Liability in home sales: Discover your rights

Questioner

In 2014 we sold our house with extension (6.5m2). The house was built on piles in 1999, and the extension on steel shortly after (2000) by the previous (and first owner). I bought this house myself in 2006. Now (autumn 2018) the owner is holding me liable for gradual subsidence of the extension (gaps between the main building, crack in tile, sticking door), while this extension has not subsided for more than 14 years. I therefore deny any liability. The situation is that the buyer did not do a structural survey at the time of the purchase, and through his lawyer he already expressed in a letter that there were doubts about the situation of the extension at the time of the purchase. The buyer comes with a report from a structural engineer who only did an analysis on a number of photos. But also with two quotes from a contractor (30 and 15K euros) for complete reconstruction on piles or repair using injections. In light of the current subsidence problem, I wonder how a judge will look at this situation. How long should you, as a seller, give a guarantee on foundations that are at risk are due to the drought of the past 2 years? In my opinion, a buyer should inform himself about the structural condition and the potential risks. He must also know that his object has two types of foundations and that this can give settlement differences? As a seller, do I have to provide an eternal guarantee on this (I can't find a limitation period anywhere?) while the contractor's guarantee has a period of 10 years? If I am held liable for this, then I can in turn - using the same argument - also hold the seller who delivered the house to me in 2006 liable, can't I? If the system actually works in such a way that you can still be liable for years after the transfer for foundation damage, then no one will be able to sell a house later? And then For example, can all victims in Zevenaar also hold the selling party liable for the recent foundation damage? Is there any case law on this? Are interest groups already working on this? To what extent would this case be assessed extra critically by a judge now?

Lawyer

When selling your home, you have a duty to provide information regarding facts and circumstances that were known to you at that time. The buyer has a duty to investigate. Because the buyer did not have a structural survey done, he violated his duty to investigate; this can weigh even more heavily if he now says that at the time of the purchase there were already doubts about the (foundation of the) extension. You can only be liable to the buyer if you knew about the subsidence and you did not inform the buyer about it. The fact that he only comes with this claim four years after the sale seems to indicate that there was nothing wrong with the extension beforehand and that you could therefore not have known about it. It seems to me that the buyer will not be successful in his claim against you. If you wish, I can assist you in this matter. I am a lawyer specializing in real estate law and have already dealt with similar cases on several occasions.

Lawyer

I have dealt with a similar case. The ruling has been published and can be found at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:3611&showbutton=true&keyword=%22D.J.+van+den+Bosch%22 The ruling contains links to previous and later rulings and judgments in this case. If desired, I am happy to assess your case and, if necessary, assist you in this.