I would normally avoid a lawyer like the plague, but not in this case. The broker is licensed by the state and must follow the state's laws of ethics. That means that they have a fiduciary duty to both the buyer and the seller, even if they don't legally represent them. This broker knows that the buyer doesn't want to buy the house, that there is good reason to be concerned about future mold or other consequences related to a water leak, and that the buyer's husband has a serious illness. Yet, the broker is misrepresenting the status of the earnest money that is in escrow so that they can unload an unwanted house to get a commission. The broker cannot legally take the earnest money, but they are telling the buyer that they can as a scare tactic. Outrageous. The OP needs an attorney.

Well, your advice is invariably great. I defer.

[margaretmattson]

Wouldn’t the original home inspector just go back and check out the repair? Can’t the seller provide the quote and invoice for the repair. This seems very simple. Apart from that you would look at it during your final walkthrough. If they found an issue and corrected it then this could all be fine. There isn’t always some nefarious intent.Agree completely. Simply get the home inspector to go back. The inspector will not lie or coverup a problem that has not been repaired to standards.. He is a licensed professional. Home will not close until the buyer is satisfied with the final walkthrough. The Agent is just wasting time for no reason. Home inspector is the right solution.

[dougjb]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune.

How do you know an attorney will cost a fortune? Moreover, what will cost more, an attorney or repairing a potential water issue in a house? What will cost more, an attorney or the cost of a failing house? How much does the house cost? How much does an attorney cost? Have you consulted any lawyer about his or her pricing?

To me it sounds like you just have never dealt with an attorney and know nothing about the pricing of an attorney's services!

[Topspinmo]

I just read your original post again. If you hired a professional home inspector per your real estate purchase agreement, and he/she found water damage (that you already said you want no part of), and has documented that in his/her written report, this transaction is done. Absolutely no way you should proceed with the purchase.
In my opinion, you should in writing notify the broker holding your deposit in their escrow account along with a copy of the inspection report, that you are NOT proceeding with the sale, and you want your good faith deposit returned with x number if days. When that time frame expires, if you have not received your funds back, seek out and consult with an independent attorney specializing in real estate law.
This should be a cut and dried situation detailed in your purchase agreement. IMO, the broker and agent(s) know this. Good luck to you and husband, and keep in mind there will be other properties for sale in the future.

That check shouldn’t be cashed till closing day IMO. Otherwise IMO it’s stealing.

[Normal]

The hook is set, the real estate agent and the seller who hired him in no way wants you to get off the line. This sounds like a very dangerous situation financially.

[frayedends]

Perhaps not, but wouldn't the current owner have noticed a wet closet floor? Why buy a home with unresolved issues when the purchaser has so much on her plate now and a short time until closing? It doesn't make sense to me to risk that much when it's not necessary.

No idea why the owner didn’t notice. But why buy the home? Because they signed a contract to buy the home and allowing for repairs of inspection issues. Imagine you are the seller. A new issue arises just before inspection. You didn’t know about it and you are moving to a home you purchased. You need to sell your home to buy your new home. Everything seems fine but then there is a repair needed. You make the repair and fulfill your obligation under the purchase ageeement. Then the buyer gets cold feet and backs out. You did everything right and now you are screwed.

I’m sorry but people need to understand their contract and follow them. There are 2 sides to every story. In this case the buyer should be provided proof of repair and the. They should buy the house as agreed. Of course if the seller won’t supply documentation of repair then I’m on the buyer’s side.

[frayedends]

The repair was done by neighbor why should seller be responsible for neighbor that damaged his house?

I seem to have missed that part. But the seller does have to show that it was repaired properly. I’m sure the neighbor would provide that info.

[frayedends]

The hook is set, the real estate agent and the seller who hired him in no way wants you to get off the line. This sounds like a very dangerous situation financially.

By hook is set you mean the purchase and sale agreement is signed. By not wanting to let them off the line you mean not want the buyer to break a contract they signed. By the way the seller could be on the hook for their deposit on another purchase if their buyer backs out.

[Velvet]

No idea why the owner didn’t notice. But why buy the home? Because they signed a contract to buy the home and allowing for repairs of inspection issues. Imagine you are the seller. A new issue arises just before inspection. You didn’t know about it and you are moving to a home you purchased. You need to sell your home to buy your new home. Everything seems fine but then there is a repair needed. You make the repair and fulfill your obligation under the purchase ageeement. Then the buyer gets cold feet and backs out. You did everything right and now you are screwed.

I’m sorry but people need to understand their contract and follow them. There are 2 sides to every story. In this case the buyer should be provided proof of repair and the. They should buy the house as agreed. Of course if the seller won’t supply documentation of repair then I’m on the buyer’s side.

That is why the buyer needs to hire her own home inspector to make sure that everything is fine and then they go ahead. If everything is fine ACCORDING TO HER OWN INSPECTOR, then she should go ahead with the contract. I would never trust an inspector suggested by the seller or agent, I don’t care what certification they have.

[retiredguy123]

No idea why the owner didn’t notice. But why buy the home? Because they signed a contract to buy the home and allowing for repairs of inspection issues. Imagine you are the seller. A new issue arises just before inspection. You didn’t know about it and you are moving to a home you purchased. You need to sell your home to buy your new home. Everything seems fine but then there is a repair needed. You make the repair and fulfill your obligation under the purchase ageeement. Then the buyer gets cold feet and backs out. You did everything right and now you are screwed.

