Home Inspector suing home owner

daniel nantell · 02-13-2009, 08:10 PM

Has anyone every heard of a Home Inspector counter suing the Home Owner for not disclosing the defects , after the Home Inspector has been taken to court because he missing the hidden items. They knew about but covered up. Some home owner know about defects but they try to cover them up, knowing a 3 hours Home Inspection will probably not find the things they are hiding , and the home owner knows how to cover the items up because he works in the construction filled , just a topic for discussion.

Similar Threads:

**Matt Fellman** · 02-13-2009, 08:56 PM

Never heard of it. I think the buyers would have to go after them. Not saying it isn't possible. Maybe you could get Jackie Chiles from Seinfeld to take the case

I've often wondered if I could counter-sue a seller for all my time and expenses defending myself against their baseless claim. I have to take time out of my day, drive to meet mediators all because they can't or don't want to read what they signed.

I've asked several attorneys and they say I wouldn't ever get anywhere... it doesn't hurt to dream, I suppose.

Ron Bibler · 02-13-2009, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by daniel nantell

Has anyone every heard of a Home Inspector counter suing the Home Owner for not disclosing the defects , after the Home Inspector has been taken to court because he missing the hidden items. They knew about but covered up. Some home owner know about defects but they try to cover them up, knowing a 3 hours Home Inspection will probably not find the things they are hiding , and the home owner knows how to cover the items up because he works in the construction filled , just a topic for discussion.

Its all in how you play the game

Broken Arm collection...

Just send Rick to his house on a Saturday night. kick in the front door and deliver a message not to show up in court on Monday.

Best

Ron

**Raymond Wand** · 02-14-2009, 05:09 AM

Interesting.

I don't see why a inspector could not sue a homeowner who knowingly hid defects, after all if the vendor knew about it and readily covered it up that would be fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. I was sued for a latent defect that the vendor knew about and actively concealed.

**Raymond Wand** · 02-14-2009, 06:49 PM

Daniel

This case may shed some light on how a court (a court in Ontario) would look at a misrepresentation perpetrated on an inspector by a vendor. See the red-bold paragraphs below.

Gallagher v. Pettinger, (2003-02-11) ONSC (Ontario Superior Court) 01-CV-17992

Issue 6 - Did the Purchasers Rely on any Misrepresentation?
[62] The legal principles regarding reliance by a purchaser when a home inspector is retained were dealt with in Hoy v Lozanovski [1987], 43 R.P.R. 296 (Ontario District Court) and were stated as follows:

However, if the purchaser chooses to not rely on the vendor and requests inspections, including professional inspectors (i.e. Home Inspection Service) then reliance for completion of the deal (the waver in this case) is shifted to the inspector whom the purchaser has chosen. The purchaser has relied on the inspection report not the vendor's silence, to formulate his decision whether or not to complete the deal...
Of course, as stated, if the vendor made representations to the purchaser or the purchaser's inspection that were fraudulent, then the responsibility for disclosing the latent defect would remain with the vendor...

[63] Absent fraudulent representations or concealment, when a professional home inspector's report is obtained then reliance has shifted to the home inspector.

Cheers,

**Scott Jarvis** · 02-16-2009, 09:43 AM

The State of Wisconsin Supreme Court decided for our state if a seller knowingly covers up defects and does not disclose them, the buyer cannot sue if they find out about the defects after the purchase. Basically the sellers can lie on the disclosures and the buyers have no recourse. It essentially has thrown out the legal aspect of the disclosure statements by the sellers. It is making it tougher on the inspectors as well as the buyers.

"July 2, 2008: MADISON, Wis. AP- Home buyers who believe a seller has lied to them cannot sue for fraud to recover damages, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court said Tuesday. The decision is bad news for home owners and sellers and makes Wisconsin the only state in the country barring civil fraud cases in real estate transactions, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said. She was one of three justices who broke with the four-member majority..... "

Our legislature is supposed to draft new legislation to get rid of this loophole, but they are too busy trying to spend the national stimulus money.