Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 16%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$39 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime

Let's keep in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter for timely insights and actionable tips on your real estate journey.

By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
Followed Discussions Followed Categories Followed People Followed Locations
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Keith Jones

Keith Jones has started 1 posts and replied 2 times.

Quote from @Chris Seveney:

@Keith Jones

How did you discover their was contamination

If it’s because of work you did how would the seller know. If they didn’t test they were being honest

If they decommissioned it and a report from when they owned it said contamination then that’s a different story


Sorry some key details I left out...sellers left behind receipts and invoices from the contractor that performed the decommission work.   One invoice summarizes initial findings from the soil samples and states in bold the elevated concentrations of contamination.  There are a few follow up invoices for the additional investigations that were required due to the initial findings.   All invoices are signed by the seller. 

After reading those invoices, I made a records request with the State and received the actual report that detailed the full scope. 

Im less focused on the level of contamination (its not great, but not horrendous) but rather the fact that there is contamination when the seller went out of their way to state that none was found.  

Appreciate the responses!

I recently purchased a home where the seller disclosed that there was a underground heating oil tank that had been decommissioned - standard question on OR state disclosure form.  They then went to state "no contamination found" in the addendum to the SD.   After purchasing - we discovered there was contamination over the state thresholds - which required additional studies (soil vapor, etc). The contractor determined no further action was needed (given risk factors) and submitted their report to the State.  The State provides an automated letter stating that they received the report and show the file as closed. 

According to my attorney, I have a case for fraud against the seller.    Damages would likely be the cost to excavate contaminated soil.  

Curious what others think.  Would you let it slide considering that the heating oil tank has been properly decommissioned and the study complete?  Or pursue fraud given the sellers false statement and my legal obligation to disclose to future buyers?