Realtors being accountable for their listings

[msommers]

I had a bit of reservation about posting this as many people know who I am on this board but I need to broaden my audience of folks who may be in the know.

A quick background: I recently bought an older condo that ticked off a lot of boxes in my "needs" column. One of which was a condo with concrete construction as wood frame had a tendency to transmit sound more readily than concrete. I feel like I got a good price on this place, did all my checks including condo doc review and home inspection before finally signing.

Shortly after possession I did some minor repairs and also some upgrades: replaced some ceiling drywall in the bathroom and all new flooring. It was upon starting these renovations that this condo was in fact a wood frame and not a concrete one as it said in the listing.

I was furious and everyone involved knew how much so rather quickly. My realtor said she would speak with someone at the real estate board on how to proceed and I also gave my lawyer a head's up of what is happening. After this I went to down to the City and pulled blueprints, and even spoke to the architect, all of which confirmed this was a wood frame building.

Today I finally received a response from someone at the real estate board:


Well maybe but.... We don't know what representations were made about construction by the seller to the realtor on the other side of this if any. We don't know if the listing realtor assumed it was concrete or perhaps knew it was would frame and it was entered wrong on the MLS so we are still working in a bit of a vacuum.

At the end of the day even though someone may and I stress may have made an error it does not necessarily and immediately mean that a buyer has a claim for damages.

The error has to have put a buyer into a position where they have suffered damages. I do not at this point see that here. The property is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. No more and no less. If the comparables were consistent then the buyer may not like what he or she has but there are no damages.

We have seen many cases of wood v concrete basements and a buyer being upset over finding out and suing after the fact over wood instead of concrete. The value of the home was the same so at the end of the day there were no damages.

Finally given no one that was a party to this deal had any idea what this was made of including the inspector then how is anyone going to be found liable. I think the buyer would have a tough case to make.

Again, my blood is boiling. The impression that I'm getting from this is that essentially there is no way to prove "damages," and the selling realtor gets off with zero repercussions meanwhile I have a property which I did not intend to buy, and having a wood frame which I feel decreases the appeal and therefore value of the condo.

I've forwarded everything to my lawyer whom I'm waiting to hear back from.

I've put in a decent amount of money with new appliances and renos, not to mention many, many hours of my own time to make this place my own, only to find out later it's not the property I thought I bought. The thought of moving already makes my head hurt and I doubt I'll recover my costs this quickly into the purchase. Not to mention there is no way physically to view homes right now with my work schedule which involves being out of town for days or up to several weeks at a time.

I feel I'm not at fault, neither is my realtor, nor the home inspector. The condo doc review company potentially but ultimately, the selling realtor fucked up and I feel there should be compensation. How is a buyer supposed to have any confidence in listings when the realtor doesn't appear to be accountable for what's on it?!

Thoughts?

[ercchry]

well if a murder suicide gets you a free house in quebec... i'd expect at least 25% off for this, your lawyer will know best.... but from personal experience, i'd get one that doesnt just write real estate deals all day to handle it... since those guys dont seem to be very motivated after the deal is done

[2.2vtec]

Why wouldn't your real estate agent be on the same hook as the seller? Shouldn't your agent be on the look out for his clients best interest.

If the selling agent said it was more square footage, is it fair for your agent to just trust it? I think it works both ways for the listing and buying agent.

[revelations]

Its one of those things were someone fucked up (realtor typically, some of them shouldnt be allowed to own a PC) and the end result is that you MIGHT be able to sue for damages.... and in the end its probably not worth your while.

Did the inspector or the doc review company *specifically* know you wanted a concrete building ?

I can tell you that I specifically looked for a concrete condo when I bought mine.... and I went around and banged on the walls to MAKE SURE the realtor wasnt a complete clown. As is typical, t only walls that are concrete are between neighbours. They didnt even bother with sound insulation into the hallway walls.

No wood structures should have people stacked in like that, and then expect privacy.

[BigMass]

Sorry to hear that man, i would be just as upset as you but maybe i can help lessen your panic. Has noise been an issue for you? Almost all 4 story condos in the beltline are wood and I don't think that would detract a buyer from it. A 4 story concrete building would be a rare exception. And where you purchased your condo, there are no high-rises so wood would be the standard. So I don't think you should worry about resale because of that fact. My thoughts and many other buyer's in general is "lowrise / wood, highrise / concrete"

[msommers]

Originally posted by ercchry
well if a murder suicide gets you a free house in quebec... i'd expect at least 25% off for this, your lawyer will know best.... but from personal experience, i'd get one that doesnt just write real estate deals all day to handle it... since those guys dont seem to be very motivated after the deal is done

I'll consider elsewhere after I hear back, thanks.



Originally posted by 2.2vtec
Why wouldn't your real estate agent be on the same hook as the seller? Shouldn't your agent be on the look out for his clients best interest.

If the selling agent said it was more square footage, is it fair for your agent to just trust it? I think it works both ways for the listing and buying agent.

If I bought a car and found out a year after buying it that they put the wrong engine in it, is my fault for not checking or the seller's fault for incorrectly describing the engine that it was supposed to come with? The seller fucked up. End of story.

[410440]

Originally posted by msommers


I'll consider elsewhere after I hear back, thanks.




If I bought a car and found out a year after buying it that they put the wrong engine in it, is my fault for not checking or the seller's fault for incorrectly describing the engine that it was supposed to come with? The seller fucked up. End of story.

If you bought a car and a year later noticed it had a different engine... you are an idiot.


The concrete walls are a different story, lets compare apple to apples here, not vtec to my little pony.


Could you not have knocked on the walls and have known pretty quick if they were wood or concrete? i mean, maybe its just me.. but i assume everyone is fucking stupid and dont trust anything unless i can verify it myself... something like concrete walls vs. wood i would think would be pretty easy to verify

[Mibz]

What sort of compensation are you looking for?


Originally posted by 410440
Could you not have knocked on the walls and have known pretty quick if they were wood or concrete? This is a slippery slope. How far can you reasonably expect somebody to go to prove that what they're getting is as advertised? Even using the example above, I bet the majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an I4 and V6 if you popped the hood for them. Is it their fault if they get one instead of the other? What if somebody doesn't know what concrete vs wood sounds like? You should be able to trust that you're getting precisely what you asked for.

That said, normally I'd say anything you don't put on paper is something you can't complain about being missing. This is a weird one though. I dunno.

[msommers]

Originally posted by revelations
Did the inspector or the doc review company *specifically* know you wanted a concrete building ?

No they did not. However my realtor explicitly knew that and was the only reason this listing showed up in my email.

Sound is a problem above me. I had a friend over and I caught him checking above or the door as it sounds like someone is coming in my patio door. He also lives in a wood frame with someone living above him, and does not have this issue at all.


Originally posted by BigMass
Sorry to hear that man, i would be just as upset as you but maybe i can help lessen your panic. Has noise been an issue for you? Almost all 4 story condos in the beltline are wood and I don't think that would detract a buyer from it. A 4 story concrete building would be a rare exception. And where you purchased your condo, there are no high-rises so wood would be the standard. So I don't think you should worry about resale because of that fact. My thoughts and many other buyer's in general is "lowrise / wood, highrise / concrete"

That was my impression as well because I spoke with an engineer who used to designed low-rise places. But he said with older buildings this could be an exception.

I'm just astounded by the apparent lack of accountability with something so major as a home.

[88CRX]

Does the building have a gypcrete topping on the floors? Could be some confusion there.

[msommers]

Originally posted by 410440


If you bought a car and a year later noticed it had a different engine... you are an idiot.


