No Closing Attorneys Needed When Closing on a House In Nevada...

This was a document we came up with while trying to recoup the losses
we were initially hit with after buying a house that was supposedly in excellent shape,
according to the seller's signed and notorized disclosure form.

If you ever want to buy a house in Nevada, be extremely careful.

There are no laws that require that closing attorney's review all aspects of buying and selling a house.

This makes selling a house with a false disclosure statement rather easy.

Home Damages & Damages Repair Expense Report

The house had an inside pool. This structure was attached to the house, accessible from the master bedroom. It has a flat roof, with toungue-in-groove teaky cypress paneling for the walls, and toungue-in-groove poplar paneling for the roof. This structure had been majorly damaged from water pooling on the flat roof, but this had been covered up by a fresh coat of marine quality paint. It was also covered up by a paid-off home inspector (mentioned later...).

Properly Replace Plumbing Pipes – our choice of material: $12,000.00
Replace Roof – our choice of material: $35,000.00
Remove A/C & Ducts from Pool Roof: $5,000.00
Remove existing Pool Roof: $15,000.00
Properly Replace Pool Roof: $60,000.00
Properly Relocate A/C: $12,000.00
(Properly meaning legal and up to code...)
Water Damage from rusted-through plumbing pipes in attic: 25,000+
Insurance Deductible: 1000+
Lawyer’s Fees: 75,000.00

Notes

Property was not sold in as-is condition

The property’s MLS sheet stated that the builder of the house was the Howard Hughes Corporation and the Listing Agent (LA) stated that Howard Hughes actually built the property for his wife to occupy and that she did occupy the house. F & Z Construction, Inc. actually built the house.

The LA stated on numerous occasions that the property had been owned by the actor “Tony Randall.” Extensive descriptions of Mr. Randall’s numerous parties and guests were made. Tony Randall never owned or even occupied this house. The buyers of course didn’t buy the house based solely on this information, but feel it was a deliberate attempt by the LA to falsely add desirability to the property.

Twyla Finch Oaks and Frances P. Finch (Buyers) were informed up front, the very first time the Property was shown that the seller very much wanted to owner finance.

Initial bid acceptance of approximately $840,000 accepted. We had been pre-approved for a loan in accordance with this amount. Our lender chose Scotty Dugan’s appraisal company to perform appraisal that came in (after two weeks) at $500,000. We know the listing agent (LA) of Prudential Southwest Realty (PSR) knew the appraiser and feel the LA possibly affected the outcome of said appraisal to have a negative impact on our loan approval process, using subversive methods. Our lender would not loan us money on the house, under any circumstances, after the low appraisal price came in.

After finding out the appraisal information and discovering the associated problems with our obtaining a normal loan, we attempted to make offers on our two backup homes. The first home was in Sierra Vista Ranchos and was listed at $449,000. We offered asking price (in cash...) on this house and about five days later, were told by our realtor, Pamela Manning (BA) of Merit Realty (MR) that the house was "taken off the market." This house was sold about two months later.... We then went to our third and final choice, a new home just off La Mesa, listed at 700,000.00, prepared to take a final look and make an offer and were met around 6pm by someone who told us he was one of the builders and that the house was under contract. This house was never removed from the MLS. At this point, we were left with trying to negotiate a final price on Alice Hahnfeld’s (Seller) house at 7196 Mira Vista, due to the fact, known by at least the Buyers Agent, that we were facing a deadline on the completion of selling our two condos in Atlanta.

A final price of $735,000 and owner financing was agreed upon by the buyer and seller.

The seller opted not to disclose the condition of the “supply line” galvanized steel plumbing in the attic. According to her signed disclosure, the pipes were in good condition. They actually were extremely corroded and had approximately twelve temporary patches on them. The two plumbing companies that we know worked on these pipes were Larkin Plumbing and Abe’s Plumbing. The seller knew the condition of her plumbing and willfully chose not to disclose this information.

The seller opted not to disclose the condition of the property’s cedar shingle roof. According to her signed disclosure, the roof was in good condition. The roof actually was in a state of dire disrepair and we feel this was intensified by her having a non-licensed roofer chemically treat the roof for water proofness, a process that not only had become illegal in Las Vegas, but had also been proven to be detrimental by the National Roofer’s Association (who sent out a newsletter to all licensed roofing contractors in reference to this). Also, we feel that the seller had full knowledge of the roof having extensive leaks due to its useful life being shortened by improper if not illegal treatment. A roofing contractor showed us where the roof had leaked before.

The seller opted not to disclose the condition of the property’s roll composition covered flat pool roof. According to her signed disclosure, the pool area’s roof was in good condition. The pool roof ‘s ceiling is made out of tongue-in-groove paneling. The top layer or cover of the flat roof structure is a “rolled composition” asphalt material. Water saturation occurred over a long period of years prior to our purchasing the property. This condition was invisible to both the home inspector and us because of the seller’s caulking and painting patches of the tongue-in-grove ceiling that otherwise would have shown water and/or saturation damage. We feel the seller deliberately attempted to hide the major damage she was fully aware of, and in doing so, further ruined the pool roof’s usability by creating a sealed area of the tongue-in-groove paneling that would not allow water to pass through and did in fact create an area where saturation rotted out a large portion of material. At this time, the pool area is completely unsafe and therefore unusable.

