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

[whitehall]

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?

There is a whole network of federal, state and county safeguards not to mention the insurance industry that requires honest disclosure in this case. The post is bull shit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

It was forwarded to us by our agent - who works for the same real estate company. My understanding of Louisiana law is that it is not against the law to possess a forwarded email.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The best you can do is small claims court.. You will lose.

Blues

That's not what the litigation lawyer at my wife's law firm thinks. At first he said our case was shaky at best but when we got the forward of the agent admitting it wasn't in B, he said we'd probably win.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

There is a whole network of federal, state and county safeguards not to mention the insurance industry that requires honest disclosure in this case. The post is bull shit.

So because the law requires honesty - its impossible for her to be dishonest - even though the facts say she was.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I might just be satisfied if they took the "Flood Zone B" off their damn listing so some other potential buyer doesn't get screwed. I've written some of the companies that have it listed and told them about it so far most still have it listed as B

What happened was that the seller DID have B zone insurance but it was grandfathered - if your house is in a B zone and then FEMA comes along and makes it A zone - you can keep paying B zone rates as long as you maintain insurance. But the seller DROPPED his coverage when he put the house on the market - removing the grandfathering - meaning its now A.

Either way - grandfather or no - the house is not IN a B zone.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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?

Save yourself the cost of an attorney. Notify the bank who is carrying the loan.......The bank should have investigated before offering the loan, and they should provide the attorney to sue the agent in question, and recover your losses along with their own.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

THANKS all for your advice! (except for the few idiots who said "you got screwed, just deal with it")

Since I am mostly interested in simply preventing this from being done to anyone else, and not the $$$$, I am going to start with an ethics complaint to the NOLA board of realtors - of which the selling agent is a member.

If I sue - I'd have to pay court costs and then if I lose I wouldn't get those back (and even if I win there is no guarantee the court will order defendant to pay my court costs). So that may not be the best course of action if I just want to stop her from doing it again. I do have about 9 months left before prescription runs out to sue - so there's no big hurry there anyway. I'll file the ethics complaint and if that delivers a satisfactory result (a hearing and reprimand) - that will probably do it for me.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

Save yourself the cost of an attorney. Notify the bank who is carrying the loan.......The bank should have investigated before offering the loan, and they should provide the attorney to sue the agent in question, and recover your losses along with their own.

The bank carrying the seller's loan? Maybe so - I know who they are, their name is on the invalid flood zone form that the seller sent us.

The seller legally had zone B coverage due to a grandfather clause - but because he dropped it when he put the house on the market, he is no longer eligible for B. But he's got a sleazy insurance agent who is apparently willing to lie (the story is a bit more complex than I've laid out here.) The insurance agent is maintaining simultaneously that the house is IN zone B while also claiming it is entitled to zone B coverage due to grandfather clause - if its IN zone B no grandfathering is needed! Yet my agent would not write B zone insurance, and our lender was requiring A coverage. The sleazy lying insurance agent the seller referred to us coincidentally works for a firm who used to be in cahoots with Carlos Marcello (NOLA and Dallas mob lord from the 60's 70's and 80's)

 

[Wicked Jester]

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?

Save yourself the cost of an attorney. Notify the bank who is carrying the loan.......The bank should have investigated before offering the loan, and they should provide the attorney to sue the agent in question, and recover your losses along with their own.

The bank carrying the seller's loan? Maybe so - I know who they are, their name is on the invalid flood zone form that the seller sent us.

The seller legally had zone B coverage due to a grandfather clause - but because he dropped it when he put the house on the market, he is no longer eligible for B. But he's got a sleazy insurance agent who is apparently willing to lie (the story is a bit more complex than I've laid out here.

Do YOU have a loan on the house?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Save yourself the cost of an attorney. Notify the bank who is carrying the loan.......The bank should have investigated before offering the loan, and they should provide the attorney to sue the agent in question, and recover your losses along with their own.

The bank carrying the seller's loan? Maybe so - I know who they are, their name is on the invalid flood zone form that the seller sent us.

The seller legally had zone B coverage due to a grandfather clause - but because he dropped it when he put the house on the market, he is no longer eligible for B. But he's got a sleazy insurance agent who is apparently willing to lie (the story is a bit more complex than I've laid out here.

Do YOU have a loan on the house?

No. We didn't buy it. The seller lied about the flood zone so we broke the contract - after sinking $685 down in inspections. Our lender was requiring zone A coverage and our agent proved to us it was A - and anyone who can read a map can see is A as well - that's when we knew we had been lied to.

(The house we wound up buying l8tr is in zone B and in fact sits on top of Metairie ridge - didn't flood during Katrina. Flood is $343 a year for 200k in coverage.)

 

[Wicked Jester]

The bank carrying the seller's loan? Maybe so - I know who they are, their name is on the invalid flood zone form that the seller sent us.

The seller legally had zone B coverage due to a grandfather clause - but because he dropped it when he put the house on the market, he is no longer eligible for B. But he's got a sleazy insurance agent who is apparently willing to lie (the story is a bit more complex than I've laid out here.

Do YOU have a loan on the house?

