RECENT COMMENTS
Did the city demolish someone’s house?!?
This SeeClickFix report for 1301 North 30th Street from yesterday makes it look like someones house just got demolished:
I just Purchased this Property on June 16th 2014
Today when I went to start cleaning to start working with my people I found my Half Property Vanished by Richmond City,
No one contacted to me as a new property owner I should have notified or if it was that serious issue then they should hold on property selling procedure.I am mother of 2 Special needs kids and bought this property to fix and rent it to secure my kids future after if we passes away.
but due to Richmond City my whole life is destroyed by their wrong actions.I need justice because Richmond city ruined my life by demolishing that property and i need them to stop further actions.
ITS EXTREMELY URGENT
It looks like someone just bought this property on June 16 for $11,000 according to the city’s records.
— ∮∮∮ —
July 2011 image from Google StreetView
— ∮∮∮ —
TAGGED: 30th Street
I suspect, with the right lawyers, this person will emerge better off than she was before.
I just signed a contract on a house in CH. Kinda wouldn’t mind the city making this mistake on it! This lady has a free house coming her way!
Just for the heck of it, I called the city permits office, and was told that the paperwork for demo of this house had been going on for a long time and that the “owner” had been notified. Obviously, that was the former owner, not the current owner.
Not being a lawyer, I don’t know that she has a free house coming from the city, but the former owner probably has some responsibility.
Someone couldnt have possibly found a house that was about to be demolished and contrived a story.
Many years ago, a friend of mine purchased a plot of land. After constructing a building and opening her business, she found out (via a newspaper) that a train would be running through her property in a couple of years. The previous owner knew this but never informed her. She got a lawyer. Turned out the previous owner, although a complete rat, was ultimately not responsible for disclosing this information, as his lawyer said the land seizure was public information and would have been found during the proper “due diligence” phase by any potential purchaser (which my friend did not do). This was a hard lesson, and she was reimbursed a lousy amount by the state once they seized her property. Not sure if this pertains to this circumstance at all? I’ve never owned land so I’m not sure of the process… I’m very sorry for the OP, this really sucks.
Aud, I’m not sure that would apply since this was an existing home to be demolished (clear chain of paperwork to make that happen), not a buildable plot with a questionable future. I’d think this rests solely with the seller and lack of disclosure. Maybe some local lawyers seeing this will contact the original poster.
Here’s a little more on this story:
http://www.wric.com/story/25849304/richmond-homeowner-says-city-demolished-her-home-but-whos-at-fault
The city isn’t responsible for this lady’s problem…Looks like the seller has a BIG problem on their hands for failing to disclose the fact that the property was slated for demolishion. This constitutes fraud. I hope the seller didn’t spend the 11 grand yet. If this goes to court, they’ll be on the hook for paying all of this back plus likely punitive damages. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” and expensive too…ouch!
I cant believe the city moved this fast to demolish a house. They take months to remove dead trees that drop limbs, to fix potholes, or to repair sidewalks.
Church Hill demolition shocks new property owner
http://www.timesdispatch.com/latest-news/church-hill-demolition-shocks-new-property-owner/article_aa2f8504-fb39-11e3-af9e-0017a43b2370.html
Just curious, but if she got a loan for this house….. does she have title insurance? If so, shouldn’t they have picked up it had a scheduled demolition from the city? And also, what about homeowners? It obviously not her fault but someone elses…. An example would be say someone rammed their car into my house, or a crane, wouldn’t that be covered? And then leave it up to the insurance to figure out. If she did not have insurance, I think she is SOL, just like if you got in a accident and didn not have car insurance!
@Gordo
I second that. Take the Time and effort to fix and do other things. The sidewalk on 33rd/broad, I walk past it every day. They have been working on it for almost a month now? And just a couple lines of bricks are layed… It always a bunch of guys standing around scartching their heads.
shouldn’t there have been a condemned notice on the structure? if the previous owner/seller removed it, that’s also a charge against him.
also, i feel bad for the current owner. i have a feeling this property would take a lot more than $50,000 to fix up. seems like she was very much taken advantage of.
