| _ Prof. Jonez _ 2007-10-15, 5:25 pm |
|
"jsmithson1" <smithson1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wtQQi.4723$hI1.854@trndny06...
>I recently purchased a home. The seller's broker's description on line and in
>print stated that the property "includes stream." There is a stream in the back
>of the property, but it turns out that the stream is beyond the property line
>by some 20 or 30 feet. I spoke to the seller, who said that he told the broker
>that the property did not extend that far back, but the broker refused to
>change the ad. I was provided with a survey before the closing, and so did not
>have a new survey done. I am not disputing the metes and bounds of the deed or
>the dimensions of the property, but am wondering whether I have recourse
>against the broker for her material misrepresentation of fact.
>Misrepresentation: she knew the property didn't include the stream. Material: I
>was searching for property with water on it and in fact only looked at such
>properties with my won broker, who, incidentally also thought the property
>included the stream. Opinions?
You're an idiot for not verifying BEFORE you purchased the property
that it did indeed include this most important to you feature.
Let me guess, you were too cheap to hire a Real Estate attorney to review and
verify
the transaction on your behalf, eh?
|