I’m sorry but people need to understand their contract and follow them. There are 2 sides to every story. In this case the buyer should be provided proof of repair and the. They should buy the house as agreed. Of course if the seller won’t supply documentation of repair then I’m on the buyer’s side.
What about the escrow company? In a typical real estate sales contract, the earnest money is held by a third party in an escrow account that does not belong to either the buyer or the seller. The earnest money is rarely ever forfeited because the purpose of it is to demonstrate that the buyer is serious about buying the house, not to be used as a threat or penalty against the buyer to force a sale. But, the broker has told the buyer that they will automatically forfeit the money if they don't complete the sale. Totally not true. What is wrong with the buyer asking an attorney to review the contract, explain their rights, and ask the escrow company to refund the earnest money? The escrow company is the decider here, not the broker. It sounds like this broker has not treated the buyer ethically or in a fair and fiduciary manner, as required by law.

[Heartnsoul]

Just did. He's to busy. I can't even find a RE ATTORNEY

[retiredguy123]

Just did. He's to busy. I can't even find a RE ATTORNEY
Call McLin Burnsed, 352-753-4690.

[frayedends]

What about the escrow company? In a typical real estate sales contract, the earnest money is held by a third party in an escrow account that does not belong to either the buyer or the seller. The earnest money is rarely ever forfeited because the purpose of it is to demonstrate that the buyer is serious about buying the house, not to be used as a threat or penalty against the buyer to force a sale. But, the broker has told the buyer that they will automatically forfeit the money if they don't complete the sale. Totally not true. What is wrong with the buyer asking an attorney to review the contract, explain their rights, and ask the escrow company to refund the earnest money? The escrow company is the decider here, not the broker. It sounds like this broker has not treated the buyer ethically or in a fair and fiduciary manner, as required by law.

The buyer should consult an attorney if they aren’t clear on the contract. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think the escrow company is a decision maker. They are just holding the money. At some point a decision has to be made to release it or not. If no agreement it would have to go to court. The escrow company can’t decide who is right.

You are correct that it is very rare for a seller to keep the deposit. There’s always some loophole and even if no loophole it’s difficult to keep the money. That being said the deposit is to prove the buyer is serious. But if the buyer doesn’t risk losing it then it’s meaningless. It sounds to me that the seller did what was required and the buyer should not be backing out. There could be details missing and assumptions I’m making based only on what I’ve read in the threads.

[retiredguy123]

The buyer should consult an attorney if they aren’t clear on the contract. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think the escrow company is a decision maker. They are just holding the money. At some point a decision has to be made to release it or not. If no agreement it would have to go to court. The escrow company can’t decide who is right.

You are correct that it is very rare for a seller to keep the deposit. There’s always some loophole and even if no loophole it’s difficult to keep the money. That being said the deposit is to prove the buyer is serious. But if the buyer doesn’t risk losing it then it’s meaningless. It sounds to me that the seller did what was required and the buyer should not be backing out. There could be details missing and assumptions I’m making based only on what I’ve read in the threads.
Everything you said is correct, except that the buyer should complete the sale. There is no indication that the buyer was not serious about the house until the inspection revealed water damage. But, the broker is trying to convince the buyer that they, the broker, can decide to keep the earnest money, which is totally wrong. That is why the buyer needs an attorney to even the playing field. In my opinion, the broker will not want to go to court on this issue.

[Topspinmo]

No idea why the owner didn’t notice. But why buy the home? Because they signed a contract to buy the home and allowing for repairs of inspection issues. Imagine you are the seller. A new issue arises just before inspection. You didn’t know about it and you are moving to a home you purchased. You need to sell your home to buy your new home. Everything seems fine but then there is a repair needed. You make the repair and fulfill your obligation under the purchase ageeement. Then the buyer gets cold feet and backs out. You did everything right and now you are screwed.

I’m sorry but people need to understand their contract and follow them. There are 2 sides to every story. In this case the buyer should be provided proof of repair and the. They should buy the house as agreed. Of course if the seller won’t supply documentation of repair then I’m on the buyer’s side.

Well owner may not be living in house or in area. IMO it’s all neighbors fault for not maintaining irrigation and not noticing the gusher flooding neighbors house whether it just happens or not. IMO the neighbor responsible regardless what happens between seller and buyer.

This should be wake up call to use than live in CYVs. Make sure irrigation in top notch shape up against neighbors house or cap it off. If I was owner I’d be going after neighbor being they caused damage.

[Aces4]

No idea why the owner didn’t notice. But why buy the home? Because they signed a contract to buy the home and allowing for repairs of inspection issues. Imagine you are the seller. A new issue arises just before inspection. You didn’t know about it and you are moving to a home you purchased. You need to sell your home to buy your new home. Everything seems fine but then there is a repair needed. You make the repair and fulfill your obligation under the purchase ageeement. Then the buyer gets cold feet and backs out. You did everything right and now you are screwed.

I’m sorry but people need to understand their contract and follow them. There are 2 sides to every story. In this case the buyer should be provided proof of repair and the. They should buy the house as agreed. Of course if the seller won’t supply documentation of repair then I’m on the buyer’s side.


This isn't a simple, "the dryer vent was loose", type issue. Water seepage into a home is a huge issue and the only side to this story is there's no guarantee the fix is for the issue without time. She doesn't have this and her husband is ill. That's the seller's problem to iron out completely, not an unsuspecting buyer.