Based on the high drama of the buyer’s complaint email, this looks a lot like a case of an unsophisticated buyer having done no normal due diligence. Everybody wants to hate on the City, but this sort of unsophisticated investment is what caused the last recession. If you are buying a house in North Church Hill and haven’t checked with code enforcement first, then you are doing it wrong.
@ JOE
I’m betting she does not have title insurance. I remember this property briefly appearing in online listings, but I don’t think it was ever in the MLS. (I asked more than one realtor about it and got nothing). I imagine this was probably as rudimentary a sale as possible – maybe just a one page contract, a payment, and a deed. This woman may have gotten no advice whatsoever from a real estate agent or an attorney. Which is not to criticize, per se. While I mean no offense, it sounds like someone took advantage of an uneducated or unknowledgeable person.
Depending on the wording of the contract, she may have no recourse whatsoever, depending on clauses and wording regarding due diligence. Even if she does, I wouldn’t be surprised if the seller cannot be found to pursue legal action.
In any event, if her story is true and her situation is as it sounds, hopefully the community can step up to the plate and help out. While substantial, the community might still be able to help raise funds to pay her damages, no?
Oh – and the city is terrible for doing this kind of stuff. I have a “neighbor” that I’m afraid to be to proactive about complaining about – I want the house restored, not demolished!
I have to wonder if there was a home inspection of any sort. Because if the house required demolition, I cant immagine a home inspector not warning about massive issues.
Please, she only paid $11,000 – the lot by itself is worth more than that. And $50,000 for renovations would not have gotten anyone very far. There is still a sizable house left – so, again, for $11,000 this is still a good deal
I remember a few years ago when a resident crackhead sold her house. The property cleared teh title check and then, a couple of weeks later, strange creditors started showing up demanding money. It turns out that there were various leans against the property that would not show up in a normal title check. But the buyers were saved by their title insurance.
I doubt if she paid 11k for it, she spent $500 on an inspection….
Also, I’m guessing the city really saved her money. It looks like that back part of the house was pretty jacked up. Do you know how much it costs to demo and haul away that much debris? On top of that deal with the plumbing, gas and electrical?
My guess is it would have cost AT least 1/2 of what she paid for the property!
Would insurance pay for this improper destruction of the property? It’s almost like vandalism-
Most likely at an $11K sales price, this was a cash sale. I doubt there was/is title insurance or even homeowner’s insurance. These are things that a bank requires when issuing a mortgage…I doubt this property was eligible for one if it was in such bad shape.
Folks need to stop hating on the city for this…they were executing a right and a duty to demolish this property if it was a threat to public safety. It doesn’t matter who the owner is as long as the owner of record was notified and had the opportunity to appeal. It looks like the city’s paperwork is in order.
If the seller didn’t disclose, look no further for the real guilty party. She’s got a good lawsuit on her hands. The seller would be wise to settle up now before it heads to court ’cause it’s only gonna get a whole lot more expensive. Court costs, attorney fees, reimbursing the 11K, punitive damages, cost to demolish and haul away debris are all things the seller will be on the hook for… Messy.
Gordo, I think many here can say you are spot on about that. The city does some dumb things and worry about the most stupid of them.
OK, from what I am taking away from all of this…
1) The city is not responsible since the sale was between party A and party B. All the city does is record the sale June 16th and …
2) Even if the city wanted to notify the new owner they wouldn’t because they had no idea the house was sold until the same day the demolition was approved since their computers had not updated yet (takes up to 2-weeks I understand). At the same time the system is antiquated rather than anything with that address should pop up upon data entry including permits.
3) The city says the previous owner was notified on May 1st about demolition plans but he says he was not notified then they are playing the “glaucoma” card.
4) The previous owner did not disclose to the new one that there were any issues pending.
5) The new owner was ill-advised in the first place about money if she thought she could fix up a dilapidated house for $50k. By the time she was through it would still be a slum.
