Expert: Todd C. Menard - 12/14/2008

Question
We live in CA. Almost two years ago we bought a home that had some renovations done to it. We had the house inspected and it passed. However, we just had some of the electric wiring fail on us, including our furnace. We had someone over to help us figure out what the problem is. Turns out the furnace was wired to the same circuit as the kitchen lights, living room lights, all the outlets but one in the living room, the porch lights, outside lights, and the entry room lights and outlets. He told us that the code is the furnace is to be wired to its own ciruit. Who is to be held acountable for this problem? The prior owners for not installing the furnace to code and informing us of this, or the inspector for missing this important flaw?

Please help us and give us any lead for the direction we need to proceed.
Jennifer


Answer
Hello Jennifer - Your answer is multi-fold as there is different governance for seller disclosure, buyer diligence, building code, and home inspection. As a result there may be "potential" and possible contributory liability or negligence in one of, or any combination of, these areas. To begin, I recommend consulting a California attorney who possesses real estate expertise. Now, there is the possibility in the event the seller had no prior knowledge that your due diligence (inspection) period provided you the opportunity through the professionals you hired to conduct your inspections and discover any item that may have been visible or latent (hidden). Of course your ability to discover is limited to access as well as the level of experience or specialty that the vendor you selected possessed. In Arizona, for instance, if the seller paid a professional to perform the construction and permits and city inspections were performed, and there was no reason for the seller to possess the knowledge that the power load was incorrect, then the seller would not have known, nor would the seller be expected to know of the issue and therefore could not possibly disclose an issue they are unaware of. On the other hand, if the seller did know or should have known there may be a possibility that they would have then possessed the obligation to disclose. Next, you had the opportunity to select a home (property) inspector to perform an inspection of the premises. Usually, the inspectors are members of the national association of home inspectors. These inspectors usually perform checks of electrical panels and potentially could have discovered the unbalanced load and if discovered would have reported the condition on the property report. You should review the property reports performed during the inspection period. These would have and should have been performed whether the property was sold by a homeowner occupant or by an investor or through and AS IS transaction. Next, there may be some registrar of contractors department or construction codes both local and state that may also provide a resource for restitution from the contractor who performed the work. You may be able to recover this information by contacting the city planning department and identifying which contractor requested the permit. In some situations each specialty requires its own permits (electrical, plumbing, gas, etc). It is possible if they failed to perform according to code there may be an opportunity to recover from their bonding or insurance companies for failing to have provided work according to the standards of service associated with that profession. Finally, you need to discuss the responsibilities and duties of all parties to the transaction as it applies to California Law. This can be done by contacting an attorney with real estate expertise as indicated above. Of course, I am not an attorney and this is not to be considered legal advice, rather real estate information any professional REALTOR should be able to provide. I hope this has provided you with some additional perspectives and avenues to pursue. Please reply if you need any additional assistance. Thank you - Todd