3 ms·

I'm gonna guess that the fine print was more along the lines of "we're not responsible for what happened before this" than "we're not responsible for leftover m

I'm gonna guess that the fine print was more along the lines of "we're not responsible for what happened before this" than "we're not responsible for leftover meth byproducts." Sure, you could say that these people should hire someone to test for chemicals in the air, but how wealthy do you expect people who purchase a home that used to be a meth lab? I'm just saying that it's not quite so simple as reading the fine print.

deelowe 14y ago
Actually, the fine print probably just said "due diligence" is the buyer's responsibility and the property doesn't come with a seller's disclosure. [edit] Which by the way, is all the seller should have to say in this situation. See my full opinion below.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  And even if it didn't, buyers should always get a home inspected before finalizing. I do feel terrible for what this family is going through. I hope people take their story as a warning to perform due diligence themselves.
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    I've hired two home inspectors in my lifetime, and none of them even suggested they were even capable of testing for meth byproducts. Is this really a service anyone sells?
- maratd 14y ago
  > the property doesn't come with a seller's disclosure. Which is probably a standard clause for a foreclosure? If he bought it from a bank, it's almost certainly a foreclosure. Foreclosures can be a great deal, they can also turn out to be a horrible investment. He should have hired an inspector. He should have done it even if it wasn't a foreclosure. An inspector should be somebody you find. Not your lawyer, not your real-estate agent. You. They're the only person in the process looking after your interests. They inspect many homes and know exactly what to look for. You don't. At the end of the day, this is 100% his fault, but what's done is done. I would pressure the bank's real-estate agent. They really don't want to be known for selling meth labs ... and they probably have contacts on the inside. They might arrange for the bank to pay for the necessary clean-up, if such a thing is even possible.

deelowe 14y ago

Actually, the fine print probably just said "due diligence" is the buyer's responsibility and the property doesn't come with a seller's disclosure. [edit] Which by the way, is all the seller should have to say in this situation. See my full opinion below.

DigitalJack 14y ago
And even if it didn't, buyers should always get a home inspected before finalizing. I do feel terrible for what this family is going through. I hope people take their story as a warning to perform due diligence themselves.
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  I've hired two home inspectors in my lifetime, and none of them even suggested they were even capable of testing for meth byproducts. Is this really a service anyone sells?
maratd 14y ago
> the property doesn't come with a seller's disclosure. Which is probably a standard clause for a foreclosure? If he bought it from a bank, it's almost certainly a foreclosure. Foreclosures can be a great deal, they can also turn out to be a horrible investment. He should have hired an inspector. He should have done it even if it wasn't a foreclosure. An inspector should be somebody you find. Not your lawyer, not your real-estate agent. You. They're the only person in the process looking after your interests. They inspect many homes and know exactly what to look for. You don't. At the end of the day, this is 100% his fault, but what's done is done. I would pressure the bank's real-estate agent. They really don't want to be known for selling meth labs ... and they probably have contacts on the inside. They might arrange for the bank to pay for the necessary clean-up, if such a thing is even possible.