The concrete walls are a different story, lets compare apple to apples here, not vtec to my little pony.


Could you not have knocked on the walls and have known pretty quick if they were wood or concrete? i mean, maybe its just me.. but i assume everyone is fucking stupid and dont trust anything unless i can verify it myself... something like concrete walls vs. wood i would think would be pretty easy to verify

This is a car forum, of course you'd say that. But the analogy still stands. A seller is responsible for providing you an item they described in a contract.

Regardless, yes I could have knocked and with my "all wise ability" been able to tell the difference, but I'm not an expert so it wouldn't have mattered. That's why I paid people to look at everything. Home inspectors are only responsible for what's in the unit. Condo docs are responsible for the reviewing the documents they receive. They did receive a reserve study which does include an overall assessment for repairs based on out-of-unit features (roof, hallway, boilers etc). This is why they might be on the hook but the study does not assess above-foundation construction (how could you).



Originally posted by Mibz
What sort of compensation are you looking for?

At this point, nothing has been finalized.


Originally posted by 88CRX
Does the building have a gypcrete topping on the floors? Could be some confusion there.

Yes it does. But the only way to know this would be to look at blueprints or tear up the floor.

[410440]

Originally posted by msommers


This is a car forum, of course you'd say that. But the analogy still stands. A seller is responsible for providing you an item they described in a contract.

Regardless, yes I could have knocked and with my "all wise ability" been able to tell the difference, but I'm not an expert so it wouldn't have mattered. That's why I paid people to look at everything. Home inspectors are only responsible for what's in the unit. Condo docs are responsible for the reviewing the documents they receive. They did receive a reserve study which does include an overall assessment for repairs based on out-of-unit features (roof, hallway, boilers etc). This is why they might be on the hook but the study does not assess above-foundation construction (how could you).




At this point, nothing has been finalized.



Yes it does. But the only way to know this would be to look at blueprints or tear up the floor.


out of curiosity did you specifically ask your home inspector to verify it had concrete walls? if you did, you might have some recourse against them ?

I'm just sayin' man, if concrete walls were the make all break all for your deal, i would have done more than just ask the selling agent.. maybe had a caveat in the buying agreement pending blue print inspection

[in*10*se]

Originally posted by msommers
I had a bit of reservation about posting this as many people know who I am on this board but I need to broaden my audience of folks who may be in the know.

A quick background: I recently bought an older condo that ticked off a lot of boxes in my "needs" column. One of which was a condo with concrete construction as wood frame had a tendency to transmit sound more readily than concrete. I feel like I got a good price on this place, did all my checks including condo doc review and home inspection before finally signing.

Shortly after possession I did some minor repairs and also some upgrades: replaced some ceiling drywall in the bathroom and all new flooring. It was upon starting these renovations that this condo was in fact a wood frame and not a concrete one as it said in the listing.

I was furious and everyone involved knew how much so rather quickly. My realtor said she would speak with someone at the real estate board on how to proceed and I also gave my lawyer a head's up of what is happening. After this I went to down to the City and pulled blueprints, and even spoke to the architect, all of which confirmed this was a wood frame building.

Today I finally received a response from someone at the real estate board:



Again, my blood is boiling. The impression that I'm getting from this is that essentially there is no way to prove "damages," and the selling realtor gets off with zero repercussions meanwhile I have a property which I did not intend to buy, and having a wood frame which I feel decreases the appeal and therefore value of the condo.

I've forwarded everything to my lawyer whom I'm waiting to hear back from.

I've put in a decent amount of money with new appliances and renos, not to mention many, many hours of my own time to make this place my own, only to find out later it's not the property I thought I bought. The thought of moving already makes my head hurt and I doubt I'll recover my costs this quickly into the purchase. Not to mention there is no way physically to view homes right now with my work schedule which involves being out of town for days or up to several weeks at a time.

I feel I'm not at fault, neither is my realtor, nor the home inspector. The condo doc review company potentially but ultimately, the selling realtor fucked up and I feel there should be compensation. How is a buyer supposed to have any confidence in listings when the realtor doesn't appear to be accountable for what's on it?!

Thoughts? [/B]

Maybe next time if you have reservations about the build of a condo you'll check the blueprints w/ the builder next time... caveat emptor
however, i do feel for you and i feel the same way about the accountability of realtors.



The error has to have put a buyer into a position where they have suffered damages. I do not at this point see that here. The property is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. No more and no less. If the comparables were consistent then the buyer may not like what he or she has but there are no damages.

There is a point here: Had you known the property was wood, you would not have been prepared to pay what you paid....
i'd be pissed too...
your miracle scenario is you get to move out and the possession is reversed, i doubt this so much.
your likely scenario is you're stuck with it, and lesson learned about due diligence.

good luck.

[bignerd]

The home inspector did not know what kind of construction it was? Seems kind of odd to me.

[88CRX]

Originally posted by msommers
Yes it does. But the only way to know this would be to look at blueprints or tear up the floor.

So technically there is concrete in the building….. see where I’m going?

What were you expecting with ‘concrete construction’ anyways? Concrete floors and concrete party/corridor wall?

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by 410440
I'm just sayin' man, if concrete walls were the make all break all for your deal, i would have done more than just ask the selling agent.. maybe had a caveat in the buying agreement pending blue print inspection

I agree. It sucks you got hosed msommers and you have a right to be pissed, but you really should have done your due diligence in ensuring the information was correct if this was so important to you.

[msommers]

Originally posted by 410440
out of curiosity did you specifically ask your home inspector to verify it had concrete walls? if you did, you might have some recourse against them ?

I'm just sayin' man, if concrete walls were the make all break all for your deal, i would have done more than just ask the selling agent.. maybe had a caveat in the buying agreement pending blue print inspection

I know you're not fighting, just making a point and I get that. But when I see a listing and under construction type it says one thing, I did not expect I needed to verify that down at the city. Have you heard of anyone you know personally doing this?


Originally posted by in*10*se
Maybe next time if you have reservations about the build of a condo you'll check the blueprints w/ the builder next time... caveat emptor
however, i do feel for you and i feel the same way about the accountability of realtors.



There is a point here: Had you known the property was wood, you would not have been prepared to pay what you paid....
i'd be pissed too...
your miracle scenario is you get to move out and the possession is reversed, i doubt this so much.
your likely scenario is you're stuck with it, and lesson learned about due diligence.

good luck.

See above. I can't think of a single person who has pulled blueprints on a 30 year old building to check the construction. And it did not occur to me that this was part of the process of condo buying.


Originally posted by bignerd
The home inspector did not know what kind of construction it was? Seems kind of odd to me.

He was very clear he is only responsible for things in the unit. I say this because I wasn't happy he didn't check the roof or the boiler room, which he said in a condo they don't do.


Originally posted by 88CRX
So technically there is concrete in the building….. see where I’m going?

What were you expecting with ‘concrete construction’ anyways? Concrete floors and concrete party/corridor wall?

That is what I was expecting, as that is the construction by code in high-rises. There is no difference in a listing from concrete construction in a high- vs. low-riseI'm not an expert in gypcrete but I don't think it qualifies as a type of concrete but instead a fire-retardant.


Originally posted by Kloubek


I agree. It sucks you got hosed msommers and you have a right to be pissed, but you really should have done your due diligence in ensuring the information was correct if this was so important to you.

It's hindsight now but at the time, the information on a listing as I understood was what you were getting. It's like having a detached garage on a listing and asking if it's included.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by bignerd
The home inspector did not know what kind of construction it was? Seems kind of odd to me.

I can't speak for all home inspectors, but I know the one I hired was an idiot. He got so many things wrong, it wasn't even funny. The most glaring was when he told me about a pressure relief valve not being where it should in my water system. Turns out it was the valve for the underground sprinkler system.