[retiredguy123]

This isn't a simple, "the dryer vent was loose", type issue. Water seepage into a home is a huge issue and the only side to this story is there's no guarantee the fix is for the issue without time. She doesn't have this and her husband is ill. That's the seller's problem to iron out completely, not an unsuspecting buyer.
I totally agree. I would also add that it is a legitimate reason to cancel the sales contract. The seller failed to disclose the water damage, which was visible, even if she didn't know about it. The licensed broker has a duty to treat the buyer fairly, and to not take advantage of them. That is their duty as a licensed professional.

[frayedends]

I’ll disagree with you folks with just the caveat that we don’t know everything. It should be easy to ascertain if the problem was fixed correctly. It should be easy to ascertain if the contract allowed the seller to fix the issue. If the contract said the seller could fix issues unless they were serious or major, well okay, back out. But what if this was a newly sprung irrigation leak, quickly fixed and no longer an issue? No reason for the buyer to back out.

Any of us could be correct and the OP needs to do their due diligence to determine if this issue was properly addressed.

I’ve seen similar instance in the past where a seller fixed a pipe. The buyer, being a flipper with construction experience didn’t feel the fix was adequate. He backed out but it was a long battle and nightmare.

[Aces4]

I’ll disagree with you folks with just the caveat that we don’t know everything. It should be easy to ascertain if the problem was fixed correctly. It should be easy to ascertain if the contract allowed the seller to fix the issue. If the contract said the seller could fix issues unless they were serious or major, well okay, back out. But what if this was a newly sprung irrigation leak, quickly fixed and no longer an issue? No reason for the buyer to back out.

Any of us could be correct and the OP needs to do their due diligence to determine if this issue was properly addressed.

I’ve seen similar instance in the past where a seller fixed a pipe. The buyer, being a flipper with construction experience didn’t feel the fix was adequate. He backed out but it was a long battle and nightmare.



And if the cause of the leak is the neighbors sprinkler, who is to say that it won't happen again once the house is sold. Why buy a problem when they are ill-equipped to deal with that issue and the seller needs to straighten it out prior to listing again.

[manaboutown]

If I were in the OP's shoes I would have found and gone to a well respected local real estate attorney within minutes of being told I could not get my deposit returned. I would have taken all my paperwork as the attorney could not help me without having and examining it. The attorney would have listened to my story, read through the relevant contract(s) and any other documents that may have pertained to the matter and consequently have taken action - or not if nothing could be done - which I doubt. A letter or even a short phone call to the broker/agent from the attorney probably costing $200 - $500 would likely have resulted in a timely refund of the deposit.

If there was any doubt of my deposit being refunded I would have obtained an inspection from an independent inspector paid by me and not affiliated with or suggested by the broker. The inspector would have been one highly experienced with homes in The Villages. This would have provided me in detail with the damage to the property, mold issues and so on.

IMHO with your husband experiencing the medical issues you have reported in your posts the last thing either one of you needs is the stress from trying to handle this on your own if you feel unqualified to do so.

Best wishes for your husband's health and a positive end to this matter for you!

[frayedends]

And if the cause of the leak is the neighbors sprinkler, who is to say that it won't happen again once the house is sold. Why buy a problem when they are ill-equipped to deal with that issue and the seller needs to straighten it out prior to listing again.

It's the Villages, all the homes are 10 feet from each other. It could happen again or happen at the next house. If it has been fixed as they have said it was the reason to buy the house is because the seller met all the contract requirements. We all buy our houses knowing stuff can go wrong and break in the future.

[Aces4]

It's the Villages, all the homes are 10 feet from each other. It could happen again or happen at the next house. If it has been fixed as they have said it was the reason to buy the house is because the seller met all the contract requirements. We all buy our houses knowing stuff can go wrong and break in the future.


Having over 20 successful property closings in our lives, we would not buy this property. We'd never buy a property which has had a recent water issue. That's just us but we've never been scorched in all those closings for that reason.

[frayedends]

Having over 20 successful property closings in our lives, we would not buy this property. We'd never buy a property which has had a recent water issue. That's just us but we've never been scorched in all those closings for that reason.

I look at as a broken irrigation line differently than “a water issue “. I mean, yeah it’s water. But it’s not like a high ground water table or flooding.

[MplsPete]

Will someone explain this to me? As I read this, there is this strange (to me) system in TV, where those little irrigation sprayers that sit in the ground, are mounted on your neighbors" house, just below the roof, like 10-12 feet off the ground? Or am I confused?

[JMintzer]

Will someone explain this to me? As I read this, there is this strange (to me) system in TV, where those little irrigation sprayers that sit in the ground, are mounted on your neighbors" house, just below the roof, like 10-12 feet off the ground? Or am I confused?

When a sprinkler head breaks, you can get a geyser, which can shoot 10-12' in the air, hitting under the eaves...

[huge-pigeons]

Run run run away. So they determined the cause, now the real work starts. You got water in your room that came from your soffit, thru your attic, down the wall, and soaked your carpet and pad. You need to replace the attic insulation, you need to open up the drywall and replace that insulation, and replace the wet drywall, then you need to pick up the carpet and pad and replace that. Where there is water there will be mold down the road.

[Bob04090]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune.

Call this home inspector. John Waldrop 352-602-9819. We used him and there was a water issue and he came back after the repairs to make sure they repaired them correctly. Don't go on the word of the irrigation guy.

