Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  09/20/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Unanswered

  More info

  My fianc and I purchased a home from Casan Property Brothers in March of this year. We had an inspector come do an inspection for us before completing the purchase. Our inspector failed to conclude issues that the house had, and we are currently working on a settlement with them due to their negligence. However, there was also negligence from the sellers. The sellers deliberately painted over leaks in the ceiling so we could not tell that the roof was needing repair. Our inspection failed to note what condition it was in, both of these cases of negligence led us to pay $17,625.00 to put a new roof on. CPB claimed they did not paint over the leaks, however, we could tell every time we visited the house before purchasing that there had been fresh paint. We also had a plumber come out and tell us that the plumbing was done completely illegally. We had to replace it all. The inspector also "failed to notice" this. We discovered that no permits were pulled for the work they did, which is illegal. We also had to replace our hot water heater as the way it was left was dangerous and could have killed us. Lastly, we have to replace all the water lines because PVC was used and is harmful to us. It releases chemicals when mixed with heat. We have spent $28,050 to fix issues due to the sellers negligence. We would like reimbursement for all we had to fix. We also discovered that the inspection company and CPB usually work together which is a conflict of interest and was not told to us.

  Business response

  10/21/2022

  Casan Property Brothers, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "CPB") is in receipt of the above-referenced Complaint made by ******* and ***************************. Please allow this to serve as CPB's response to the same.

  The Complaint contains at least two allegations that CPB falsely represented the condition of the subject property the ********* purchased from it. First, the Complaint alleges that CPB painted the ceiling in an attempt to hide water stains from a leaky roof. Next, the letter contends CPB fraudulently concealed a crushed sewer line. 

  At the outset, it should be noted that CPB did not occupy the premises for residential or commercial space at any point during its brief ownership of the same. Rather, after CPBs purchase, the property remained vacant a period of approximately nine months for remodeling and renovating purposes. Multiple contractors were employed to effectuate said renovations. CPB did not perform any work which may have been the cause in fact of any allegedly concealed condition broached in the Complaint.

  The Home Inspection Report (Report) obtained by the ********* on March 2, 2022 addressed, inter ***** certain conditions affecting the roofing system. Section 4.2.1 of the Report contains general comments concerning the roofing system of the subject property. In pertinent part, this section provides:
  
  "This is a visual inspection limited in scope by (but not restricted to) the following conditions:
  The entire underside of the roof sheathing is not inspected for evidence of leakage.
  Evidence of prior leakage may be disguised by interior finishes.
  Leakage can develop at any time and may depend on rain intensity and/or wind direction"
  
  Report, p. 7. Notably, the Report predates the date of closing.
  
  The Report further identified certain patched areas in the roof covering, as well as certain visible stains in roof sheathing boards/planks at the time of inspection. Report, p. 11. The affected areas tested positive for elevated levels of moisture with a moisture meter. Id. Photographs of these visible stains and any sheathing nails (or lack thereof) were included in the Report. Report, pp. *****. This section of the Report concluded by recommending that the ********* seek further evaluation of roof system by a licensed roofing contractor in order to provide a corrective action plan. Report, p. 11; see also Report, p. 8 (Recommend a further evaluation of roof covering by a licensed roofing contractor in order to provide a corrective action plan / cost estimate. Monitor affected areas for leaks.). Similarly, the Report disclosed the fact the inspector had limited access to the attic which could have revealed any alleged concealment of evidence of a leaky roof, if any. See Report, p. 13. As a result, the inspector recommended further inspection of the attic space by a licensed / qualified contractor, prior to closing, if this is an immediate concern to [the *********]. Id.

  Furthermore, in the Amendment to Address Concerns With Property Amendment #1 dated March 3, 2022, the ********* requested that CPB hire a qualified roofing contractor to remedy issues with the chimney (among other requested repairs). In response to this request, CPB agreed to a $5,000.00 reduction in sales price in lieu of making the requested repairs, including but in no way limited to, installing new flashing [to] seal all the gaps on the chimneys and around the base of the chimneys in order to prevent water leaking inside and onto the roof rafter and in order to prevent a water entry point / damage to substructure. See Amendment, p. 1, Item 2. Other improvements were requested by the *********, as well, such as the installation of collar ties to roof rafters to strengthen the integrity of the structure were performed at the  ******** request. Id. CPB understands the $5,000.00 credit to the ********* contemplated any such repairs. With this in mind, it is difficult to ascertain how the ********* claim they were not made aware of any alleged defects concerning the roofing system of the subject property at, or any point prior to, closing.