[msommers]

At the end of the day I understand that this is likely a legal matter. It was also not a thread seeking pity. It was strictly for advice going forward, not what I could have, or should have done, before signing.

I paid for a listing that was later found to be inaccurate. Now I need to see what my options are.

Thanks.

[faiz999]

sorry to hear about your situation. cant add nothing other than good luck

[88CRX]

On the bright side wood framed construction with the gypcrete topping is pretty damn good for STC ratings.

[you&me]

First of all, that's a terrible situation and I feel for you.

I think the car analogy is perfect.

Say you're not a car guy, but you know that you specifically want a 335 BMW (you've heard good things, read some reviews, etc). You want to buy a car from a dealership because they're 'professionals' and you can trust self-proclaimed 'professionals' after all. You do the right thing by having the car inspected and it passes, ask the dealer the typical questions, etc so you go ahead with the deal and buy it.

Later on, a friend with more car-knowledge points out that your 335 seems to be a little gutless and the exhaust doesn't sound right. Turns out you bought a re-badged 325. What would you do then? Can you blame the inspector because you didn't specifically ask if the car had the I6? No, because you and he were for signs of previous accidents and the typical wear and tear items. Can you blame your self, for not knowing how a 335 should drive, or what the exhaust should sound like? No, you're not a car guy; you have no basis for checking this and that's why you're using a professional.

So, can you blame the dealer? Maybe they didn't know it was a re-badged 325. Or entered the wrong model in their inventory system which feeds into the ads, sale documents, etc.

There isn't a guy on here that wouldn't put ALL of the blame on the dealer. The dealer didn't know? Too bad. The dealer made a clerical error? Too bad. The dealer got swindled by the guy that traded it in? Too bad.

There is no scenario possible that this doesn't fall on the dealer, partially because of public perception, but also because the governing body (AMVIC) wouldn't let them get away with it. I'm not sure what mechanisms are in place in the real estate industry for this kind of thing (doesn't sound like anything), but form that response, you can clearly see the real estate board is an industry advocate, not a public / consumer one. And I'm not sure if the message from the person at the real estate board was a cut and paste, but if it was, that's a pathetic representation of the board (a response from someone that can use a little punctuation would be nice, considering the situation).

This is a matter of misrepresentation.

I don't mean to offend any realtors on here, but there are constant calls of "professionalism", "due diligence", "trust" and a bunch of other warm and fuzzy self-justification BS when it comes time for them to collect their rather generous commissions. Now there are some great realtors out there that are worth every cent, but those generous commissions should entitle clients on both sides to a certain level of professional competency, which seems to be clearly lacking in this instance. If a realtor wants to collect a $20k commission for listing a condo, I would expect them to do more than just put the sign in the ground (I know; they don't even do that themselves!). A seller, or seller's agent should be responsible for the representation of any item for sale, be it a property, car, yacht, or pair of socks. Fuck, I'd be mad if I bought a pair of socks that was mislabelled.

[BigMass]

just curious since you didn't answer the first time, but has noise been an issue so far?

[ercchry]

the other thing... all the old listings for a property are search-able by the realtor... if its an old building chances are you didnt buy from the original owner, and the fact its a condo building with multiple similar units... that should be a hard thing to fuck up, maybe get your realtor to look up previously sold units and see what they are listed as? hell even see if they can find previous ads for your unit and see if it was changed from wood at any point. that could help with the proof that the listing realtor was purposely misrepresenting it

[FraserB]

Mind sending me the names of the places that dropped the ball, I'd prefer not to accidentally wind up with them this year.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by FraserB
Mind sending me the names of the places that dropped the ball, I'd prefer not to accidentally wind up with them this year.

just stick with jordan :thumbsup:

[spikerS]

You&me nailed it, this is a case of misrepresentation by the seller and the seller's agent.

They made the statement and claim that the building was concrete construction and that turned out to be false.

Having said that, the email you got is correct, proving damages is going to be hard. What kind of compensation can you expect? IMO, I think the best you can hope for, is the listing agent's brokerage buys the place from you, to make you whole again. Will you get the costs of all the appliances and upgrades you have done? I would not hold my breath, but you could probably work out some deal. Anything more than that, I don't know what to speculate with.

Either way, you are already doing the best thing you can by getting your lawyer involved. Also having your agent swearing on some sort of document stating that you were specifically searching for a concrete construction would be a big help too, or any correspondence to that effect.

Just my $0.02, and thoughts.

[msommers]

Originally posted by BigMass
just curious since you didn't answer the first time, but has noise been an issue so far?


Originally posted by msommers
Sound is a problem above me. I had a friend over and I caught him checking above or the door as it sounds like someone is coming in my patio door. He also lives in a wood frame with someone living above him, and does not have this issue at all.

In short, yes it's noticeable and a thing I really wanted to avoid unless I was top floor (which was usually excessively over my budget).



Originally posted by ercchry
the other thing... all the old listings for a property are search-able by the realtor... if its an old building chances are you didnt buy from the original owner, and the fact its a condo building with multiple similar units... that should be a hard thing to fuck up, maybe get your realtor to look up previously sold units and see what they are listed as? hell even see if they can find previous ads for your unit and see if it was changed from wood at any point. that could help with the proof that the listing realtor was purposely misrepresenting it

We did look at previous listings but it was for price comparisons and approximate growth purposes. I'll get access to all of them and check myself. Thanks.


Originally posted by FraserB
Mind sending me the names of the places that dropped the ball, I'd prefer not to accidentally wind up with them this year.

It's hard to say who dropped the ball here besides the selling realtor. I have not contacted them yet so I won't list them here at this time.

[Isaiah]

There are four points worth mentioning and of which you should be aware:

1. REIX Insurance: All realtors practicing in Alberta must subscribe to mandatory errors and omissions insurance under REIX (Real Estate Insurance Exchange) as mandated by the Alberta Real Estate Act. The insurance specifically covers them for errors and omissions during the course of a real estate transaction. REIX should be your next point of contact if you haven't spoken to them yet.

If your realtor was specifically aware that you were only interested in concrete construction, you may have a strong case for compensation. As for the listing realtor, if it was mentioned anywhere in the listing, or if they advised you verbally that the building was concrete instead of wood construction, you may also have a case for compensation from them as well.

2. Contract Elements: There are six required elements for a contract to be legally binding. One of them is genuine consent, which stipulates that both parties are privy to all facts required to make a decision and consented by their own free will. The argument could be made that you were not provided one of the key facts required for you to make a decision, or that you were misled by by the agents representing you and the seller on a key fact required to make your decision. This may only apply if one of the realtors specifically advised you that the building was constructed of concrete. If this is the case, it could be either by common/mutual/unilateral mistake, or misrepresentation. In the latter case, if a professional makes a negligent representation, which is a false statement without checking its accuracy, a contract may be rescinded if negligent misrepresentation can be proven. In this case, if it can be proven that one of the necessary elements of a legal contract has not been met, the contract is voidable.

3. Material latent defect: This is a defect that, among other criteria, would have caused the buyer not to have entered the contract if they had known about it, and that cannot be discerned through reasonable inspection. If you specifically instructed your realtor that you were only interested in concrete construction, and you have proof of that in writing (as in an email with your property criteria), it may be possible to argue that the building being of wood construction is a material latent defect as it pertains to your interest in the property, even if it would not normally fall under that category.