[MikeN]

A verbal “it’s fixed” means nothing. Use a home inspection company. Several good ones here. Hopefully your husband’s surgery goes well

[BostonTom]

I would cancel that contract and run. There are plenty of houses around. With everything you got going on I would wait until after the surgery. They will have to give you money back. Don't listen to the real estate agent their main objective is to get the commission.

[virtue51]

As many have said, do no purchase the home -- there could be numerous problems due to the water in the closet including mold, etc. You should be given the money back. If not, you can consult with an attorney. An attorney will not cost a fortune. Where I lived previously, an attorney was required for the closing. In Florida, an attorney is not needed to purchase a home. I hired a real estate attorney when I was in the process of purchasing my home in The Villages. This is the biggest single item that most people will purchase -- spending hundreds of thousand of dollars -- I wanted to make sure everything was fine.

You are under a lot of stress -- do not purchase the home. The seller wants to sell the home and the real estate agent wants to get their commission. Look out for yourself. Get your money back and look for another home.

[airstreamingypsy]

I would run away from this deal, that's what contingencies and inspections are for. If they won't return the contingency money right away, the escrow company will eventually return it..... it takes a few years though.

[sallyg]

So sorry for all the stress. Do not close on the house! The realtor and irrigation guy are not your friends. Get a new realtor and look at another house.

[retiredguy123]

I would run away from this deal, that's what contingencies and inspections are for. If they won't return the contingency money right away, the escrow company will eventually return it..... it takes a few years though.
It shouldn't take years, but a letter to the escrow company, preferably from an attorney, should ensure that they will not release the money to the broker or to the seller.

[RickLake]

You've got some great replies already, I just wanted to offer prayers for your husband's upcoming surgery and for your Peace and well being too.

[Dlbonivich]

I am wondering who your buyers agent is in this transaction? I would ask for an extension of the inspection period , in writing. I would get a reinspection with a water detection meter and decide from there. You should not be under pressure by anyone they should grant an extension for you to for you to do your due diligence. If you need help call me 281-513-1250 and I can talk to you, sorry you’re going through this and prayers for your husband

[Dlbonivich]

Who is your buyers agent? Get a reinspection. Ask for an extension of the inspection period. If you need help call me 281-514-1250. I can look at your contract

[retiredguy123]

Who is your buyers agent? Get a reinspection. Ask for an extension of the inspection period. If you need help call me 281-514-1250. I can look at your contract
There is no buyer's agent. The seller's agent has asked for an extension, not the buyer. I wouldn't extend anything. Just ask to cancel the sales contract because of the water damage that I don't think any inspector can guarantee won't result in future mold damage. The earnest money should be refunded to the buyer. I do agree with reading the contract to see if there are any unusual clauses.

[HORNET]

For anyone following my post, the latest is the R.E. AGENT called me to tell me they figured it out and NOT to worry. It was a broken water sprinkler head. I asked who determined that? He said irrigation guy. He said it's fixed and all dry now. How do I know for sure. I'm under so much pressure. Husband going for brain surgery Monday. Deadline almost up. What do I do??? Attorney will charge a fortune. wouldn’t believe that, houses here are built on a slab, and the irrigation nozzle seem far fetched! But that just me.

[RRGuyNJ]

I have been watching this story from the beginning. I hope we hear the out come.
After reading all the run away comments I would have to say that's how to approach this, then no one should ever buy a house in The Villages or any development where houses are built on top of one another. Pretty much each and every house could have this same problem arise. So, do we just run away from all of the possible problems?
There's not enough information to tell exactly how bad this "water damage" was or is. No idea about the exact wording of the contract.
I wish the buyer luck in this contract and they can make an informed decision how to proceed,

[Carla B]

You have stated in another thread that you couldn't understand the Inspection Clause. Since we don't know exactly what kind of contract you signed, it likely could have been "As Is." That doesn't mean you can't back out, in fact, it is easy, provided you are in your inspection time window.

In 2021, my husband and I signed an "As Is" contract to buy a house near The Villages. We had 18 days within which to have inspection(s), performed as we "shall desire during the Inspection period."

The contract stated "If Buyer determines, in Buyer's sole discretion, that the Property is not acceptable to Buyer, Buyer may terminate this Contract by delivering written notice of such election to Seller prior to expiration of Inspection Period. If buyer timely terminates this contract, the Deposit paid shall be returned to Buyer, thereupon, Buyer and Seller shall be released of all further obligations under this Contract..."

The seller of this "As Is" house had already gone to Assisted Living and his daughter was handling the sale long distance. That sounds like your situation where the owner passed at age 97. Our inspector found many items needing relatively expensive repairs. When we thought about it we decided we didn't want to take on an expensive repair project.

Since we were within the time frame required we wrote a simple letter rejecting the property. We presented it to the seller's agent, who was disappointed but could not dispute our decision. And we promptly got our 10% earnest money back from the title company.

So, if you have an "As Is" contract that is still using the same form as in 2021 and are still within the inspection window, it is no trouble to get out of it. Just be sure you do it in writing and if you both signed the contract, be sure you both sign and date the rejection letter.

The key is "Inspection Period," doesn't matter what is wrong with the property.

