What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Real estate agent deliberately lied about flood zone, costing us $685 - sue?

Should we sue to recover our losses?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • No

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Total voters
    8

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.


Should we sue to recover our losses?
 

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
35,329
Reaction score
9,368
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore adjacent
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.

Should we sue to recover our losses?

Sure, since we're in an era where regulation is a bad word, we're going to have to expand the courts to cover situations of this sort. Don't really see why liberatarians think this is better than well defined rules and effective enforcement. In the long run pre-emption would seem to cost less than endless lawsuits, regardless of which side wins.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,515
Reaction score
23,175
Points
2,260
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.

Should we sue to recover our losses?

Sure, since we're in an era where regulation is a bad word, we're going to have to expand the courts to cover situations of this sort. Don't really see why liberatarians think this is better than well defined rules and effective enforcement. In the long run pre-emption would seem to cost less than endless lawsuits, regardless of which side wins.

How would more regulation help? The need for flood insurance is a regulation after all. Regulation will not stop people from lying.

If you have documented proof that he misrepresented the flood zone, go for it.
 

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
35,329
Reaction score
9,368
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore adjacent
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.

Should we sue to recover our losses?

Sure, since we're in an era where regulation is a bad word, we're going to have to expand the courts to cover situations of this sort. Don't really see why liberatarians think this is better than well defined rules and effective enforcement. In the long run pre-emption would seem to cost less than endless lawsuits, regardless of which side wins.

How would more regulation help? The need for flood insurance is a regulation after all. Regulation will not stop people from lying.

If you have documented proof that he misrepresented the flood zone, go for it.

Regulation with real teeth in it will stop most from lying. Lax regulation will only insure that more will, clogging up the courts with that favorite of libertarians, the fraud lawsuit. Problem is that it would open us up to very long trials to determine when someone's "sharp business pratices" becomes someone else's "fraud". Well thought out regulation, eliminates a lot of that grey area. Denigrating all regulation because some is onerous is like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
 
OP
OohPooPahDoo

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.

Should we sue to recover our losses?

Sure, since we're in an era where regulation is a bad word, we're going to have to expand the courts to cover situations of this sort. Don't really see why liberatarians think this is better than well defined rules and effective enforcement. In the long run pre-emption would seem to cost less than endless lawsuits, regardless of which side wins.



Litigation can often be more efficient than regulation.

a) it takes most of the work off the government's back - all the government provides is a forum to settle the dispute (court) and
b) provides ordinary citizens (me in this case) a financial incentive to go after the bad guys instead



That's a key difference between our system and Europe's - Europe has more regulation, we have more litigation.
 

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
35,329
Reaction score
9,368
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore adjacent
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.

Should we sue to recover our losses?

Sure, since we're in an era where regulation is a bad word, we're going to have to expand the courts to cover situations of this sort. Don't really see why liberatarians think this is better than well defined rules and effective enforcement. In the long run pre-emption would seem to cost less than endless lawsuits, regardless of which side wins.

Litigation can often be more efficient than regulation.

a) it takes most of the work off the government's back - all the government provides is a forum to settle the dispute (court) and
b) provides ordinary citizens (me in this case) a financial incentive to go after the bad guys instead

That's a key difference between our system and Europe's - Europe has more regulation, we have more litigation.

I don't see how litigation is any cheaper. Also, with litigation you're getting an "after the fact" solution, i.e. the damage has been done. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the liong run, if the damage isn't done in the first place?
 

DiAnna

Political Half-Breed
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
457
Reaction score
229
Points
193
Location
No Calif, in the Sierra Foothills
Yes, you should sue. The Realtor (in most states) is required to make full disclosure about the property, including flood zones. The fact that the Realtor lied gives you pretty good leverage... and could cost the Realtor his/her license. For that reason you may wish to first issue a letter of demand, insisting that your losses be covered and threatening to both sue and contact the Realtor Licensing Board if you don't get a check.
 

Missourian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
28,895
Reaction score
18,552
Points
1,405
Location
Missouri
Yes, and you will likely not have to go to court.

Every Real Estate agent I know carries Errors and Omission insurance to cover these types of suits.


Most likely the insurance company or the agent will simply settle.

You should first take your grievance to the agent.

If he/she is unwilling or unable to resolve it, ask to see his/her real estate broker...the broker owns the independent agency that the Agent works for.

If the Agent is also the broker, threaten to file a grievance with the HQ of the franchise (i.e. Century 21, Long & Foster, Prudential), the Better Business Bureau and the Board of Realtors.

If the threat doesn't get results, contact the HQ, the BBB and the BOR.

If contacting those entities does not resolve your grievance to your satisfaction...then you should sue in small claims court. No lawyers required.

In the interim, keep detailed notes of times and dates of who you contacted, your point of contacts name, and what you discussed.