4. Fiduciary Duty: Your realtor is your fiduciary which makes them a person in a position of trust and with a duty to act in your best interests giving them the power to unilaterally affect their beneficiary's interests, and which renders the beneficiary (you) vulnerable to the fiduciary (your realtor). If your realtor was aware of your property criteria and still negotiated the contract on your behalf in spite of one key criteria not being met, it may be possible to argue, although probably with some difficulty, that the realtor did not fulfil his fiduciary duty to you as one of his mandates is to follow your instructions.

[Cos]

.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by msommers

In short, yes it's noticeable and a thing I really wanted to avoid unless I was top floor (which was usually excessively over my budget).


ahh sorry I missed your original comment. But yes I have the same concerns. Currently looking for a place and the only way I'd consider a wood structure would be top floor or something new where they use some modern sound proofing methods which were left out back in the day. Some older buildings have paper thin walls. Guess back in 1970 people didn't mind noise from neighbors :dunno:

On a side not, I also lived in a concrete high-rise and had tons of noise issues so be weary of that as well even in older concrete buildings. Concrete slabs, but walls were paper thin and sound carried through places like kitchen vents etc so you could actually hear the person above you pulling out pots and pans and closing cabinets etc. Very loud. So even then you have to be careful. (for the future)

[blairtruck]

in Edmonton nothing under 4 floors is every concrete. from what ive seen as a land surveyor and working with almost every new condo in the city.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Isaiah
There are four points worth mentioning and of which you should be aware:

1. REIX Insurance: All realtors practicing in Alberta must subscribe to mandatory errors and omissions insurance under REIX (Real Estate Insurance Exchange) as mandated by the Alberta Real Estate Act. The insurance specifically covers them for errors and omissions during the course of a real estate transaction. REIX should be your next point of contact if you haven't spoken to them yet.

If your realtor was specifically aware that you were only interested in concrete construction, you may have a strong case for compensation. As for the listing realtor, if it was mentioned anywhere in the listing, or if they advised you verbally that the building was concrete instead of wood construction, you may also have a case for compensation from them as well.

2. Contract Elements: There are six required elements for a contract to be legally binding. One of them is genuine consent, which stipulates that both parties are privy to all facts required to make a decision and consented by their own free will. The argument could be made that you were not provided one of the key facts required for you to make a decision, or that you were misled by by the agents representing you and the seller on a key fact required to make your decision. This may only apply if one of the realtors specifically advised you that the building was constructed of concrete. If this is the case, it could be either by common/mutual/unilateral mistake, or misrepresentation. In the latter case, if a professional makes a negligent representation, which is a false statement without checking its accuracy, a contract may be rescinded if negligent misrepresentation can be proven. In this case, if it can be proven that one of the necessary elements of a legal contract has not been met, the contract is voidable.

3. Material latent defect: This is a defect that, among other criteria, would have caused the buyer not to have entered the contract if they had known about it, and that cannot be discerned through reasonable inspection. If you specifically instructed your realtor that you were only interested in concrete construction, and you have proof of that in writing (as in an email with your property criteria), it may be possible to argue that the building being of wood construction is a material latent defect as it pertains to your interest in the property, even if it would not normally fall under that category.

4. Fiduciary Duty: Your realtor is your fiduciary which makes them a person in a position of trust and with a duty to act in your best interests giving them the power to unilaterally affect their beneficiary's interests, and which renders the beneficiary (you) vulnerable to the fiduciary (your realtor). If your realtor was aware of your property criteria and still negotiated the contract on your behalf in spite of one key criteria not being met, it may be possible to argue, although probably with some difficulty, that the realtor did not fulfil his fiduciary duty to you as one of his mandates is to follow your instructions.

Fantastic. Thank you Isaiah.


Originally posted by BigMass


ahh sorry I missed your original comment. But yes I have the same concerns. Currently looking for a place and the only way I'd consider a wood structure would be top floor or something new where they use some modern sound proofing methods which were left out back in the day. Some older buildings have paper thin walls. Guess back in 1970 people didn't mind noise from neighbors :dunno:

On a side not, I also lived in a concrete high-rise and had tons of noise issues so be weary of that as well even in older concrete buildings. Concrete slabs, but walls were paper thin and sound carried through places like kitchen vents etc so you could actually hear the person above you pulling out pots and pans and closing cabinets etc. Very loud. So even then you have to be careful. (for the future)

Thanks for the future info. The apartment I was living in located in Crescent Heights was concrete, only 3 floors + basement, and the only time I heard my neighbors were one night when they had a party - my bedroom was next their living room (stupid design). My realtor also mentioned they had lived in a wood frame building and that you can hear noise readily. It was then I said I want only concrete because I'm a reader and constant noise pisses me off (like a cranky old man). Yet, here we are. There are STC ratings for building that I became aware of when I replaced the flooring. Who knows what the guys above me have.


Originally posted by blairtruck
in Edmonton nothing under 4 floors is every concrete. from what ive seen as a land surveyor and working with almost every new condo in the city.

I think this is the norm now as it's considerably cheaper to build (or so I've been told). I do know that newer wood frame buildings have additional soundproofing between floors as a norm.

[JordanLotoski]

What Building is it? What floor you on...PM me details if you would like.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Most home inspectors are absolute morons and you won't be able to sue them anyways.

My friend bought an old house with a new finished basement framed around a crumbling foundation among other things, she trusted the "inspector" who was little more than a wanna-be handyman who knew nothing. Two years of legal battles were unable to do anything to the inspector but, the seller ended up having to buy the house back and cover costs.

The idiot inspector is still being a clueless idiot, it's pathetic how useless they can be.

As far as your case goes........ I don't know man, good luck but you may be SOL if you can't demonstrate it to be unsaleable at an equal value, exclusive of current market conditions.

[BoostinAround]

Originally posted by msommers


This is a car forum, of course you'd say that. But the analogy still stands. A seller is responsible for providing you an item they described in a contract.

Regardless, yes I could have knocked and with my "all wise ability" been able to tell the difference, but I'm not an expert so it wouldn't have mattered. That's why I paid people to look at everything. Home inspectors are only responsible for what's in the unit. Condo docs are responsible for the reviewing the documents they receive. They did receive a reserve study which does include an overall assessment for repairs based on out-of-unit features (roof, hallway, boilers etc). This is why they might be on the hook but the study does not assess above-foundation construction (how could you).




At this point, nothing has been finalized.



Yes it does. But the only way to know this would be to look at blueprints or tear up the floor.

The issue for you, is... the seller sold you the property as legally described in the contract. You did not do your due diligence.

On most MLS hotsheets it even says that some information may be invalid or out of date.

Sorry but really, you are out of luck unless in the purchase contract you wrote something like "seller agrees that the building is a concrete frame building".

Next time....do your own due diligence more deeply.

May as well drop it, live and learn. No judge will ever award you damages on this one.

[D. Dub]

What all of this hinges on is what do the actual contracts between the buyer and seller say -- they trump the RECA listing.

That being said , maybe I misread but do you have a copy of the RECA listing that shows concrete?

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by BoostinAround
The issue for you, is... the seller sold you the property as legally described in the contract. You did not do your due diligence.

On most MLS hotsheets it even says that some information may be invalid or out of date.

Sorry but really, you are out of luck unless in the purchase contract you wrote something like "seller agrees that the building is a concrete frame building".

Next time....do your own due diligence more deeply.

May as well drop it, live and learn. No judge will ever award you damages on this one.
Unlike other purchases, when buying a property through a realtor you have an agent that is mandated to promote your best interests due to the large financial commitment and the many nuances of real estate.

Part of their job is to alleviate the caveat emptor risks because they know what to look for and where. Whether in the documentation, purchase contract, or property details, the buyer agent's job is to represent their client. If not for their knowledge and experience, what is the point of buyer representation in a property purchase?