Good Luck

[huntervonmanley]

What about the escrow company? In a typical real estate sales contract, the earnest money is held by a third party in an escrow account that does not belong to either the buyer or the seller. The earnest money is rarely ever forfeited because the purpose of it is to demonstrate that the buyer is serious about buying the house, not to be used as a threat or penalty against the buyer to force a sale. But, the broker has told the buyer that they will automatically forfeit the money if they don't complete the sale. Totally not true. What is wrong with the buyer asking an attorney to review the contract, explain their rights, and ask the escrow company to refund the earnest money? The escrow company is the decider here, not the broker. It sounds like this broker has not treated the buyer ethically or in a fair and fiduciary manner, as required by law.

The escrow company ABSOLUTLEY is Not the decider as to who gets the escrow money if the deal does not close. If the deal does not close and both parties lay claim to the escrow, it will be the Florida Real Estate Commission who decides will get the escrow. Please do not give misleading information to this lady, who is clearly distraught (rightfully so).

Ma'am if you read this, I am praying that your husband's surgery goes well and he makes a full and speedy recovery.

[Velvet]

I’m not quite sure why these real estate purchase agreements are written in a way that the common person cannot understand them. They usually need translation into ordinary language. I am used to various types of jargon, but it makes me upset that these agreements don’t come with a translation into English for the average buyer (and the seller). When I don’t understand something, as the lady says she can’t figure out the inspection clause, I do check it out but NOT with the real estate agent. Then I write into the document what I understand the clause to mean and what agreement I am actually signing. Mortgage companies hate it when I do this, but then they have to give me plain English document. I know courts can still challenge things but at least they can see what my understanding was.

Personally, I refuse to take leaps into the great unknown with my finances especially when it’s so significant.

[retiredguy123]

The escrow company ABSOLUTLEY is Not the decider as to who gets the escrow money if the deal does not close. If the deal does not close and both parties lay claim to the escrow, it will be the Florida Real Estate Commission who decides will get the escrow. Please do not give misleading information to this lady, who is clearly distraught (rightfully so).

Ma'am if you read this, I am praying that your husband's surgery goes well and he makes a full and speedy recovery.
I don't think my information was misleading. I agree that the escrow company may not make the "final" decision about the earnest money, but neither does the broker. The sales broker has told the buyer that she will lose the money if she doesn't complete the sale. That is not true. But, if the buyer makes a claim to the money in a letter to the escrow company, preferably through an attorney, the escrow company can "decide" to withhold the money from the broker and the seller. To me, that is the best course of action for the buyer. And, if the sale is not completed, the buyer will most likely have the earnest money refunded. Do you have a better idea?

[Velvet]

And next time, if you go ahead again, OP, just cross out the sections you don’t understand on the document the real estate person hands you, for example, the number of days you have for an inspection, because this document is your offer as to what you will give and on what your conditions are, to the buyer. You are in charge. The buyer may or may not accept your offer, and counter something to you. Then you decide again. I am assuming this is a pre owned home.

[rsmurano]

1 more thing, the concrete blocks are hollow and porous. How do you know you didn’t start filling up some of these blocks, or maybe you filled up these blocks before it started running over to the inside wall.
Your real estate agent is ignorant in saying everything is ok, no it’s not ok until you get the wall, insulation, drywall, carpet/pad dried out, inspected, and paid for by the seller. Then I would still walk.

[frayedends]

1 more thing, the concrete blocks are hollow and porous. How do you know you didn’t start filling up some of these blocks, or maybe you filled up these blocks before it started running over to the inside wall.
Your real estate agent is ignorant in saying everything is ok, no it’s not ok until you get the wall, insulation, drywall, carpet/pad dried out, inspected, and paid for by the seller. Then I would still walk.

You would require a seller to spend money for an inspection and then still walk? That’s unethical.

In this case we still don’t know what the contract says. It is unclear what the seller is allowed to do for inspection issues. Most of us are used to seeing contracts that allow the buyers to walk for inspection issues. That is so often what happens. I’ve seen buyers get cold feet and walk using the inspection clause for really silly little fixes.

But it seems in this case the seller has the option to fix the issue. Not only that, regardless of people thinking “there’s no way to know it was fixed “, it certainly could have been a small amount of moisture from a broken sprinkler and the seller could have had it all fixed according to the contract. If so the buyer should fulfill the contract. I’m sorry but I have little empathy for people that don’t understand what they are signing. I do have empathy for the buyers husband situation. That sucks. But screwing the seller isn’t the answer.

[Velvet]

You would require a seller to spend money for an inspection and then still walk? That’s unethical.

In this case we still don’t know what the contract says. It is unclear what the seller is allowed to do for inspection issues. Most of us are used to seeing contracts that allow the buyers to walk for inspection issues. That is so often what happens. I’ve seen buyers get cold feet and walk using the inspection clause for really silly little fixes.

But it seems in this case the seller has the option to fix the issue. Not only that, regardless of people thinking “there’s no way to know it was fixed “, it certainly could have been a small amount of moisture from a broken sprinkler and the seller could have had it all fixed according to the contract. If so the buyer should fulfill the contract. I’m sorry but I have little empathy for people that don’t understand what they are signing. I do have empathy for the buyers husband situation. That sucks. But screwing the seller isn’t the answer.

The seller may “fix” the issue and it is fixed when the person the buyer independently hires and says it’s fixed. Otherwise, it could just be a scam. Never trust someone who has a vested interest in YOUR money.

[frayedends]

The seller may “fix” the issue and it is fixed when the person the buyer independently hires and says it’s fixed. Otherwise, it could just be a scam. Never trust someone who has a vested interest in YOUR money.