  The Complaint also contends CPB completed "illegal" plumbing on the subject property. Again, CPB did not occupy the premises at any point during ownership of the same. Similarly, CPB did not install, maintain, improve, or repair any plumbing to the structure. As such, CPB had no knowledge of this alleged subterranean defect when it never used the premises or its facilities during renovation and therefore had no duty or obligation to disclose alleged issues in which it was unaware of. CPB had no duty to unearth the sewer system, as it was not something it could have discovered through its own reasonably diligent investigation. In fact, Sections 10.2.1 and **** of the Report emphasize the difficulty of performing an inspection of the drain, waste, and vent piping, to wit:
  
  "Concealed portions of the plumbing system could not be inspected, including the subterranean systems and/or system components of the sewage disposal, water supply, and fuel storage delivery systems.
  
  The waste / sewage disposal system was not inspected, as it does not lend itself to a visual inspection. No attempt has been made to reach any conclusions concerning the adequacy of the system for this property. Recommend a further evaluation of plumbing system by a licensed plumbing contractor, prior to closing, if this is a concern to client."
  
  Report, p. 25. Thus, it is difficult to perceive how CPB could be charged with having actual or constructive knowledge of an issue concerning the subterranean sewer system. As a result, CPB believes the ********* could have discovered the allegedly defective condition of the sewer system had they consulted with a licensed plumbing contractor as suggested by the inspector.
  
  CPB affirms it was unaware of any alleged defects referenced in the Complaint or otherwise. ******* law makes clear unsubstantiated opinions are insufficient to demonstrate an issue of material fact as to CPBs actual knowledge, which is an essential element of a fraud claim. See **** **************, 248 **. App. 460, 460 (****) (While fraud may be proved by slight circumstances, it must amount to more than mere speculation."). CPB is adamant it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged sewer issue by virtue of the fact they did not occupy or perform any portion of the renovations to the property for any amount of time between the date of purchase and the date it sold the property to the *********.

  Lastly, CPB is unaware of authority, and the ********* failed to cite any, supporting the notion that one or more companies which routinely work together on various jobs through the normal course of business gives rise to an impermissible conflict of interest. CPB maintains relationships with a variety of contractors who regularly perform independent services on CPB properties. Liability for any alleged act or omission is not attributable to CPB by the mere existence of a prior professional relationship between the inspector and CPB. Moreover, the ********* could have selected an inspector of their choice or consulted with any number of other professionals following the inspection as the Report recommended. As a result, CPB bears no liability for the alleged negligence of a third-party inspector which was hired at the request of the *********.

  Customer response

  10/27/2022

   
  Complaint: 18047795
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Casan Property Brothers continues to use the excuse that they "did not occupy the premise" to try and say they would not know any of the issues we discovered. We bought the property in March, but did not move in until this past month. We did not occupy the premise either when we discovered these issues. It is hard to believe that the previous owners of the house did not step foot inside the house anytime while they owned it. This in turn would mean that they would HAVE to have known of the issues as they were noticeable just from being inside.

  We also are aware that the "licensed contractor" they told us who did the plumbing is not licensed here in *******. We also have reason to believe that, *******, said contractor is related to the previous owners. This means they know it was not done properly and they would have had to known about the illegal sewer distribution box in the yard.

  They also make the excuse that they gave us $5000 to "fix the roof" as we knew there were issues after the inspection. Our inspection told us that there were issues with the chimneys. They gave us credit to fix that as it was in the report. We are also dealing with the inspection company for failing to notify us properly of all issues. 

  We have picture proof from where the ceiling was painted over after the leaks began to show through again. We have also talked with the city and are aware that the previous owners did not pull any permits for any of the renovations done. This is illegal and the city had no idea that they even did renovations until we informed them.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