| 1. |
|
| 2. |
|
| 3. |
|
real state law ny
Buffalo, NY
Viewed 87 times.
Posted about 1 year ago in Real Estate
Flag as objectionable
NYstate real estate law - just closed on a home on sept 4, 2008 - there was a septic system that was 650 gallon tank, clarence town ordance requires septic tanks to be 1300g after 1994. the lwyer that dod the closing did not put money in escrow for me, because it passed inseption and did not know the regulations, he states that he wants 25% and will suie the prior home owner for not disclosure and real estate agent also the local erie county inspector, because this septic system was aunder par and there is collusion and it was a false pass ther is a well connected to it for excessive drainage ? what do i do?
- Is this your question? Add additional information
Answers (1)William Robert Falcone
This attorney is licensed in New York and 1 other state.
Posted about 1 year ago.
Flag as objectionable
The question I have is whether the tank was to code back at the time the tank was put in. There is no requirement that tanks be replaced at the time the ordinace was changed. I would have to check the ordinance, but typically, they also do not require compliance with an upgraded standard upon a sale of the premises. That new ordinance will only effect tanks being installed or replaced after the law took effect in 1994. The old tank is essentially grandfathered in, until the time it no onger functions, and needs to be replaced. The inspector therefore would only be testing to see if the existing tank was functioning properly, not for its size or for its compliace for the current town requirements. As long as it was functioning when tested, the inspector can not force it to be replaced. The certificates the inspector issues also typically have a disclaimer that covers them as well. I suspect that you have more people living in the home than the prior owner, and the resulting extra waste is too much for the system.
Typically money would not be placed in escrow under these circumstances. The property condition disclosure statement needs to be examined to see if the prior owner was untruthful. I am not aware of a question on the form that asks for tank size, so they were probably never asked about it, and as such, would not have mirepresented anything. I believe it does ask about how many peole reside ther, so that you can have an idea if your family will be placing the same strain on the system. Your best basis for a claim, is if you can show they were having a problem with the system, and concealed it or failed to disclose that to you. Of course, the inspector's report would support them, if they claim they have had no problem with the system. In summary, it will be a tough case to recover from this prior owner. Is the lawyer willing to do the case for 25% of the recovery, or is he asking you to pay him 25% of the amount you are seeking upfront as his retainer? if it is not a contingency, your money may be better spent towards a new system. (I am not sure what you mean by a well connected to the system for excessive drainage.) |