Oh I don’t disagree. Trust but verify. But there are people telling the buyer to back out even though the seller may have met all the contract obligations.

[retiredguy123]

You would require a seller to spend money for an inspection and then still walk? That’s unethical.

In this case we still don’t know what the contract says. It is unclear what the seller is allowed to do for inspection issues. Most of us are used to seeing contracts that allow the buyers to walk for inspection issues. That is so often what happens. I’ve seen buyers get cold feet and walk using the inspection clause for really silly little fixes.

But it seems in this case the seller has the option to fix the issue. Not only that, regardless of people thinking “there’s no way to know it was fixed “, it certainly could have been a small amount of moisture from a broken sprinkler and the seller could have had it all fixed according to the contract. If so the buyer should fulfill the contract. I’m sorry but I have little empathy for people that don’t understand what they are signing. I do have empathy for the buyers husband situation. That sucks. But screwing the seller isn’t the answer.
How is the seller being screwed? It appears that the sales contract is only a few weeks old. Unless the seller can prove a significant financial loss, they can just put the house back on the market without losing anything except a few weeks. If the contract had an unusual deposit or inspection clause, the licensed broker had a fiduciary duty to explain it to the unsophisticated buyer. But, if it is a standard sales contract, the broker has no right to tell the buyer that they cannot get money back that is being held in escrow by a third party. And, this situation does not appear to be a buyer with cold feet. The escrow money is not a penalty to be used by the broker to force a sale.

The OP's original question was "can the $10,000 deposit money be refunded"? The answer to that question is most likely yes.

[Normal]

If the seller isn’t confident that they are selling a quality home at a good price for the buyer, why should the buyer be confident to go through with the purchase? Anyone with half a noggin would say, “Hey, this house isn’t what it appeared to be, I’m not buying damaged goods.” This contract was broken when the water leak wasn’t disclosed.

Get a lawyer, you would win. The owner needs to sink in the bucks and correct any mold, truss soffit damage, carpet exchange etc. before even thinking of putting the home back on the market.

[frayedends]

How is the seller being screwed? It appears that the sales contract is only a few weeks old. Unless the seller can prove a significant financial loss, they can just put the house back on the market without losing anything except a few weeks. If the contract had an unusual deposit or inspection clause, the licensed broker had a fiduciary duty to explain it to the unsophisticated buyer. But, if it is a standard sales contract, the broker has no right to tell the buyer that they cannot get money back that is being held in escrow by a third party. And, this situation does not appear to be a buyer with cold feet. The escrow money is not a penalty to be used by the broker to force a sale.

The OP's original question was "can the $10,000 deposit money be refunded"? The answer to that question is most likely yes.

What do you know about the seller's situation? What do you know about the contract. From all we can gather based on the OP's post, the contract allows the seller 10 days to fix inspection issues. This does not sound like complicated language. We have asked the OP for details multiple times and that is all we got. So that isn't a standard contract, but not surprising given the buyer did not have an agent representing them. Up here in MA it's a seller's market big time. Inspections are being waved and sometimes the contract says the buyer won't ask for any repairs unless over a certain amount (like $25K). Inspection concessions are common in real estate deals.

How is the seller being screwed? IDK, but hypothetically... Maybe they are buying a new build and based the closing date on what this buyer had for closing on their home. Now the Villages is going to fine them daily for closing late if they need the proceeds from this sale to close.

Maybe the seller has a home under contract somewhere else and a mortgage rate lock that expires if this sale doesn't happen when contracted.

Maybe the seller had a home sale contingency on their new purchase and once under contract on their sale they are now locked in to their new purchase, but this delay will cost them their deposit.

Maybe the seller is moving to another state to take care of their dying mother and needs the proceeds for medical costs and had everything planned based on the closing date of this contract.

Maybe maybe maybe. We all heard the buyer's side. What we heard so far is that they found an inspection issue and were told that the seller claims the issue has been fixed per the purchase agreement. But oh, the buyer has a sick husband so everyone feels bad for them and takes their side. We know half the story and to be honest, the half we heard shows the seller did what they were supposed to and the buyer should be following the contract.

The deposit is to hold the buyer to the contract. I'm sorry but the buyer should lose their deposit if the seller abided by the contract and had the issue fixed. Of course, I'm not dismissing that the repair needs to be confirmed. But you sign a contract you follow it. If you don't understand the contract you get someone, an agent or a lawyer, to explain it to you.

Now, could I be completely wrong? Of course. Maybe the contract does have a clause for the buyer to terminate based on the inspection. Maybe the realtor is crooked as hell and in cahoots with the inspector and the seller. Maybe they all knew about the water issue and totally planned on screwing this buyer over. It's not like their business is almost completely dependent on word of mouth and a good reputation. Oh, wait, what. Yeah, I could be wrong. But I'm leaning more toward I'm correct.

[Velvet]

Heartnsoul, if you feel threatened or pushed into doing something, either by the real estate people or any one else, please post it here. I believe we will give you strength and support at this forum.

[retiredguy123]

What do you know about the seller's situation? What do you know about the contract. From all we can gather based on the OP's post, the contract allows the seller 10 days to fix inspection issues. This does not sound like complicated language. We have asked the OP for details multiple times and that is all we got. So that isn't a standard contract, but not surprising given the buyer did not have an agent representing them. Up here in MA it's a seller's market big time. Inspections are being waved and sometimes the contract says the buyer won't ask for any repairs unless over a certain amount (like $25K). Inspection concessions are common in real estate deals.