No. We didn't buy it. The seller lied about the flood zone so we broke the contract - after sinking $685 down in inspections. Our lender was requiring zone A coverage and our agent proved to us it was A - and anyone who can read a map can see is A as well - that's when we knew we had been lied to.

(The house we wound up buying l8tr is in zone B and in fact sits on top of Metairie ridge - didn't flood during Katrina. Flood is $343 a year for 200k in coverage.)

Oh, ok.......So basically you're out the $685 inspection fee.

Hell, maybe one of the lawyers at your wifes firm would fire a lil' letter off the to the agent and make a lil' noise about it. Who knows, the agent may just say screw it and pay it.

It all depends on how far you want to pursue it for $685.

Chances are, if it goes to court, it may not be worth the hassle in the end, after court costs and whatnot.......And I don't see where you can show any other damages, seeing as though you didn't end up purchasing it.

At the very least, put that agents name up on Angies list, and explain what he/she did.

 

[Toro]

Nm

 

[Ravi]

The bank carrying the seller's loan? Maybe so - I know who they are, their name is on the invalid flood zone form that the seller sent us.

The seller legally had zone B coverage due to a grandfather clause - but because he dropped it when he put the house on the market, he is no longer eligible for B. But he's got a sleazy insurance agent who is apparently willing to lie (the story is a bit more complex than I've laid out here.

Do YOU have a loan on the house?

No. We didn't buy it. The seller lied about the flood zone so we broke the contract - after sinking $685 down in inspections. Our lender was requiring zone A coverage and our agent proved to us it was A - and anyone who can read a map can see is A as well - that's when we knew we had been lied to.

(The house we wound up buying l8tr is in zone B and in fact sits on top of Metairie ridge - didn't flood during Katrina. Flood is $343 a year for 200k in coverage.)

I am required to have flood insurance and it is cheaper than that. I'm surprised to find out there are different rates for different parts of the country since the ratings are the same.

 

[editec]

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?

You don't have to sue.

Your state has an office to formally file a complaint for real esttate agent malpractice.

Call your State Attorney general's office and they can direct you to the proper authorities.

 

[strollingbones]

what are you suing for? what are your damages? you would have hired a home inspector to inspect the home ......regardless.....now as for this place not being what you ask for.....you have grounds.....if the agent is a smart...she/he will simply give you the 685 have you inquired ?

 

[Mad Scientist]

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?

Yes! Sue her in Federal Court! I'm willing to bet you could get out of the house if you wanted.

 

[Immanuel]

The bank carrying the seller's loan? Maybe so - I know who they are, their name is on the invalid flood zone form that the seller sent us.

The seller legally had zone B coverage due to a grandfather clause - but because he dropped it when he put the house on the market, he is no longer eligible for B. But he's got a sleazy insurance agent who is apparently willing to lie (the story is a bit more complex than I've laid out here.

Do YOU have a loan on the house?

No. We didn't buy it. The seller lied about the flood zone so we broke the contract - after sinking $685 down in inspections. Our lender was requiring zone A coverage and our agent proved to us it was A - and anyone who can read a map can see is A as well - that's when we knew we had been lied to.

(The house we wound up buying l8tr is in zone B and in fact sits on top of Metairie ridge - didn't flood during Katrina. Flood is $343 a year for 200k in coverage.)

That is actually some important information that I think you left out of the OP.

My impression was that you had bought the house which meant that you were basically out of luck. You didn't buy the house so you are not stuck with a mortgage on the house. I still think your best bet is to start with the Board of Realtors. If you do sue, then I would not be surprised if you got judgment in your favor and you received the funds that you spent that were affected by the misrepresentation.

Did you put down a deposit before you backed out of the deal and not get it back? If so, I would think that you could get that back as well.

Immie

 

[Synthaholic]

Wicked Jester has given you some good advice. But I would add that is never a good idea to go around calling people liars. This is real life, not some Internet message board. Whether you believe that she lied, or there is every indication that she lied, she could've just made a mistake. She could've looked at it and seen something different than what it was. And calling her a liar does not help your case at all. It's immaterial. All that you want to express is that her error cost you 600 and something dollars. I would think that she would be on the hook for it since she disclosed this information in her professional capacity.

Does she work solo? Or is she at a realty company? A company may be more concerned about having their image tarnished by bad publicity, such as on Angie's List, than an individual would.

 

[Immanuel]

Wicked Jester has given you some good advice. But I would add that is never a good idea to go around calling people liars. This is real life, not some Internet message board. Whether you believe that she lied, or there is every indication that she lied, she could've just made a mistake. She could've looked at it and seen something different than what it was. And calling her a liar does not help your case at all. It's immaterial. All that you want to express is that her error cost you 600 and something dollars. I would think that she would be on the hook for it since she disclosed this information in her professional capacity.

Does she work solo? Or is she at a realty company? A company may be more concerned about having their image tarnished by bad publicity, such as on Angie's List, than an individual would.

That is some good advice as well. Calling her a liar will put her more on the defensive and in front of a mediator or a judge will just make you look unrational. Go with the idea that she made a mistake that cost you money, rather than the idea that she did it deliberately.

Immie