As far as the OP has indicated, he explicitly advised his realtor of his key criteria. He absolutely has legal recourses if his realtor induced him to purchase a property that did not fulfill the criteria he had stipulated.

[heavyfuel]

Ahhhhh the joys of real estate...

[89coupe]

Originally posted by msommers
I had a bit of reservation about posting this as many people know who I am on this board but I need to broaden my audience of folks who may be in the know.

A quick background: I recently bought an older condo that ticked off a lot of boxes in my "needs" column. One of which was a condo with concrete construction as wood frame had a tendency to transmit sound more readily than concrete. I feel like I got a good price on this place, did all my checks including condo doc review and home inspection before finally signing.

Shortly after possession I did some minor repairs and also some upgrades: replaced some ceiling drywall in the bathroom and all new flooring. It was upon starting these renovations that this condo was in fact a wood frame and not a concrete one as it said in the listing.

I was furious and everyone involved knew how much so rather quickly. My realtor said she would speak with someone at the real estate board on how to proceed and I also gave my lawyer a head's up of what is happening. After this I went to down to the City and pulled blueprints, and even spoke to the architect, all of which confirmed this was a wood frame building.

Today I finally received a response from someone at the real estate board:



Again, my blood is boiling. The impression that I'm getting from this is that essentially there is no way to prove "damages," and the selling realtor gets off with zero repercussions meanwhile I have a property which I did not intend to buy, and having a wood frame which I feel decreases the appeal and therefore value of the condo.

I've forwarded everything to my lawyer whom I'm waiting to hear back from.

I've put in a decent amount of money with new appliances and renos, not to mention many, many hours of my own time to make this place my own, only to find out later it's not the property I thought I bought. The thought of moving already makes my head hurt and I doubt I'll recover my costs this quickly into the purchase. Not to mention there is no way physically to view homes right now with my work schedule which involves being out of town for days or up to several weeks at a time.

I feel I'm not at fault, neither is my realtor, nor the home inspector. The condo doc review company potentially but ultimately, the selling realtor fucked up and I feel there should be compensation. How is a buyer supposed to have any confidence in listings when the realtor doesn't appear to be accountable for what's on it?!

Thoughts?

The onus is on you. Wood construction is rather obvious IMO.

[s dime]

Originally posted by 89coupe


The ownness is on you. Wood construction is rather obvious IMO.

Ownness? :rofl: :rofl:

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Isaiah

As far as the OP has indicated, he explicitly advised his realtor of his key criteria. He absolutely has legal recourses if his realtor induced him to purchase a property that did not fulfill the criteria he had stipulated.

I totally agree but how much do you want to spend on legal fees? Candice Spelling sued her condo tower developer because they didn't bring in the amenities she expected like a fancy high end restaurant that would deliver her champagne and caviar to her bedside every evening. When your condo costs $40 million and you have high powered lawyers you can argue anything you want. How much money is msommers expected to dole out over a medium priced condo that more than like has no loss in value because of this issue. At most it's an inconvenience to him. How much is that worth? Depends on how much you're willing to spend on a good lawyer

[busdepot]

Originally posted by s dime


Ownness? :rofl: :rofl:

Beat me to it!


OP, do you have a lawyer? If not PM me, I do have a few guys that we use from work who are pretty serious litigators if you need someone.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by busdepot


Beat me to it!


OP, do you have a lawyer? If not PM me, I do have a few guys that we use from work who are pretty serious litigators if you need someone.

so he's going to spend 10-20k and a lot of time fighting this when he might be able to just sell and recover his costs or maybe only end up losing 10k and just moving on.

[you&me]

Originally posted by BigMass


so he's going to spend 10-20k and a lot of time fighting this when he might be able to just sell and recover his costs or maybe only end up losing 10k and just moving on.

He'll be losing at least that much, because at the least, he'll have to pay another realtor to sell the place.

I can't believe some of the bitchy threads I see on here about being "screwed" or "mislead" and yet this is somehow OK to some of you? I'd be livid.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by 89coupe

The ownness is on you. Wood construction is rather obvious IMO.

Perhaps to someone who knows what they're looking for. Not everyone is in the know when it comes to construction, just like some people have no clue when a car hood opens. My wife's co-worker still insists that her City Golf has a turbo :rofl:

[msommers]

Originally posted by busdepot
OP, do you have a lawyer? If not PM me, I do have a few guys that we use from work who are pretty serious litigators if you need someone.

Right now I have one and still considering how far to take this but gathering all my options first. I admittedly do not know (or even close to) the entire legalities that are in play here but I'm learning more.


Originally posted by BigMass
so he's going to spend 10-20k and a lot of time fighting this when he might be able to just sell and recover his costs or maybe only end up losing 10k and just moving on.

Yes this is my biggest resistance right now - it costing me even more money than if I "let it go." But anyone know that knows me will tell you that I'm very particular (or picky) and very much about the principle. My realtor quickly became aware of this lol.


Originally posted by you&me
He'll be losing at least that much, because at the least, he'll have to pay another realtor to sell the place.

I can't believe some of the bitchy threads I see on here about being "screwed" or "mislead" and yet this is somehow OK to some of you? I'd be livid.

The ideal situation would be that any and all costs associated with buying and selling this condo would be refunded. I don't know if that's possible, fair, legal or anything right now. Nothing has been officially discussed with anyone other than in my head what I feel would be fair at this point. This certainly isn't a witchhunt but I do feel wronged by incorrect data and there should be some repercussions to that.


Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Perhaps to someone who knows what they're looking for. Not everyone is in the know when it comes to construction, just like some people have no clue when a car hood opens. My wife's co-worker still insists that her City Golf has a turbo :rofl:

At the time of both viewings, it was the middle of the day and I didn't hear a peep. As a result, there was no indication to me to investigate beyond what the listing had specified, because this level of noise (or lack thereof) was what I was used to in my previous residence which was a concrete construction, with people coming and going all the time. Unfortunately, the lack of noise was a result of no one being home around me, not due to the type of construction which I had correlated it to.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Perhaps to someone who knows what they're looking for. Not everyone is in the know when it comes to construction, just like some people have no clue when a car hood opens. My wife's co-worker still insists that her City Golf has a turbo :rofl:

No one to blame but yourself.

If you didn't bother doing your due diligence, tough luck for you.

[you&me]

Originally posted by msommers

The ideal situation would be that any and all costs associated with buying and selling this condo would be refunded. I don't know if that's possible, fair, legal or anything right now. Nothing has been officially discussed with anyone other than in my head what I feel would be fair at this point. This certainly isn't a witchhunt but I do feel wronged by incorrect data and there should be some repercussions to that.

That seems fair.



Originally posted by 89coupe


No one to blame but yourself.

If you didn't bother doing your due diligence, tough luck for you.

What's the point of hiring a professional if the ownness remains on the individual?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by BigMass


How much money is msommers expected to dole out over a medium priced condo that more than like has no loss in value because of this issue. At most it's an inconvenience to him.

You are completely wrong. The cost difference between an apples to apples condo wood vs concrete construction is close to $100k from what I've saw. :dunno:

[max_boost]

Is it bothering you? Living there? Other than the obvious of wood vs concrete.

[msommers]

Originally posted by max_boost
Is it bothering you? Living there? Other than the obvious of wood vs concrete.

Aside from the everyday noise of my neighbors above me, nothing else is bothering me - I mean I chose this place after all based on specs I wanted, not buying just whatever. Once I looked at a few places initially, it was easy to create a list of requirements within my budget.