How is the seller being screwed? IDK, but hypothetically... Maybe they are buying a new build and based the closing date on what this buyer had for closing on their home. Now the Villages is going to fine them daily for closing late if they need the proceeds from this sale to close.

Maybe the seller has a home under contract somewhere else and a mortgage rate lock that expires if this sale doesn't happen when contracted.

Maybe the seller had a home sale contingency on their new purchase and once under contract on their sale they are now locked in to their new purchase, but this delay will cost them their deposit.

Maybe the seller is moving to another state to take care of their dying mother and needs the proceeds for medical costs and had everything planned based on the closing date of this contract.

Maybe maybe maybe. We all heard the buyer's side. What we heard so far is that they found an inspection issue and were told that the seller claims the issue has been fixed per the purchase agreement. But oh, the buyer has a sick husband so everyone feels bad for them and takes their side. We know half the story and to be honest, the half we heard shows the seller did what they were supposed to and the buyer should be following the contract.

The deposit is to hold the buyer to the contract. I'm sorry but the buyer should lose their deposit if the seller abided by the contract and had the issue fixed. Of course, I'm not dismissing that the repair needs to be confirmed. But you sign a contract you follow it. If you don't understand the contract you get someone, an agent or a lawyer, to explain it to you.

Now, could I be completely wrong? Of course. Maybe the contract does have a clause for the buyer to terminate based on the inspection. Maybe the realtor is crooked as hell and in cahoots with the inspector and the seller. Maybe they all knew about the water issue and totally planned on screwing this buyer over. It's not like their business is almost completely dependent on word of mouth and a good reputation. Oh, wait, what. Yeah, I could be wrong. But I'm leaning more toward I'm correct.
I agree that there are a lot of maybe's and no one knows the seller's situation. But, we do know the following:

1. There was water damage that was visible, but not disclosed to the buyer.
2. Immediately after the inspection, the broker asked the buyer to modify the contract by extending the inspection period, but the buyer wanted to cancel the deal instead.
3. The broker repeatedly told the buyer, incorrectly, that the deposit could not be refunded. To me, this sounds like coercion.

These facts alone should indicate that this sales contract was not a true "meeting of the minds", which is required for every legally enforceable contract. In my opinion, there is plenty of reason to void the contract.

[frayedends]

I agree that there are a lot of maybe's and no one knows the seller's situation. But, we do know the following:

1. There was water damage that was visible, but not disclosed to the buyer.
2. Immediately after the inspection, the broker asked the buyer to modify the contract by extending the inspection period, but the buyer wanted to cancel the deal instead.
3. The broker repeatedly told the buyer, incorrectly, that the deposit could not be refunded. To me, this sounds like coercion.

These facts alone should indicate that this sales contract was not a true "meeting of the minds", which is required for every legally enforceable contract. In my opinion, there is plenty of reason to void the contract.

Yeah, definitely some weird stuff there. I assumed (maybe I missed some posts) that the water issue happened between the offer and the inspection. I did not know the the seller knew of the water issue and didn't disclose it.

Not sure of the timing of the repair and why they needed an extension. It seems they did get it fixed within the 10 days. Perhaps the agent thought it would take longer. The whole 10 day thing is very weird anyhow. If I were a seller I wouldn't assume I could get any repair done in 10 days. Just getting a contractor available in that time is difficult.

So yeah, if it went over the 10 days the buyer could back out and that was her out as far as I can tell. But apparently the repair was easy. If I were the buyer I'd be checking the carpet or whatever was repaired in the house to make sure it's been rectified. I'd not be happy with flooring that was wet and not replaced. Fixing the leak is only the first part.

We don't know what language the realtor used. What people post isn't always accurate. The OP sounds afraid and could have embellished the realtor's response. She could have said, "The seller would like to fix this issue. They aren't sure it can be done in 10 days. Would you extend that? If they do get it fixed within 10 days your deposit would be at risk by backing out."

But that being said we shouldn't assume this was all nefarious. There are definitely details missing and some of the details we have seem strange so I'm not sure how accurate they are. I'd love to see the contract, at least the inspection part of it.

[Carla B]

Frayed Ends re Post #71: Well, I'm leaning more toward your being incorrect, grossly incorrect.

From other two threads by the OP: Villa not new, does not involve The Villages new homes, does not involve seller being fined for late closing, does not even involve a VLS listing. OP mentioned a Realty Exec agent, though not in what capacity. Villa offered at $40,000 under comparable listings. That sounds to me like a Florida "As Is" contract form. I'm not an agent but we have bought homes with this contract and walked away from one at no cost to ourselves. Because we were within the Inspection Period.

Woman who lived there passed at age 97. OP opines that she probably didn't suspect the wet carpet issue. We don't know who is the seller. Maybe the seller is a corporate entity or an estate? Anyway, it is not someone who has a dying mother out of state...rather the deceased sounds like she was the "dying mother." She doesn't need the money to close on another property, as you hypothesize.

The buyer's inspector said the villa needs new windows. Maybe irrelevant but costly, nonetheless. He also found the wet carpet in the closet, but didn't photograph it or offer an opinion on what caused it. The seller states the carpet issue has been fixed on time by correcting a sprinkler spray. The buyer is fearful of trusting that a simple repair could have fixed problems that might have occurred in the meantime, such as mold.

