I purchased a home in MN. Home was marketed (FSBO)as complete remodel. Seller's Disclosure was spotless. I had a non-invasive inspection. Some itesm were discovered that negated the disclosure and a copy was given to the Seller. Seller agreed to give $$ to Buyer to repair some of the items. Home closed. I discovered remodel was done by Seller (not disclosed). I had purchased (unknowingly) a DIY House!! I hired Contractor to complete the repairs agreed upon and more items were revealed during repair that were not disclosed nor would have been discovered in a non-invasive inspection. I had Atttorney draft letter to Seller explaining the items we had agreed to repair were more in depth then the inspection had noted and we foud out he had completed the work and therefore had specific knowledge of all items showing up in report. Seller was asked in letter to repair items as well as new items which had been revealed or Arbitration would follow. Seller argued he had "disclosed" to me through my inspection. What duty does the Seller have to disclose after he receives copy of buyer inspection and clearly knew these items were going to show up as he did the work and still did not disclose. What duty does the buyer have in regards to an inspection? Arbitration paperwork has been filed.

Tough to make a comment on this without knowing more facts and Minnesota real estate law.

Since you're represented by an attorney my suggestion is to let them represent you and see if they can't get relief for you.

generally, seller and seller's agent have an AFFIRMATIVE duty to disclose all known defects. your inspection had no effect on the seller's statutory duty to disclose. seller clearly had direct knowledge of repairs and defects that your initial inspection did not reveal at that time.

no legal advice intended

You would have to PROVE that the seller completed those repairs and not the previous owner before them.

Remember your attorney is paid by the HOUR. The more they work the poorer you become. I would weigh the total costs to fix the items versus how much money you will have to throw at an attorney to win in court. There is no guarantee you will win in court-remember that.

Different counties and cities have rules on what work can be completed by a layperson and what work has to be permitted and approved every step of the way.

Some don't get permits because they don't want to get tax assesed for new improvements or they don't want the hassle of the permit fees and the building inspector.

No legal advice.

This ones a tough call it's up to you.

Depends a little on the laws of your state.
While in general you have a right to be mad. The thing is if you go to court you will have to prove that the seller knew and failed to disclose as well as those deffects also affact the value of what a buyer would have paid knowing that those deffects. In other words would a buyer still pay the price knowing the defects

Thank you for your response. The Seller did do the remodel, proven by my pulling copies of his permits and receiving blueprints AFTER the closing.

We both agreed to the Arbiration Clause, so I have filed and should have my hearing within the next month.

My take was that the same things that were discovered after the sale were there to be discovered before the sale.

Normally it is the buyer that limits the inspections due to costs so unless the seller forbid move invasive inspections at the time - then I don't see this turning out for the buyer's benefit.

The prime reason I do not arbitration is that at times everyone is urged to give even when the plaintiff has done everything correctly.

I appreciate your response. The property was marketed as a complete remodel and by a reputable Contractor and meeting 2005 Building standards. I did not know the only portion completed by the Contractor was the roof and the new slab...all the remainder of the work was completed by the Seller. Blueprints, etc. were turned over to me after the closing. Since the closing, I have found an illegal water shut off valve that was covered in a hole, I now have wall and ceiling staining due to inadequate insulation (not to code although he states the property meets 2005 Building Standards), the dryer was not installed per manufacturer's guidelines, the driveway is a lake with water running into the garage, etc. The Seller disclosed nothing. Had I known the Seller had done all the work (no prior building knowledge and along with his friends), I would have had more than a visual inspection and quite honestly, probably would have "passed" on the Property. I had no intention of purchasing a DIY house.

Now I am confused

First you say the "complete remodel"

Then you say "Seller agreed to give $$ to Buyer to repair some of the items"

Then you say "I hired Contractor to complete the repairs agreed upon and more items were revealed during repair"

Then you said "Seller argued he had "disclosed" to me through my inspection"


Not to sound negative here but did you have an inspection that reveiled this items prior to close and did you recieve credit and if those items were discovered while you was repairing the property you may have a hard time wining. Now dont get me wrong you may very well be in the right. I am only noted that from what I am reading here you may have a hard time proving and wining your case.

I apologize for confusing you..it's so complicated.
Events:
1.Property advertised by Seller (FSBO)as complete remodel by reputable Contractor. Seller's disclosure spotless. Seller disclosure states all new plumbing. Marketing material state home meets 2005 Building standards
2. I write PA. Contingent on buyer non-invasive inspection.
3. Inspection unveils a few issues; missing clean out plug to sewer drain, dryer ductwork not to code (other minor I won't mention). Seller doesn't have time to repair and offers me $500 to fix the above items. Agreed.
4. Property closes. I contact plumber to add clean out plug to sewer drain. Plumber finds drain inoperable, corroded shut and is original drain. Needs more than just drain plug. (Disclosure stated all new plumbing and Seller ran drip lines from HVAC to this drain).
5. I contact HVAC company to change out dryer ductwork to metal. Dryer wasn't vented properly to begin with per manufacturer's specs. Both items more than $500 to fix. (Seller installed dryer)
6. I contact City Inspector to get copy of permits pulled for Property. Seller did all work on home (except for roof and buiding of slab completed by licensed Contractor). Seller never diclosed.
7. Since Seller did all the work, he was aware of incorrect dryer ductowrk, leading drip lines to inoperable drain and all other items which have been "discovered" since then. These items are material facts which were never disclosed.
8. Attorney writes letter to Seller giving him chance to rectify items (there were more) or we go to arbitration (paperword signed).
9. Seller sends letter back stating my inspection discovered these items and therefore he did not need to disclose any further.
10. MN statute states Seller must disclose and contradict any findings contrary to original disclosure if given copy of inspection report (he received). If any "facts" on disclosure change, they must be updated up to the date of closing. Buyer inspection does not take place of Seller's non-discloure.

Blueprints of remodel showing items Contractor completed and items Seller completed not received until after closing. Since closing, more items (which would be considered material facts as they have affected my ordinary use of the property) have been discovered. The Seller had specific knowledge of all items in dispute as he completed them. He basically "built" the house.

Hope this explains things more precisely.

Thank you for your time in reading and your previous response.

Confused
I am not disagreeing with you. All I am saying is just from what I am reading here it might be a little hard to A prove your case as well as proof dollar damages. From experience I have sceen this sort of thing go both ways. For example the dry duckwork. Yes the seller did the work. But he may not have known it was not up to code, He may have tried to fix it and in his mind it was working.