Carefully read the terms and conditions in the home inspection report you received. That will tell you if you have any recourse from that angle.

Did you use a real estate attorney for the purchase? They should provide some advice on this. Inspections do not catch every thing in a home. Did you walk through with the inspector and take your own photos?

Did you check the public records of the home with the town/ city/ building department? Records are often very slim in an old home, but they would maybe have a simple floor plan on file. Is the area of concern an addition or part of the original structure? Sometimes porches are turned into 3 season then year round spaces without the proper foundation/ footings/ insulation.

Do some digging (sorry no pun intended) and then see if there’s any recourse. If you don’t want to go through an attorney, you may be out of luck getting any financial help. Even if you go through an attorney and get financial help with the repairs, the attorney fees could take much of that.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Nearly 40 years ago, my friend’s parents bought a home that had paperwork showing it had been connected to town sewer. Then 15 years later (on my friend’s wedding day!!!) they had a sewer backup in the house. The next week they discovered the plumbing had never been connected to town sewer. And the 75 year old septic had failed. There was no recourse and it was a hot mess. My friend’s parents had to pay to fix it, deal with the mess and still live in the house.

We had major water damage in our house that was not disclosed with the sale. We had to rip out the whole first floor and it’s costing 30,000+ to put it back together. So I went through all my options to recoup costs and decided it wasn’t worth it. You could write the seller a letter stating that this was undisclosed and ask for what you’d like. Whether it’s partial, or full reimbursement for the repairs or a total refund. This is assuming you can get their new address to send it. A realtor won’t give it out and a letter from a lawyer will likely be more effective. A lawyer can draft and send a letter, but you will need to hire one to do so. Then the seller could say no, which is likely. Or maybe they’d offer you some money to make it go away. In my state, they require mediation between seller and buyer before court, so it’s a long process and many paid attorney hours. The realtor doesn’t have any liability, and likely the inspector doesn’t really either. Unless what they missed was extremely obvious. Our inspector missed a bunch of stuff, we managed to get 4,000 out of his insurance because he missed a railing that wasn’t to code and our toddler fell through (he was ok). But the inspector had marked that the railings were sufficient. So it was clearly in the paperwork. I just wrote an angry letter. Your realtor might offer a discount reimbursement on his commission, but it’s not really their fault. Idk. Likely a lawyer would need to get involved and even if you can prove that the seller willfully hid the issues, it’s still a long drawn out expensive process.

I don’t think I have any legal leg to stand on and it’s repugnant to go that route.

In that case, grovel and beg if it makes you feel better.

You should have hired your own home inspector, who would have looked out for you. The realtor hired one who probably looked out for him and made sure he didn't lose the sale.

Home inspections can't catch every defect. They can't see in walls or behind furniture. In my state you can go after the previous homeowner IF you can prove they knew about the defect and didn't disclose it. Sometimes proving they knew is hard.

There is a difference - at least in my mind - between a seller lying vs. a buyer failing to do their due diligence. I am aware a seller can't deliberately hide a "defect." However if whatever answers they put on the home disclosure sheet aren't factually incorrect then everything else from there falls on the buyers to ensure they are satisfied and plan to move forward with the purchase.

I think most people who have bought a home found unpleasant surprises once they moved in. It's beyond frustrating when the unpleasant surprises are so expensive to remedy. I know someone who had their septic system fail on a home just a few months after they bought it. It passed the inspection, but apparently the inspection can't see into the laterals (or whatever they're called), and the drain field was shot after being used for ~20 years. What the inspector also didn't know is that the prior owners were somewhat sliding into dementia, and I know they flushed those non-disposable baby wipes into their septic system. (I was a neighbor of the sellers and it came up in a passing conversation a few years before they sold.) That was a wicked expensive sad discovery for the new owners.

Owning a home is often a series of expensive sad discoveries. The joys of home ownership, which are often compounded when you're talking about older homes in particular....

"If this is something that should have been discovered by the home inspectors but wasn't, you likely have some recourse against the inspector (depending on your state, that might be limited)."

In my state, home inspectors are not licensed. There is no recourse against inspectors here. None. Nada. I had a sh*tty inspector for this house, and I get mad every time I think about the $$$ I've had to put into this house for things that he didn't catch that he should have were he the least bit competent. Yes the responsibility is the buyer's, but people hire inspectors because we're not competent to do it ourselves. IMO licensing of inspectors should be a requirement in all states, at least then there would be recourse on that end.

Negligence has nothing to do with licensing. If someone accepts money to provide a service they have a duty to provide that service in a reasonable manner. Which means free from reasonable errors.