I started doing renos and upgrades immediately after possession because I saw myself living there relatively long term, I just don't want or need a big giant house. I didn't move in because of the bathroom, floor, and paint renos and waiting on new appliances to be delivered. Now those are completed and I'm fully moved in, and I can notice the noise which I wanted to avoid in the first place.

Aside from the noise, there would be zero complaints from me. And even if I did have complaints, it would be my fault for what I bought, not based on what I thought I bought.

[speedog]

Originally posted by you&me
What's the point of hiring a professional if the ownness remains on the individual?

Thanks for that chuckle. :rofl:

[89coupe]

Originally posted by you&me


That seems fair.




What's the point of hiring a professional if the ownness remains on the individual?

If the buyer didn't ask for the proper documents to confirm the building was indeed a concrete structure, he/she can't blame it on the realtor.

[TomcoPDR]

Have you brought this up with the seller's realtor's broker/manager?

[ercchry]

Originally posted by 89coupe


If the buyer didn't ask for the proper documents to confirm the building was indeed a concrete structure, he/she can't blame it on the realtor.

so basically, if any employee doesnt do their job, then its the CEO's fault cause they didnt micromanage every aspect of the project? :nut:

[you&me]

Originally posted by 89coupe


If the buyer didn't ask for the proper documents to confirm the building was indeed a concrete structure, he/she can't blame it on the realtor.

Again, that's why you hire a professional in the first place to act on your behalf and in your best interest.

Another analogy - Say you're buying an engagement ring and know just enough to ask the basic questions, but you say to your jeweller that you want a "diamond engagement ring". If you end up with something other than a diamond stone because you didn't specifically ask for a gemological certificate (that wouldn't mean fuck-all to your lay-person level of knowledge anyways), then the ownness is on you?

[ExtraSlow]

Brad, you're wrong. That's the entire point of having a government regulated profession like realtors. They do have certain legal responsibilities and liabilities in regards to the marketing and disclosure of these properties. I am no expert on the relevant legislation, but I am somewhat familiar with the regulations surround professional Engineers in Alberta, which is somewhat similar.

Most Engineers are covered by an errors or omissions liability insurance policy, either through thier employer or that they purchase separatley. it is to cover things exactly like this. Innocent mistakes, or simply shoddy work. Outright fraud or provable negligence may not be covered, but those can be dealt with through the courts.

Anyway, my guess is that the OP will never get true satisfaction, but to say that it's simply "Buyer Beware" is incorrect and misleading. This situation does not compare with the previous examples of buying a used car, or jewlery.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Brad, you're wrong. That's the entire point of having a government regulated profession like realtors. They do have certain legal responsibilities and liabilities in regards to the marketing and disclosure of these properties. I am no expert on the relevant legislation, but I am somewhat familiar with the regulations surround professional Engineers in Alberta, which is somewhat similar.

Most Engineers are covered by an errors or omissions liability insurance policy, either through thier employer or that they purchase separatley. it is to cover things exactly like this. Innocent mistakes, or simply shoddy work. Outright fraud or provable negligence may not be covered, but those can be dealt with through the courts.

Anyway, my guess is that the OP will never get true satisfaction, but to say that it's simply "Buyer Beware" is incorrect and misleading. This situation does not compare with the previous examples of buying a used car, or jewlery.

The only way I can see him having a chance is if he has documentation from the realtor stating the condo he is buying is indeed a concrete structure as per clients request.

If he doesn't have that, then fat chance.

[msommers]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR
Have you brought this up with the seller's realtor's broker/manager?

This part I've held off on. I want to get all my ducks in a row first before I confront them.

Brad I know what you're saying (very obviously so), that it's your purchase, you're responsibility. But if this was entirely the case, why are realtors required to have insurance?

[max_boost]

Just for arguments sake, similar building but concrete, how much more would it cost? Would you have paid that difference $X for concrete? Can you buy a place like what you have with concrete for same price? :dunno:

My gf lived in Eau Claire in one of those older wooden frame buildings and the noise really got to her so she moved. Definitely understand your frustrations and interested to know what happens from this.

[roopi]

Originally posted by msommers


This part I've held off on. I want to get all my ducks in a row first before I confront them.

Brad I know what you're saying (very obviously so), that it's your purchase, you're responsibility. But if this was entirely the case, why are realtors required to have insurance?

Better question is what is the point of a realtor if they are not held accountable for the information they provide?

I'm not trying to offend any realtors out their but if you aren't liable for the information and service you provide then what are your responsibilities/obligations to your clients?

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
That's the entire point of having a government regulated profession like realtors. They do have certain legal responsibilities and liabilities in regards to the marketing and disclosure of these properties. I am no expert on the relevant legislation, but I am somewhat familiar with the regulations surround professional Engineers in Alberta, which is somewhat similar.
A) Realtors are not considered "professionals." Only doctors, lawyers, and engineers are.
B) Realtors are not regulated by any government association.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Feruk

A) Realtors are not considered "professionals." Only doctors, lawyers, and engineers are.
B) Realtors are not regulated by any government association.

:werd: I've heard realtors spew so much bs over the years I could fill a field. Not to discredit the realtors who are actually professional..but a lot of them seem to not realize there is more to it than dressing up nice and rolling up in a beemer.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by max_boost
Just for arguments sake, similar building but concrete, how much more would it cost?

If using Riverfront as reference, it's $367/sqft vs $453/sqft, wood vs concrete.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by Feruk

A) Realtors are not considered "professionals." Only doctors, lawyers, and engineers are.
B) Realtors are not regulated by any government association.
Originally posted by Hallowed_point


:werd: I've heard realtors spew so much bs over the years I could fill a field. Not to discredit the realtors who are actually professional..but a lot of them seem to not realize there is more to it than dressing up nice and rolling up in a beemer.
Realtors are governed by legislation in Alberta - you can easily look it up for yourself. It's called "the Real Estate Act" and it's published in the revised statutes of Alberta, chapter R-5.
Similarly, Engineers are covered by the Engineering and Geosciences Professions Act, Chapter E-11 of the same statues.

I personally don't think that Realtors have done nearly as good of a job as Engineers are protecting their professional image, but that's another issue. They are certainly regulated by law in Alberta.

[ExtraSlow]

I will also add that if OP wants to take this somewhere other than the courts, they could lodge a complain with the Real Estate Council of Alberta, who are the legistlated governing body. They have mechanisms in place to conduct investigations. IN fact, they publish a "Guide to Investigations for Consumers" that outlines the whole process.


Originally posted by RECA Website
RECA investigates all written complaints against industry members within its jurisdiction and decides whether there has been conduct deserving of sanction, including:

conduct that does not follow the Real Estate Act, Rules or Bylaws
conduct that does not follow the standards of practice and ethical behaviour generally expected of an industry member
incompetent conduct that could be a risk to consumers or other industry members

Once a written complaint is made, it must be investigated by law and cannot be withdrawn. However, if an industry member settles with a complainant, their agreement may be taken into account in determining whether there is conduct deserving of sanction.

I would guess that you're looking at "incompetent conduct" here.
However, this isn't a forum to gain damages like in a civil suit. Really all that happens is sanction or at worst removal from the profession.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow

Realtors are governed by legislation in Alberta - you can easily look it up for yourself. It's called "the Real Estate Act" and it's published in the revised statutes of Alberta, chapter R-5.
Similarly, Engineers are covered by the Engineering and Geosciences Professions Act, Chapter E-11 of the same statues.

I personally don't think that Realtors have done nearly as good of a job as Engineers are protecting their professional image, but that's another issue. They are certainly regulated by law in Alberta.
They "self regulate" via CREA. Not saying it's different from other associations, just saying there isn't a government agency that regulates them.

