[Heartnsoul]

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

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Heartnsoul

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

Call McLin Burnsed, 352-753-4690.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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]

Originally Posted by frayedends

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]

Originally Posted by frayedends

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]

Originally Posted by frayedends

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]

Originally Posted by Aces4

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aces4

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]

Originally Posted by frayedends

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]

Originally Posted by Aces4

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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