In the case of an inspector, there is a duty to find any defects that a reasonably competent inspector would find. If an inspector misses a defect that they should have checked and was determinable via visual inspection, then they are negligent and you may have recourse against them. Some states allow an inspection contract to limit liability and others do not.

----

It is also difficult to discuss disclosures from state to state. Some states have disclosure rules about proving what the homeowner actually knew. In these states the disclosure form may ask "are you aware of any X issues." Other states have a higher bar for disclosures and they may ask "are there any X issues." In the former states you must prove the previous homeowner was aware of the defect, in the latter states you only need prove that a previous homeowner should have been aware of a defect.

"Negligence has nothing to do with licensing."

Perhaps not, but it would at least ensure minimum licensing standards are met - be that education, practical experience, whatever. As it stands, any Joe Schmoe can be a home inspector in my state, which puts the homebuying public at risk.

Would you clarify your comment that your agent provided the inspector?

Your agent doesn't hire the inspector; you hire the inspector; you pay for the inspection.

You can ask your agent for referrals, and usually you will get three names. But, it is your choice.

Were you at the property for the inspection? Did you go over, with the inspector, any issues or concerns? What is revealed in the written report about the foundation?

Keep in mind that foundations of older homes can be a mix bag. Our 1840 half Cape had three different foundations. (Typical with add-ons as the owner made more money and needed extra space for a growing family). However, we were advised of that by the realtor and OUR inspector (when he came up from the root cellar with petrified vegetables.)

Sounds like you bought the house without setting foot on the property, placing your trust in this popular realtor. Your mistake.

On the positive side, as others have mentioned, if the sellers were not truthful in the disclosure statement, you MIGHT have grounds to recover something from THEM. Not your realtor.

After all, how do you think your realtor got to be a millionaire? By knowing the rules and the law and keeping his activity within the those parameters, that’s how. (In other words, by making sure to always keep his @ss covered.)

Sorry you have this problem but I doubt you can do anything about it at this point. Unfortunately you trusted a realtor and that a home inspection was worthwhile. I've learned not to do either of these things and I guess you now have too. I always hire a real estate attorney and if I was buying a 125 year old house I would hire a structural engineer to do my inspection.

I thank you all for your informative comments. I’m pretty tired of thinking about a financial solution. When we receive the final bill I will send it t realtor., inspector, and sellers. With a carefully written latter. Then, I’m giving up and just accepting the situation. Again, I thank all of you

In a 125 year old house I'm not sure the foundation you describe is sufficiently unusual to warrant much mention in an inspection report. Generally things that have been working for over a cenury are presumed to be stable. In my experience with inspectors if you don't see something on your own walkthrough an inspector won't see it either; they don't go hunting for problems (I quit paying for them a long time ago unless someone else required them).

Sounds like you're getting a real bargain if it can be upgraded for only $25K-- In my experience when you start jacking houses up and pouring foundations under them the bill starts at a significant multiple of that number. I'd chalk it up to life in an old house and be thankful that it's not any worse. For better or worse, it's probably not the last issue you will discover.

I love old houses and their quirks and challenges, but they do usually require some input.

As an outsider this sounds like one of those ‘joys of homeownership’ discussions. IMHO your realtor is blameless, they are skilled in the process of buying and selling homes, many I’ve met know very little about how homes work (your car salesman probably can’t change an engine). Your inspector should have caught it, but most inspection reports have so many disclaimers that you rarely have any recourse. What did the inspector say about the foundation? Did he mention that part of the foundation could not be inspected or that part of the house wasn’t supported by the main basement?

What exactly do you want a refund on? And from who? I don’t think a realtor has any culpability here. Obviously you had an inspector who missed something big. The realtor may have arranged for the inspection for you at your request, but you paid for it. I would read the inspection report closely. I would contact an attorney who is experienced in real estate.

I can wholeheartedly understand your frustration. And it is surely compounded by the emotion of selling your home of 38 years and feeling some regret since this home isn’t what you expected. But don’t make the mistake of letting your emotions dictate how you communicate with these individuals. Your idea of sending them a bill will come across as petty. The sellers may have truly not known, and if they didn’t they are truly innocent. The real estate agent isn’t looking for foundation issues, that’s why they recommend an inspector. The I Spector is truly where the ball fell, and in some states they are protected from lawsuits. It’s frustrating, I know. I have had to repair foundations twice, it is brutal.

Sounds like that part of the house used to be a porch that was converted at some point.

Alicia, I was thinking the same thing when I saw the pictures. Then it wouldn't have the same foundation as the house.

