Lying Home Seller Found Liable for Hiding Mold

[Guest guest]

Posted On: September 14, 2007

by* R. Geary

Lying Home Seller Found Liable for Hiding Mold

http://blog.njeifs.com/2007/09/lying_home_seller_found_liable.html

After a bench trial, a judge in New Haven, Connecticut ruled that

the seller of a house that had obvious, visible mold damage - black

mold stains in the utility room and water stained and rotted wood

inside - had intentionally concealed the existence of this problem,

and was liable to the buyers for the cost to prevent further water

intrusion, the cost to repair the damage caused by past water

intrusion, and $25,000 for emotional distress. The case is Camerone

v. , 2007 WL 241258, (Conn. Super. Jan. 17, 2007), The award

of emotional distress damages was later vacated. Camarone v.

Philips, WL 2081330 (Conn. Super. April 17, 2007).

The plaintiffs purchased a home in North Haven, Connecticut from the

sellers in 2003. Upon moving in, they immediately noticed severe

water seepage in the lower level of the house, and brought suit

against the sellers for failing to disclose the problems. Sellers

argued that the buyers had hired a home inspector, and relied upon

his inspection, and proceeded to closing, despite the fact that the

inspection noted several potential trouble spots. The court

specifically found that the seller was not truthful, and based its

findings largely on discrepancies between the MLS description and

the seller's testimony. For example, the MLS listing described the

home as " mint condition " and " like new " . New walls, new carpeting

and new paint were highlighted. At trial, however, the seller

testified that the items were not all new, in fact some of the items

had been installed in 1999. The seller testified that he never saw

anything that indicated that the home was subject to water seepage.

The court stated in its opinion that it did not believe him.

The court specifically found that the seller could not have been

unaware of the serious water problems and resulting mold throughout

the house. Carpet which had been installed just before the sale was

soaking wet when lifted. There was black mold in the utility closet,

obscured by boxes and storage items. Wood support beams were visibly

stained and rotted through, in areas where sheet rock was missing

from the walls, so the seller could not have missed it. The evidence

appears to have been overwhelming that the house was in terrible

condition.. The court did not discuss the contents of the home

inspector's report. It appears that the defendant's deception and

untruthfulness was hugely significant and overcame any argument that

the home inspector should have noted these deficiencies. The judge

specifically found that the seller/defendant's conduct

was " outrageous " and " intentional " and that his actions

exceeded " all bounds usually tolerated by decent society. "

The buyer was awarded compensatory damages of $96,282 to compensate

for the cost of waterproofing the house, repairing the damage and

remediating the mold problem. The court initially awarded $25,000 in

damages for emotional distress, but vacated that order four months

later when it was pointed out that the Plaintiff had not introduced

any evidence of her emotional distress. The court found that it

was " unduly swayed " by the photographic evidence, and by the

Plaintiffs emotional state when she testified.

Posted by R. Geary | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: News, Water Damage