The Home Inspector (HI) failed to notice and report the condition outlined in paragraph 8. Furthermore, the HI failed to notice the composition of the plumbing pipes. The HI also failed to notice the numerous temporary patches on said plumbing. The HI stated in writing on his report that the plumbing in the attic was copper and that it was in good condition. This dire act of negligence corroborated with the seller’s fraudulent claim in paragraph 8.

The HI inspected the property’s roofing material and stated that it “had another ten years of useful life.” The HI also verbally pointed out that the roof “simply needs to be ‘chemically treated’ by a roofing contractor every six months or so, to make it water-proof.” This in fact shows the HI’s absolute incompetence in relation to advisories emitted from the National Roofer’s Association as noted in paragraph 9. The HI’s written report stated that the roof was “aging and is capable of being serviced.” A false statement due to the fact that no licensed roofing contractor would treat the roof. This dire act of negligence corroborated with the seller’s fraudulent claim in paragraph 9.

The HI inspected the pool roof and stated that “it had some loose flashing and exposed nails that should have been taken care of so no-one got hurt.” Nothing was stated about any other type of damage. The HI was grossly negligent in failing to recognize or disclose the fact that ponding on a rolled composition roof would result in saturation of the roof’s structure and subsequent rotting of materials and also that the material used to temporarily aid the rolled composition roof was inadequately applied in a manner that still allowed the saturation to occur while adding an extra layer of insulation to the roof as described in paragraph 10. This dire act of negligence corroborated with the seller’s fraudulent claim in paragraph 8.

Paragraph 8 was first noticed by the buyer on May 27, 1999, due to a corroded section of the supply line galvanized steel plumbing bursting and subsequently flooding one of the property’s bedrooms. A plumber from Union Plumbing, through the home warranty company American Home Shield (AHS) notified us that all he could do was temporarily patch the centimeter-sized hole. He further explained to us that the section of bad pipe could not be replaced without irreparably damaging or destroying the existing pipes due to their high level of corrosion.

Paragraph 9 was first notice by the buyer on May 28, 1999, when USAA’s general contractor looked up through the 4 x 6-foot hole in the water damaged bedroom’s ceiling and saw the extremely high amount of light shining through the roof. He told us our roof was shot and probably had been for years. The buyer did see a single leak coming in through the ceiling in the property’s family room, the only room in the home that has a vaulted ceiling which resides approximately six to eight inches below the cedar shingles. There is no insulation between the tongue-in-groove ceiling panels in this room and the cedar shingle roof. The buyer, in accordance with and as a result of both the seller’s disclosure form and the HI’s written and oral statements assumed that the single area of the leak could be repaired by patching the roof itself. Further investigation on or about September 22, 1998, by the buyer revealed that the single leak in question could not be repaired itself by replacing a couple of shingles but that the entire section of cedar shingle roof would have to be removed and replaced with a different, approved material, due to the fact that cedar shingles no longer met regulations or building code.

Paragraph 10 was first noticed by the buyer on June 9, 1999, when parts of the tongue-in-groove ceiling broke away from the ceiling and fell into the pool, revealing the rotting material overhead. The seller’s homeowner insurance company, USAA, was immediately notified. USAA sent out an adjuster who unofficially noted that the A/C on the roof appeared not to have met “Building Permit” code due to the unsupportive nature of the roof itself. The Adjuster requested a structural engineering report - the pool house was condemned.

Upon final walkthrough before purchasing property, the buyer noted the following defect: the master bathroom toilet’s tank did not appear to refill very quickly. The LA stated that this toilet had a “water saver feature” and was supposed to work like this. After the pipe burst in May of 1999, a report was filed with AHS on slow flushing on three of the four toilets in the house. AHS assigned Active plumbing to this problem. Technicians from Active informed the buyer that the pipes were too internally corroded to allow adequate water to flush the toilets correctly. Active Plumbing told the buyer the only way to fix this is to re-pipe the house. This condition noted on the walk through by the buyer clearly proves the existence of a plumbing problem that should have been disclosed by the seller and the LA. Also proven here is the LA’s willful attempt to again mislead the buyer.

The LA informed the buyer that the seller would be glad to fix any problems found on the property. The seller noticed a single minor leak dripping off the second or middle vent in the pool area during regular rain and an additional leak coming from the edge of the A/C intake grate, two areas that appeared to simply be in need of caulking or sealing the metal duct and roof joint at the vent and maybe some caulking around the A/C unit. When the buyer asked the LA to ask the seller to repair the leaks as promised, the LA informed the buyer that “the seller was in no way responsible for repairing that.”

No building permits were taken out other than F & Z Constructions original building permit to build the house in April 1967 and a gas line permit in 1978.

The A/C unit on the roof was manufactured in 1989. The size of the platform this A/C is mounted on indicates that it was installed for this A/C only and therefore was installed by the seller. This improper, unlicensed installation caused the pool roof failure.