Yea and those converted back porches don’t always have insulation either. Then you wonder, how necessary was the fix. Was the room sinking? Was there a second floor over it that seemed like it wasn’t structurally sound. Lots of old houses have those converted back porches and they are just on footers and it’s not really an issue that they don’t have a full foundation.

The inspector's liability is usually limited to the cost of his inspection, no more.

Homes only have to be to the code at the time it was built or remodeled. Codes were different up to 125 years ago. There would be plenty of homes un-sellable if they had to be to current codes.

A home not having a foundation has nothing to do with whether or not the house is cold. That's like saying "I can't see out my window because my roof is leaking."

I'm curious as to whether or not the home suffered substantially due to a lack of an adequate foundation? It has stood for 125 years before you bought it.

Was the area dug up when you purchased?

I would also consider sending the letter to the realtor's broker.

No one here can know if this is a problem the inspector should have caught or what the homeowners knew. The age of the house also doesn't matter. If this is something that the inspector should have seen on a visual inspection then s/he has a duty to report it, if the homeowner knew the problem existed then they have a duty to disclose it. As a homeowner you can be made aware of something that has never been a problem and you still have to disclose it regardless of how long it has not been a problem.

About the only thing we know for sure is that the buyer's realtor is not typically responsible for homeowner disclosure and inspector's omissions unless the realtor was made aware of a problem and didn't disclose that problem.

Nor do liquidated damages (or limited liability) clauses always work. If an inspector has insurance it will almost always pay out amounts in excess of the contract limitation. Furthermore, several states don't allow limitations in home inspections as limitations can be considered against public policy (I live in a state that prevents home inspectors from any limitation of liability). Furthermore, liability limitations only apply to ordinary negligence and not to gross negligence, which is willful, wanton, and reckless conduct (this is why insurance will pay out in excess of the limitation).

I know that many people on this site often argue that seeing an attorney is wasted money, but it is likely the only path to recompense for the OP, there are just too many nuances and unknowns for crowdsourcing this. It may well be a wasted trip, but it also isn't a lot of money. Likely an attorney will charge a couple of hundred bucks to meet and make a few phone calls and give some advice.

What if there was an “as-is, where-is” clause in the purchase contract? Then it there would be no possible recourse, correct?

What if there was an “as-is, where-is” clause in the purchase contract? Then it there would be no possible recourse, correct?

Generally...no. All real estate contracts for existing homes are as-is, where-is by default, most homes don't have a warranty unless you are buying a newly built home. The reason that inspection contingencies exist is so that the buyer can satisfy themselves as to the condition of the home. However, the seller is not allowed to misrepresent the condition of the home. Since disclosures are required, even omissions on the disclosure are misrepresentations. The disclosure rules vary by state, but largely it just means that if you know or should have reasonably surmised a defect exists you must disclose it. Failure to do so is a misrepresentation and therefore actionable.

As-is clauses are really just saying that if the buyer finds a problem the seller will not negotiate for the repair. I typically just ignore it. Unless it is a HUD or REO property, owners will usually negotiate after the inspection even if they claim they will not.

Something similar happened to my boss about 40 years ago. He bought a large house in a fancy and expensive neighborhood. The realtor and the seller knew that the foundation was completely undermined and it was impossible to ever fix it and they colluded to hide that information. They did not disclose. Years of problems with the house and my boss finally discovered the foundation was un-fixable. (In the 50s the owner at the time had built a bomb shelter under the house, permanently ruining the foundation). While my boss was trying to figure out what was wrong and trying to find a foundation company to fix it, he accidentally found out the problem had been already looked at by a local foundation company, and that a report had been given to the previous owner. Basically the foundation person said "I was just here a couple years ago" when he walked into the house.

A civil trail occurred, the previous foundation report was evidence, correspondence between realtor and seller showed they colluded to hide the info. They had to make my boss completely whole, assuming the house was worthless. He stayed in the house for a while, but when they were ready to move, he properly disclosed the issue, the house was bought for the land value only and torn down. The settlement at the time of the trial assumed that would be the outcome and made him whole.

It was a long and stressful process with no guarantee of success, but they were successful bc of all the overwhelming evidence. His wife was a very sympathetic witness bc she was raising little kids in a house that was in a constant state is disrepair.

Not sure I understand how a foundation can be "unfixable" (assuming the house is sound and worth saving). It's pretty routine around here to jack houses up and either move them aside or work underneath them to replace failing rubble stone foundations with poured concrete footers and walls, for example. Doing it to replace the sills is even more common.

It's easiest when there's room on the lot to build a new foundation first and them just move the house onto it.