That's the best advice I can give you.
 
Last edited:

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
58,760
Reaction score
22,885
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.


Should we sue to recover our losses?


Flood Zone B is still a flood zone, bub. How much taxpayers money and your own time do you want to waste on $685? Deals fall apart based on due diligence - you found out before you closed the deal. Get over it.
 
OP
OohPooPahDoo

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Flood Zone B is still a flood zone, bub.
Yeah. Duh. I've already outlined the significant differences between zone A and zone B, if you're too stupid to understand then I can't help it.
How much taxpayers money and your own time do you want to waste on $685?

Zero of the taxpayers money. Court costs are paid by the plaintiff if he loses and (usually) the defendant if he wins you dumb twat. And my time is worth getting back the money I lost on a lie.

I'd be suprised if it isn't a criminal act to deliberately misrepresent FEMA flood zones.
 
Last edited:
OP
OohPooPahDoo

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Yes, but you should have checked it yourself. I did.

I did check it myself. How do you think I found out? They didn't tell me, they are still maintaining their lie, even after admitting it was a lie. They apparently think being "a few yards" from flood zone B is the same as being IN flood zone B.
 
OP
OohPooPahDoo

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Yes, and you will likely not have to go to court.

Every Real Estate agent I know carries Errors and Omission insurance to cover these types of suits.


Most likely the insurance company or the agent will simply settle.

You should first take your grievance to the agent.

If he/she is unwilling or unable to resolve it, ask to see his/her real estate broker...the broker owns the independent agency that the Agent works for.

If the Agent is also the broker, threaten to file a grievance with the HQ of the franchise (i.e. Century 21, Long & Foster, Prudential), the Better Business Bureau and the Board of Realtors.

If the threat doesn't get results, contact the HQ, the BBB and the BOR.

If contacting those entities does not resolve your grievance to your satisfaction...then you should sue in small claims court. No lawyers required.

In the interim, keep detailed notes of times and dates of who you contacted, your point of contacts name, and what you discussed.

That's the best advice I can give you.
Sweet. Thanks for the advice!

I was of course going to ask the agent to pay up before suing, but thanks for filling in all the details. I didn't know they had insurance for that.
 
OP
OohPooPahDoo

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Sure, since we're in an era where regulation is a bad word, we're going to have to expand the courts to cover situations of this sort. Don't really see why liberatarians think this is better than well defined rules and effective enforcement. In the long run pre-emption would seem to cost less than endless lawsuits, regardless of which side wins.

Litigation can often be more efficient than regulation.

a) it takes most of the work off the government's back - all the government provides is a forum to settle the dispute (court) and
b) provides ordinary citizens (me in this case) a financial incentive to go after the bad guys instead

That's a key difference between our system and Europe's - Europe has more regulation, we have more litigation.

I don't see how litigation is any cheaper. Also, with litigation you're getting an "after the fact" solution, i.e. the damage has been done. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the liong run, if the damage isn't done in the first place?


Regulation doesn't prevent damage from being done in the first place, either. its enforced by fines which are levied - often - after the fact.

Litigation is cheaper for the government because the defendant - if they lose - has to pay the court costs.
 

zzzz

Just a regular American
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
530
Points
98
Location
Yountsville
Buyer Beware.

Due diligence is always required when purchasing land or property. It is a simple matter to check on. But the agent, if as you says, misrepresented it then it will be settled out of court. Of course how did you get the e mail evidence? Possessing that may be against the law and may open you to legal action.
 

Immanuel

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
16,828
Reaction score
2,269
Points
183
At the very least you should file a complaint with the Board of Realtors in your area.

I wonder what exactly you could get by taking them to court. Probably not a whole hell of a lot. You are not going to get your money back for the house nor do I expect you would receive any compensation for the deceit but you never know.

Immie
 

GWV5903

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
1,406
Points
245
Location
Austin, Texas
Wife and I entered a purchase agreement on a home that was advertised as being in flood zone "B" - which means a) flood insurance not required by law b) flood insurance is cheap (less than $400 per year) c) risk of flood between 0.2% and 1% per year. Our cost for home inspection, termite inspection, and sewer inspection was $685. Then we find out the agent lied about the flood zone - really its flood zone "A" - which means a) flood insurance required by law b) flood insurance is at least $1200 per year c) flood risk is greater than 1% in a year.

We have email evidence that the agent knew the property was in flood zone A. So we were deliberately lied to, it wasn't just an honest mistake. Had we known the property was in A we would have not even placed a bid on it, let alone waste $685 and weeks of our time.


Should we sue to recover our losses?

Was this your agent or the listing agent?
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,923
Points
48
Location
My Shack
One advantage of living in a small rural area is that is a business screws a few the word gets around and they soon have no customers.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top