Bottom line is that no one is taking responsibility and Ms. Sohail sounds like she needs someone to step up for her under this travesty. She was the looser here and needs her money back and/or another house or this one rebuilt courtesy of Mr. Townes
@29. That’s what the courts are for. She’s got a slam-dunk against the seller if she’s telling the truth about not knowing…
And for the record, the city does not make snap decisions to demolish anything…there’s plenty of back and forth between code enforcement and the property owner with the goal of remedying the violations. When all avenues fail, the last resort (by right and duty) is to demolish.
Hey laura… hope you have been well. Did I see the city wanting to add insult to injury on television last night where it was reported that they want to charge her around $15k for the demolition!?!? This is just so wrong on many levels.
First we ‘do’ need to know all of the facts before taking sides but so far things are leaning heavily towards Ms. Sohail’s defense from current published facts. She did fully know the wooden addition was in extremely bad condition and as for snap decisions, I think the city can if there is imminent danger of it collapsing onto the street and causing bodily harm to someone. But yes, I know from experience with 401 N 27th how the city will give the owners umpteenth opportunities to do something on their own first. The front of the house still stands and I have a feeling she is more in shock not being notified first nor informed the day of rather than that rotted section being demolished.
But, the sticking point is if the city informed Mr. Townes on May 1st about possible demolition but he is suggesting that he received nothing. And the family is claiming he can’t see anyway due to glaucoma (is that a hint that the notice may have been unread or overlooked?) – all points towards Mr. Townes responsibility (or his family to help him with bills and notices if he can’t see).
I wonder if Ms. Sohail contacted the city in any capacity concerning the sale prior to money changing hands? And was there a contract and if so, who drew it up without doing research first? The “sale” info was delayed being updated but not permits so wonder why the address did not trigger red flags? Someone at City Hall apparently dropped the ball too (surprise).
Time to lawyer up like you said and she just needs to call around to see if there is one who will take the case Pro-Bono.
Of course if this was a incident where it was a “cash only” deal with no contract then it will end up being a “he said, she said” situation.
All of this is academic if it was an as-is sale. She’s probably totally out of luck. Part and parcel of buying a slum property.
“As Is” is one thing but the new owner expected her house to still be there “as is”. And the previous owner had an obligation to disclose any notices.
@32 The property owner is responsible for the cost of any demolition the city performs to abate a public hazard.
The seller’s story smells to high heaven. When a citation is issued, the property owner is summoned to court. Someone appeared before the court where they were told about consequences for non-compliance. Demolition and being held accountable for the cost is one of the consequences. This process takes A LONG time to to get to the end stage. Communication from the city is not one-sided…the courts are involved too. So they’re all wrong???? And this was a surprise to the seller???? Come on now….
@34…sorry, you’re wrong. This looks like a fraud case and the seller is definately liable.
Agreed Mr. Eric…
City, seller, and realtor take no responsibility in demolition conundrum
http://wtvr.com/2014/06/25/city-seller-and-realtor-take-no-responsibility-in-demolition-conundrum/
As said before, this whole incident is an absolute travesty.
Townes said they were not notified yet the city is saying they were and showed up in court too.
The city system had not updated and actions taken only a couple of days after the sale. There should be some checks and balances in place and a lead in time to make sure the property is still owned by the same people before demolition takes place.
This reminds me again about the 401 N 27th property where the city fined the owner with several code violations and
given 45-days to fix them but instead sold the property to a relative for $0 so to start the process over.
All this family can do now is take it to court since no one wants to accept responsibility. If the city has documentation and the sales contracts has no wording along the lines about demolition notices then I don’t see where Townes have a leg to stand on?
I thought there were certain disclosure requirments…that even if the questions werent asked the seller and/or the sellors agent had to disclose certain things.
Looks like the city considers the sale invalid: http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/PropertySearch/Detail.aspx?pin=E0000625015 (then click on “Transfers” tab)
I think the INVALID has to do with whether or not the sale price is used as a data point, not that the sale itself is invalid.
looks like on time construction did not get there on time