[ExtraSlow]

Engineers "self regulate" through Apega too.

I'm honestly not an expert on the regulations for realtors, but from what I've read, it's pretty similar in intent to how Engineers work. I should also add that I'm not related to any realtors, I'm not a realtor myself, and I have really no vested interest in this. it's just the kind of topic that interests me.

[Gman.45]

I skimmed this thread and read it very quickly, so forgive me it I'm asking something that was obviously stated already.

What I would like to know regarding this is what precisely was said to you OP regarding the concrete construction. Had you informed your realtor that this was the only type of condo you were interested in, and he forwarded you a listing based on this? This is the gist of what I understood what happened pre sale, am I correct?

Now, did that listing specifically say in it anywhere that the building was of concrete construction, or was it just a word of mouth thing that the seller told your realtor, etc etc? I mean, if you have it in black and white in the listing that it was a concrete constructed building, and this was a major deciding factor in you purchasing it, and it turns out it isn't, I can't see how that isn't some sort of breach of some kind of rules or ethics regulations. Even if the inspector didn't check this (how could he really, unless he did what the OP did and pulled the blueprints..what, is he going to put a glass on the floor, put his ear to it, and knock?), I don't think that matters if you bought the property under a falsely advertised pretense. That's my opinion anyway, in terms of what would be just. I don't think justice has a large factor in our legal world now, so I don't think much will happen, even if the OP has "concrete" (get it) proof of misleading and false information in the listing.

I do feel for the OP, and believe him, and think based on what I've read and understand that he's been treated unjustly.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Gman.45
What I would like to know regarding this is what precisely was said to you OP regarding the concrete construction. Had you informed your realtor that this was the only type of condo you were interested in, and he forwarded you a listing based on this? This is the gist of what I understood what happened pre sale, am I correct?

Now, did that listing specifically say in it anywhere that the building was of concrete construction, or was it just a word of mouth thing that the seller told your realtor, etc etc? I mean, if you have it in black and white in the listing that it was a concrete constructed building, and this was a major deciding factor in you purchasing it, and it turns out it isn't, I can't see how that isn't some sort of breach of some kind of rules or ethics regulations. Even if the inspector didn't check this (how could he really, unless he did what the OP did and pulled the blueprints..what, is he going to put a glass on the floor, put his ear to it, and knock?), I don't think that matters if you bought the property under a falsely advertised pretense. That's my opinion anyway, in terms of what would be just. I don't think justice has a large factor in our legal world now, so I don't think much will happen, even if the OP has "concrete" (get it) proof of misleading and false information in the listing.

Firstly to determine specs, we sat down in their office and basically ticked spec boxes on the computer (# of bedrooms, bathrooms, sq. ft, communities etc) and that list gets automatically emailed to you when new listings come on the market. I believe there was a thing for construction type but honestly, I cannot recall 100%. So lets say there wasn't and I got condo listings that had wood frame. Well that's annoying, but very easy to delete an email I don't care about. Regardless, on my listing itself under construction, it says concrete and why I was so interested (among other ideal factors). Not to confuse foundation, which was also concrete.

When it came down to negotiating pricing, there were a lot of showings the next day (6 is what the selling realtor told us), plus an open house, and I was the first of two on the day it got listed. The price they came back to us with (and stuck by) was basically list price, and I could either take it or hope a bunch of people backed out the following day. But this was a fair price and I honestly expected a bidding war, especially since October was a very hot market (unfortunately for me). It took me awhile to decide but my realtor said this is basically the place we talked about, all this space etc etc, and has concrete. It was a major factor in buying, both of us knew that. Even on the last day of conditions I went over again and made sure this is what I wanted and again we listed the benefits of why it made sense, concrete being one of them. Again I don't blame anything my realtor did and won't.

I have no idea how this will play out but I'm building confidence I'll gain at least something because it's painfully obvious there was a major error. While some feel this was a lack of due diligence, I respect that opinion but in the confines of a contract and legal structuring, opinions don't make a lick of difference.

[rizfarmer]

To me, damages are implicit based on the response from the real state board.


The property is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. No more and no less. If the comparables were consistent then the buyer may not like what he or she has but there are no damages.

What you were prepared to pay for the property based on the understanding and representation the building was concrete may have been different had you known it was wooden construction. I would seek recuperation of realtor commissions.

However it really comes down to reps and warranties provided in the listing and by your realtor. My guess is you'll end up suing your own realtor if you're going to have any success.

[TomcoPDR]

Any positive updates on the issue?

[saiyajin]

ONUS!!

:whipped:

[msommers]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR
Any positive updates on the issue?

Yes and no.

I filed a complaint with RECA and CREB before deciding if I would take this to civil court. RECA has already finished their investigation which concluded this was a very open/close case of misrepresentation, especially when the selling realtor admits they made an error. The selling realtor has been fined $1,500 and their mistake has been publicized. A copy of the investigation is waiting for me in the mail.

Her only defense was the listing was priced with a wood frame construction in mind, and simply made an input error while creating the listing. While this may have been the case, it doesn't help me reconsider the purchase or recover buying/selling costs associated with this property. In the end, the selling agent was blatantly found at fault, however I'm still stuck with a property I didn't sign up for and living there to boot.

RECA nor CREB can award monetary gains to the winning party, but rather penalize the agent at their discretion if they are found at fault. Therefore if I wish to seek any financial gain, it can only be conducted through legal means in court. I knew this was the case before filing my complaints, but winning an investigation would be a supportive piece should I pursue legal means.

I'm doing some investigating regarding pricing with my own agent right now and putting things together should I escalate things further.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Engineers "self regulate" through Apega too.

I'm honestly not an expert on the regulations for realtors, but from what I've read, it's pretty similar in intent to how Engineers work. I should also add that I'm not related to any realtors, I'm not a realtor myself, and I have really no vested interest in this. it's just the kind of topic that interests me.

I don't think that is a good comparison. Engineers like doctors/lawyers have a lot more weighing over their heads than simply APEGA. It's not APEGA that is going to take me to court for negligence or tort. We have duty of care engrained into case law when it comes to engineers. The CEO of my company tells me to design something unsafe and release it to the public or impact the environment? The CEO isn't liable I am for not having said no and not having refused to perform the work. Reason being I am considered the subject matter expert and it is my legal responsibility to inform the CEO that this is not correct and if they choose to overrule me I can then resign and notify the appropriate bodies of the problem. There simply is no recourse like this for most other jobs. I would argue its really a stretch to call real estate agents "professionals". They simply do not have the duty of care which is expected from professionals.

Personally I think this is a travesty but unfortunately proving "damage" is going to be hard especially when real estate agents are seen as glorified sales people. I can't count the number of listings I have seen out there that are flat out wrong and I suspect in a lot of cases purposefully wrong. Been to a fair bit of places downtown when I was shopping where real estate agents would claim heated underground parking, in-suite laundry and concrete construction when they were clearly not when seen in person. In general almost no recent buildings are concrete unless they are >4 stories and in addition anything under 4 stories does not need direct oversight by a civil engineer during construction(If I recall correctly).

At the end of the day unfortunately there seems to be a fair bit of crooked/ethically questionable dealings out there by real estate agents who frankly don't have any accountability to anyone other than to their pocket books. Doesn't mean they are all bad but it certainly means you can't just blindly expect them to have your interests at heart or to be legally liable at the end of the day.

[Neil4Speed]

Originally posted by msommers




RECA nor CREB can award monetary gains to the winning party, but rather penalize the agent at their discretion if they are found at fault. Therefore if I wish to seek any financial gain, it can only be conducted through legal means in court. I knew this was the case before filing my complaints, but winning an investigation would be a supportive piece should I pursue legal means.

