Hello and welcome to JustAnswer. Please note:
(A) This is general information and is not legal advice. No specific course of action is proposed herein. No attorney-client relationship or privilege is formed by speaking to an expert on this site. This is repeated in numerous disclaimers throughout the site. By continuing, you confirm that you understand and agree to these terms
; and (B) there may be a slight
delay between your follow ups and my reply while I am typing out my answer.
I am sorry to hear about this situation. On this website, I do not always get to give good news, and this is one of these times. I understand that hearing things less than optimal is not easy, and I empathize. Thanks in advance for not "shooting the messenger."
The case here may be weak.
There is a strong doctrine that states that a real estate
buyer knows what he is buying. As such, the idea is that the buyer knows what they are buying and have done their homework. The lender's job here is to lend money
, and they are not in charge of confirming what the buyer does or does not know about the property.
To sue in a state court, one needs to have a "cause of action." There are numerous causes of action, such as "breach of contract," "negligence," "fraud," "unjust enrichment
," etc., as well as causes of action rooted in statutory law. Every state has their own although they are very similar to each other in every state because they all stem from the same common law. A pleading in Court needs at least one
cause of action, although it is not unusual to have more than one.
Here, the closest would be negligence
. The essential elements of actionable negligence are: (1) the existence of a duty owed to the complaining party; (2) a breach thereof; (3) a resulting injury; and (4) a proximate cause between the claimed breach and resulting injury. Hansen v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 95 Wn.2d 773, 776, 632 P.2d 504 (1981)
The problem is that - remember from earlier - the lender had no duty to confirm anything to the buyer. Someone in your situation would have to show that the lender had a DUTY to correct any misconceived notions you had about the home, and did not do so. This would be a hard sell (no pun intended), as this was not their primary role.
Now one can argue that the Exhibit A missing shows that they did this on purpose - fraud
. The nine elements of fraud are: (1) representation of an existing fact; (2) materiality; (3) falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) intent of the speaker that it should be acted upon by the plaintiff; (6) plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; (7) plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; (8) plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and (9) damages
suffered by the plaintiff. Stiley v. Block, 925 P. 2d 194 - Wash: Supreme Court 1996
(internal citation omitted). However, this would be a stretch because then one would have to show that the lender planned this all along and specifically withheld Exhibit A to make you think that this was not manufactured just so you would buy it. I do not know if a Jury would be open to this.
So in short, this is likely a weak case.
Please note: If I tell you simply what you wish to hear, this would be unfair to you
. I want to be honest with you and sometimes this means providing information that is not optimal. Negative ratings are reserved for experts who are rude or for erroneous information. Please rate me on the quality of my information; do not punish me for my honesty.
I hope this helps and clarifies. Gentle Reminder: Use the SEND
button to keep chatting, or please rate
when finished. You may always ask follow ups at no charge after rating. Kindly rate my answer as one of the top three faces/stars
and then SUBMIT
, as this is how I get credit for my time with you. Rating my answer the bottom two faces/stars or failing to submit the rating does not give me credit and reflects poorly on me, even if my answer is correct
. I work very hard to formulate an informative and honest answer for you; please reciprocate my good faith.