Can I sue a seller for not disclosing roof leaks

Question

Just so everyone knows, I am not this “sue happy” guy looking to screw someone for all they are worth. I’m simply asking if any one else has ran into this and what they did to solve the problem. Purchased house with flat roof. No attic or access so I know I assumed some risk of not being able to check with inspector condition of material under roof. However it does have a leak and I assume some mold and the previous owner cut out the leak spot, repainted and sold. I assume there is more damage to studs such as rot but have no way of verifying other than replacing entire 4000sq ft roof.

Anyone out there with some experience in this? I definitely know the owner was successful in hiding what I figure as major issues. Is that legal?

Russell Brazil · Answer

Sounds more like roof leaked, was repaired, then leaked again at a subsequent later date.  Ive repaired every leak Ive ever had in a roof....thats what homeowners are supposed to do. I imagine everyone who has had a roof leak has repaired it. Does everyone that repairs a roof leak mean they are hiding a roof leak and trying to pull a fast one?

Steve K. · Answer

I consider myself a savvy apartment investor and I have zero problems with flat roofs as long as it's a newish TPO or rubber membrane roof and installed properly. After all, a vast majority of apartment buildings have flat roofs (and most contemporary homes too for that matter). Any apartment investor with very strong feelings against flat roofs would be left with not many apartment buildings to purchase, so it seems odd that flat roofs would cause such strong reservations in this day and age. I genuinely find this sort of viewpoint interesting. If you're talking about a 50 yr. old tar and gravel roof, sure, that's an expensive leak waiting to happen, but with TPO being as bomb-proof as it is these days (you could have a swimming pool on the roof if you wanted) and usually coming with a 10-30 yr. warranty, there's no reason to be scared off by flat roofs. A well constructed flat roof is better than a poorly constructed pitched roof; it just comes down to the quality of construction and materials.

That said, this particular flat roof does seem to be a problem unfortunately. @Luke Dilorenzo If you haven't already, I would have a good roofer out there (one who specializes in fat roofs), get their opinion and go from there. They can take a core sample to check the condition of the decking and trusses (not studs BTW; studs are in walls, joists support floors, trusses or rafters support roofs just FYI, and the plywood is called sheathing or decking). The roofer can tell you whether there have been previous leaks, repairs, etc. and ascertain whether it's a new leak or been leaking a while. They also may be able to just address the problem area instead of replacing the whole thing.

As others have said it's probably not going to be worth it to go after the seller because it will be hard to prove they knew unless they are the original owner or something, and even then if it wasn't obviously leaking when you bought it and noted in the inspection, or you bought it as-is, it's your problem now. Normally it wouldn't be worth the cost to sue anyway but a 4,000 square foot flat roof could easily set you back $25-30k to replace (with TPO and assuming some of the decking will need to be replaced as it usually does if there's been a leak), so it might be worth looking into depending on the specific circumstances. I'd start with getting a good roofer (or two or three different roofers) opinion, talk to your agent/look at your contract, then maybe consult with a lawyer but at that point you're beyond the scope of my expertise. My general advice is to avoid speaking to lawyers whenever possible unless they're your cousin and it's the family Christmas party.

In the future, inspectors can't always be trusted to inspect flat roofs, or roofs in general for that matter actually. They usually just look for leaks in ceilings and sometimes don't even get on the roof. I like to climb on the roof myself, checking for patched areas, damage, penetrations not sealed properly like from satellite dish installers that like to just drill a lag bolt into the roof, caulk it and call it a day, soft spots, depressions where water seems to pool, etc. There's nothing inherently wrong with flat roofs if they're newer and constructed well but they are expensive to replace so it's important to inspect them thoroughly. Also flat roofs aren't usually actually flat, they should be tapered and have a slight pitch of at least a few degrees so they drain. Good luck!

Cassi Justiz · Answer

This is really going to depend on your state laws. I would talk to an attorney that specializes in real estate in your area. In my area, we have a 2 year window where the seller can be held responsible if they failed to disclose defects. I spoke with an attorney when something similar came up with one of my investors. The attorney said that the big issue that hinders a lot of cases is that you have to be able to absolutely prove that the seller knew and intentionally did not disclose.  If you can't 100% prove that they knew and intentionally hid/failed to disclose the leak, you may not have much of a case.

Good luck! I would call some local attorneys and start there.

Mike Cumbie · Answer

Hi @Luke Dilorenzo

I have to agree with @Cassi Justiz on this one. Check your local laws and consult an attorney. As a side note, if he cut out the bad area and resealed it and painted it he could very well say "Yeah I fixed it". If a window breaks and you replace it you don't have to disclose there was ever a "broken window". Same for a kicked in door that was replaced. Simply repairing it (or what they consider repairing) may qualify as no longer an issue in their eyes. If you have to prove they knew it was a problem and you can't say for sure how much of an issue it is now

(it does have a leak and I assume some mold and the previous owner cut out the leak spot, repainted and sold. I assume there is more damage to studs such as rot but have no way of verifying other than replacing entire 4000sq ft roof.) If you can't verify there is an issue and the scope of it without removing the whole roof, odds are his explanation will be that he couldn't either and he didn't "assume there was a problem".

Good luck though and all areas are different.

Chris Mason · Answer

Probably SOL unless you somehow find the GC who the previous owner called to bid on fixing it, but was requested instead to hide it, and he throws the seller under the bus (which wouldn't be good for business...).

Caleb Heimsoth · Answer

@John Chapman it’s also going to cost a fortune to replace I am pretty sure

John Chapman · Answer

Setting aside the legality of it all, that roof sounds like an absolute nightmare.  Flat roofs are literally just one giant leak waiting to happen.  It's not a question of if, just when.  (My understanding is that most savvy apartment investors specifically veto flat roofs for that reason.)  Also, no access? Ungh.  Your initial post assumes a lot  (rot, mold, etc.), but you don't really know.  Is there truly no way to assess the extent of the damage without tearing it off?  How many people have you spoken to?

Caleb Heimsoth · Answer

@Luke Dilorenzo. Check your state laws but most likely you’re SOL.  It would cost you way more time and money to sue than to just fix the problem

Carl Fischer · Answer

A lot of states have an owner disclosure requirement if it wasn’t in there you may have a case. Most of the time it’s not worth going to court but obviously that depends on the cost. What did your inspector say did you have an inspection?

Can I sue a seller for not disclosing roof leaks

Most Popular Reply