I'm doing some investigating regarding pricing with my own agent right now and putting things together should I escalate things further.

Good luck man! And I agree I believe it will help with that decision being made. I hope all goes well if you desire to pursue legal means - as at this point, the only winner seems to be the RECA/CREB.

[msommers]

More new information regarding this case.

My own agent let me know that she too has been penalized via $1,500 fine, and that the selling agent is trying to appeal RECA's decision -- pretty doubtful that's going to happen given the reviewer's comments regarding this near textbook case of misrepresentation but all power to her to try and wiggle out of this.

Since I've been back from the field, I've found out that my neighbor across the hall has had their place for sale for almost a month with no offers. Initially they were trying to sell it themselves but recently got a Realtor. The concern I have is that their listing price is $5,000 less than what I paid, and with no offers so far makes me think I overpaid. Additionally, a unit below me has just listed their place after completing a bunch of renovations, however they have an agent and are listing at the price I paid, albeit on the first of three floor (I'm on the second).

If these units sell for much under listing price, I'm thinking I can present a case illustrating damages. Given the market conditions now vs. when I paid in October could be arguable but neither are slow periods with now potentially being a hotter market increasing prices.

I'm thinking I should wait until those units sell and go from there. Thoughts/suggestions?

[BananaFob]

Originally posted by msommers
More new information regarding this case.

My own agent let me know that she too has been penalized via $1,500 fine, and that the selling agent is trying to appeal RECA's decision -- pretty doubtful that's going to happen given the reviewer's comments regarding this near textbook case of misrepresentation but all power to her to try and wiggle out of this.

Since I've been back from the field, I've found out that my neighbor across the hall has had their place for sale for almost a month with no offers. Initially they were trying to sell it themselves but recently got a Realtor. The concern I have is that their listing price is $5,000 less than what I paid, and with no offers so far makes me think I overpaid. Additionally, a unit below me has just listed their place after completing a bunch of renovations, however they have an agent and are listing at the price I paid, albeit on the first of three floor (I'm on the second).

If these units sell for much under listing price, I'm thinking I can present a case illustrating damages. Given the market conditions now vs. when I paid in October could be arguable but neither are slow periods with now potentially being a hotter market increasing prices.

I'm thinking I should wait until those units sell and go from there. Thoughts/suggestions?

Yup, saw both of the administrative penalties to each realtor on the RECA case summaries from yesterday.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by msommers
More new information regarding this case.

My own agent let me know that she too has been penalized via $1,500 fine, and that the selling agent is trying to appeal RECA's decision -- pretty doubtful that's going to happen given the reviewer's comments regarding this near textbook case of misrepresentation but all power to her to try and wiggle out of this.

Since I've been back from the field, I've found out that my neighbor across the hall has had their place for sale for almost a month with no offers. Initially they were trying to sell it themselves but recently got a Realtor. The concern I have is that their listing price is $5,000 less than what I paid, and with no offers so far makes me think I overpaid. Additionally, a unit below me has just listed their place after completing a bunch of renovations, however they have an agent and are listing at the price I paid, albeit on the first of three floor (I'm on the second).

If these units sell for much under listing price, I'm thinking I can present a case illustrating damages. Given the market conditions now vs. when I paid in October could be arguable but neither are slow periods with now potentially being a hotter market increasing prices.

I'm thinking I should wait until those units sell and go from there. Thoughts/suggestions?

when looking at places now vs later last year around Sept / Oct , there is almost nothing now that's not more expensive than it was just 6 months ago so I don't think that there is any reason to think that you bought in a hot market and it's slowing down now. So if you think you have damages based on recent comps, I think you'd really have a case. But you definitely have to wait until this stuff sells, list price means nothing.

[rage2]

I didn't know this was so accessible. Interesting reads.

http://www.reca.ca/Flash-Case-Summaries/April-7-2014/PrintFriendly.pdf

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by rage2
I didn't know this was so accessible. Interesting reads.

http://www.reca.ca/Flash-Case-Summaries/April-7-2014/PrintFriendly.pdf

Interesting how the realtors get such small penalties when they potentially cost their clients thousands of dollars. Guess you can't expect too much from pseudo "professionals". Not much better than used car salesmen at the end of the day.

[BigMass]

these penalties should go directly to the person that was affected

[AsianAfroSamurai]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Interesting how the realtors get such small penalties when they potentially cost their clients thousands of dollars. Guess you can't expect too much from pseudo "professionals". Not much better than used car salesmen at the end of the day.

The ones that are good are the closers. These are the Jeff Neustaedter's and the Kelly McKelvie's of the market. They come in for the sales pitch, get the contract signed and you never see them again as their team does the real work. I respect the Jeff's and the Kelly's as its a real business for them and its a lot of hard work to get to where they are.

I would use the Jeff's and the Kelly's for both buying and selling. Their name is their reputation and brand and they won't let it get tarnished.

For the rest, buyer and seller beware. I would imagine its cut throat as it can get right now. I think there are more real estate agents than houses for sale right now. Assuming that the Jeff's and the Kelly's take 40-50% of the market, there must be a lot of agents in trouble.

[Toma]

Crazy.... You would think the entire commission should be refunded, not just $1500.

I agree "buyer beware", but this isn't a $1500 20 year old car.

My parents successfully sued over a fireplace that was misrepresented (sold as wood burning, what they wanted, turned out to be gas, a completely obvious mistake on their part), and they won small damages in court, so I would probably pursue the matter legally.

It is not relevant what comparable cost, you bought it at the agreed price, advertised and assumed as concrete, you would have not bought otherwise.

I'm pretty sure most listings say "all information to be verified by buyer"..... though I'm not sure, been a while since I bought anything.

[KrisYYC]

Is the building in question located in Haysboro by any chance?

[roopi]

Originally posted by AsianAfroSamurai


The ones that are good are the closers. These are the Jeff Neustaedter's and the Kelly McKelvie's of the market. They come in for the sales pitch, get the contract signed and you never see them again as their team does the real work. I respect the Jeff's and the Kelly's as its a real business for them and its a lot of hard work to get to where they are.

I would use the Jeff's and the Kelly's for both buying and selling. Their name is their reputation and brand and they won't let it get tarnished.

For the rest, buyer and seller beware. I would imagine its cut throat as it can get right now. I think there are more real estate agents than houses for sale right now. Assuming that the Jeff's and the Kelly's take 40-50% of the market, there must be a lot of agents in trouble.

So are you Jeff, Kelly, or one of the team members?

[mr2mike]

Originally posted by AsianAfroSamurai

I respect the Jeff's and the Kelly's as its a real business for them and its a lot of hard work to get to where they are.


Jeff's hard work...
You mean leveraging his relative's position of power as councillor in the MD of Rockyview (Gerry Neustaedter) to approve new developments and subdivisions to which Jeff and Gerry then became the real estate agents who sold off these areas all the while, Gerry's campaign slogan said "Help Keep Bearspaw Rural"?? This 'honest' Jeff and his associates?

[AsianAfroSamurai]

Originally posted by mr2mike


Jeff's hard work...
You mean leveraging his relative's position of power as councillor in the MD of Rockyview (Gerry Neustaedter) to approve new developments and subdivisions to which Jeff and Gerry then became the real estate agents who sold off these areas all the while, Gerry's campaign slogan said "Help Keep Bearspaw Rural"?? This 'honest' Jeff and his associates?

I used Jeff and Kelly as examples. Any one of the major agents that have a team around them would fit the bill.

Thanks for the details on this though. I didn't know this about Jeff. I'm not surprised about it either.