These are some reasons why your thesis doesn't "hold water," vs. that of RG123, who has followed this from the beginning.

[frayedends]

Well, I'm leaning more toward your being incorrect, grossly incorrect.

From other two threads by the OP: Villa not new, does not involve The Villages new homes, does not involve seller being fined for late closing, does not even involve a VLS listing. OP mentioned a Realty Exec agent, though not in what capacity. Villa offered at $40,000 under comparable listings. That sounds to me like a Florida "As Is" contract form. I'm not an agent but we have bought homes with this contract and walked away from one at no cost to ourselves. Because we were within the Inspection Period.

Woman who lived there passed at age 97. OP opines that she probably didn't suspect the wet carpet issue. We don't know who is the seller. Maybe the seller is a corporate entity or an estate? Anyway, it is not someone who has a dying mother out of state...rather the deceased sounds like she was the "dying mother." She doesn't need the money to close on another property, as you hypothesize.

ETA: if you are saying the house is not being sold by the owner (the owner died?), and we don't know who the seller is, that is different info again. The OP should have one thread and the OP should have answered critical questions like what the contract says.

The buyer's inspector said the villa needs new windows. Maybe irrelevant but costly, nonetheless. He also found the wet carpet in the closet, but didn't photograph it or offer an opinion on what caused it. The seller states the carpet issue has been fixed on time by correcting a sprinkler spray. The buyer is fearful of trusting that a simple repair could have fixed problems that might have occurred in the meantime, such as mold.

These are some reasons why your thesis doesn't "hold water," vs. RG123, who has followed this from the beginning.


I only knew of one other thread. I skipped to this thread when it was started and assumed everything not in the first thread was in this one. Apparently I missed a middle thread. Why is the OP starting multiple threads on the same subject?

But you misunderstood what I was saying about the Seller. You don't know what the Seller is buying. Maybe the Seller of this house is buying a house from the Villages. Maybe a delay or cancelation of this contract means the Seller gets screwed on a different contract they have. Most real estate transactions have a cascade effect. I'm buying a house but I have to sell my current home to buy it. Person buying my current home is selling their current home to by mine. And so on. When deals fall apart a lot of people are usually getting screwed.

ETA: Are you saying the owner died and the seller is someone else with POA or something? Okay I didn't have that info either.

To say the seller doesn't stand to lose anything means you imply they don't have another transaction hinging on this one.

If the inspector was that bad that is another whole issue on the buyer who hired them. The buyer should let the realtor know that the inspector sucks and don't recommend them. As far as the windows, which was definitely new info to me, the buyer should be able to back out on that alone. But again we don't know what the contract states so it's hard to tell. Quite simply this all comes down to the contract.

[Pairadocs]

Don’t pay the title company UNTIL your terms are met. My agent would not give me the keys to the house no matter how many times I asked because she wanted to be the property manager when I was away as a snowflake. I wrote on the title document that I did not receive the keys and can’t get into the house and therefore, can’t pay for this. The title company called me as I was 2000 miles away and said it wasn’t their concern. But they let the broker know and the keys were delivered to my northern address. Then I paid the title company.

Good for you, a very high percentage of people CAN be bullied into legally "negligible" actions. Most often due to the average person's fear of an attorney bill... and it WORKS in (my guess here) at least 95% of the cases. Businesses, car dealers, spa dealers, contractors, real estate agents who main interest is to see that a deal is closed so all get "paid" (agents, banks, inspectors, title company, all those involved), they all know most people will back off when faced with hiring an attorney.

[Pairadocs]

You contact an attorney - the same advice you’ve been receiving for about a week. It won’t be a fortune for help on this issue. RvR on spending a few hundred on an attorney v the cost of settling in this house is significant.
Do NOT accept the word if agent, contact attorney NOW.

100% agree ! Relatives bought a home here and AGENT urged them to hire "certified" inspector. Gave them a list of about 3 the agent "approved of". Cost them close to $500, they received a list of the inspected items, ALL passed the "inspection". Also contained a clause that spelled out the inspector was NOT responsible for anything, was not a guarantee nor a warranty, and that no legal action can be taken concerning the inspection. Within the first 3 months, they found the roof (which looked great) was leaking significantly and had been for some time... there is no way the "certified" inspector could have missed the water signs on the floor of the attic unless, he failed to do a thorough inspection on his hands and knees in the attic ? Also had immediate electrical problems with the under cabinet lighting the agent proudly pointed out, and the vanity in one bathroom was found to have a false "bottom", where at one time it had been completely soaks from a leak and had only had "cosmetic" work. These, plus gutter leaks and sagging (not visible to the naked eye, but improperly installed gutter "strapping", were part of the $26K of work NOT found by the inspector they they paid before they made the purchase. Just some things to consider when buying a house.

[frayedends]

^^^^^
Certainly there are bad inspectors. But I'm surprised a realtor would recommend them if they are that bad. After all, realtor needs a good reputation to be successful.

The realtor I know recently saved a buyer inspection money simply because after a few minutes the inspector found big issues. She says to the buyer, "We can stop the inspection right now and save you some money if these issues are enough to make you back out."

That way they don't pay for a 3 hour inspection if they found a bad roof or something in the first 5 minutes.

But I agree, the OP needs a lawyer to at least look at the contract and see where she stands.

[Velvet]

///