Re: Short sale or deed in lieu....which is better on my credit report?

Posted by basketlady (208.157.116.253) on February 24, 2003 at 16:21:54:

In Reply to: Re: Short sale or deed in lieu....which is better on my credit report? posted by scott on February 24, 2003 at 16:09:21:

No, they did not disclose the mold, but there is no way on God's green earth that I believe they didn't know about it. They lived there for 16 years. The burden is now on ME to PROVE that the seller knew about it, and there is basically no way to prove that.

No, I didn't have an inspection. This was my very first home purchase, and I've learned a very valuable lesson.....never buy a home without a home inspection, no matter what the cost. I asked my real estate agent whether I should pay the $350 for the inspection, and her exact words were: "The appraiser will find anything structurally wrong, so it's up to you if you want to spend the money." Well, after having plunked down my life-savings as the down-payment, I was literally broke, so $350 was a heck of a lot of money to me. Live and learn.

Yes, the seller can be held liable, but only if I want to spend the $10,000 to take him to court!!! I have come to the conclusion that the disclosure statment is absolutely worthless....not worth the paper it is written on unless you have the money to sue. The seller did NOT disclose the mold, but he did hand-write on the disclosure that the roof does not leak....on our 8th day in the house, we got a big rain storm...rain POURED down the fireplace upstairs, through the floor to the basement family room, SOAKED the ceiling tiles in the basement and got our couch all wet! There is NOTHING I can do about it unless I have the money to sue, and I don't.

It's so aggravating to know that there is nothing to protect me unless I have tons of money to fight it.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup