Washer/Dryer

are washer/dryers permitted in the building?

Yes.

it might not make sense to sue since it would just be cheaper to install it. lawsuits are messy

My guess is that it will cost maybe $8,000 to get the proper plumbing in our coop. I think one can sue for up to $5,000 in a small claim court. I guess my question is, do I have a case? Thanks

I don't know what price apt. you purchased, but both brokers should anty up and give you the $$ to install the washer/dryer out of their commission. Your own broker is at fault also. That is totally bait and switch, it is implied when a washer/dryer is added to the listing sheet that it is properly installed. Taking them to small claims court, if you have the time to handle it yourself, would be a start. When you did the walk thru, couldn't you have postponed the closing, and demanded the owners install the washer/dryer properly?

Margategirl suggests both brokers anty up some $$$. From your statements, it's not clear if you had a buyer broker or you worked directly with the listing agent. It's a bit surprising that this came up so late in the game. Portable washers, whether allowed or not, are usually pretty easy to spot.

Can't advise on the legality, but if I saw an ad for an apartment with a w/d, I would certainly assume that it was properly installed. Though, since you wanted a clause in the contract, I have a sense you knew something was not right from the beginning. By agreeing to close without reaching some $$$ accommodation - AFTER you realized the situation - you may have lost your best opportunity.

I'm assuming you've complained the broker(s), and their superiors. You could always threaten to file a complaint, but it may come back to your attorney not protecting your interests.

Here's part of the problem: you signed a contract that didn't say what you wanted it to. How could a clause be added after you sign it? That makes no legal sense. You're attorney should have drafted a rider BEFORE you signed anything, had the seller approve of it, given you the contract to sign, and then forwarded the entire thing to the seller to accept or reject. This hybrid, (and no offense) half-assed way of botching up the ordinary course of things is a perfect example of why it is not good to invent new ways of doing things instead of adhering to standard methods--especially when dealing with the largest transactions of one's life. Your attorney should ante up the difference--as your representative and counsel the attorney did not do your bidding as directed. In return for you agreeing not to file a grievance against him/her with the Disciplinary Committee of the bar (if this is Manh contact the Appellate Division, First Department to find out how to file a grievance), the lawyer should undo the harm you suffered as a result of his/her failure to follow your instructions.

As for the agents, yeah, you could see what you can get them to pony up, but most of what they say is based only upon information supplied by the seller. If they said "plumbed and vented washer/dryer" that's different. But they were correct to the extent there is a w/d and it is legally there. So far as their representations go, caveat emptor is the rule of the day. Not so with lawyers.

Thanks for the replies. All good points. There was only one broker involved. We noticed the washer in the closet was a top load one. We contacted the broker to confirm that it was properly connected. He contacted the seller and told us that the seller confirmed that it was and that he has used it in the past. Concerned, we asked our attorney to add the clause before the contract was signed by the seller. We have not filed a compliant yet. The broker just sent us a check for $500. I wonder if by depositing it we will lose our ability to sue for more money?

You raise a good question, younessi. There is a legal concept called "accord and satisfaction." Essentially, you may indeed forfeit any claim against the broker by cashing the check.

As for the drafting, perhaps I wasn't clear. You ought not to have signed anything from anyone until it said what you wanted it to. It is never okay to sign a document with some understanding or direction that it then be changed after the fact. In this case, you should have asked for the contract with the clause to be returned to you for resigning and the first version destroyed, or that you be provided with a rider to sign stating that the hook conditions were material terms of the contract of sale. The way it was handled here left you never having seen or signed the terms that now cause a problem. With poor legal representation, and your understandable reliance upon such a professional, your actions are reasonable, if illadvised.

If there is a lesson to be learned here for others: ALWAYS read what you sign and be sure it says EXACTLY what you want it to BEFORE you sign it. I don't care if the lawyer says it is fine, if the brokers say it is standard, or if everyone in the room is staring at you and tapping their feet. RE transactions are HUGE for most of us. You don't sign anything until you can confidently say you understand it and that it is what you intended to sign. Oral agreements are legally worthless in real estate. Oral representations aren't worth a cent. If it isn't in writing, it isn't.

Here's an example. Assume a pre-printed standard contract of sale says something about pets but doesn't spell out that the deal is contingent upon your pet being permitted to live with you in the new apartment without limitation or conditions. Well, if the board accepts you but only if you don't arrive with your dog, then what? You're in a litigation mess. Meanwhile, your 10% escrow is all tied up for ages and in the end you could lose it. Protect yourself. Spell out what you want in writing, see it, sign it, insist it be countersigned as a material term of the deal.

kylewest Your entire post is excellent advice to all.

100% agree with Kylewest. Dealing with transaction legal documents is a big part of my job. 1) You always check the contract 10 times, word for word before you sign it. You, not just your lawyer. 2) Between signing and closing, in any transaction, you still have leverage - i.e. threaten not to close. In my experience, it can be effectively used. After closing, your only leverage is to complain and/or sue, which is not nearly as effective, as discussed by several on this thread. Good luck with the situation.

I'm no lawyer so I don't know for sure, but I doubt you have a case. As kylewest and newbuyer have said, it is your responsibility to read the contract, and you signed what you signed. Your lawyer may have screwed up, but proving it may be difficult.

I had a few items I wanted changed in my contract that had beed verbally guarateed to me but seemed vague when reading the contract. I insisted on language that spelled out what had been told to me. It may have been fine without the change, but I was unwilling to take that chance in case the seller pulled something fishy on me.

HINT: A modern advantage is the email paper trail, if you take advantage of it. In dealing with your lawyer, broker, contractor, architect, short emails can be invaluable later, but even more they can 'scare' people into doing what is promised or directed because all parties know there is a written history of the situation. Short phone calls are worthless from an evidentiary stand point other than to show you called. Emails record what was communicated and there is no debate.

Why did you sign the contract without the requested rider attached? Also, did the appraiser make any note of the improperly installed appliance?

Tough to rely on the appraiser to bail you out. Often they're in the apartment five minutes or less.

I wonder if the lawyer that messed up was recommended by the broker.

There was no buyer broker. It would be very interesting to know if the listing agent recommended an attorney to the buyer.

It is true that I had signed the contract first, but we asked for change to the contract before the contract was not mailed back to the seller's attorney. When I meet with my attorney to sign and leave the down payment, we had make some minor changes to the contract before it was signed anyway. The night we signed the contract, I felt uncomfortable about the broker's statement that the washer/dryer was properly connected. The next morning I emailed my attorney to add the following "washer/dryer is properly connected with proper permit and plumbing" to be added to the contract before it is mailed out. He confirmed the contract was not mailed out. If there was any concern that the contract needs to be signed again, we would have gladly done so. The attorney now claims that there was a misunderstanding. He is saying that he thought I was concerned as to whether coop board allows washer/dryer in the apt. So he checked and since they did, there was no need to add anything to the contract.

The appraiser did not make any written comment regarding the washer/dryer being properly installed or not. I had used the same lawyer in past transactions. Not recommended by the broker.

Going forward I will check the stuff in the apt more carefully and not rely on the broker or my attorney. In this case, paying a professional (attorney) to look after my interest was a double whammy. So far I paid his fee and now I have to pay for his mistake. Maybe FL has it right, they rarely use attorneys for real estate closing.

Hope you don't mind me weighing in again. The issue needs to be framed differently. It isn't "is the w/d hooked up properly" because what "properly" means can vary. If it is a unit that can be hooked up with a hose or wheeled into place to be "properly" used, then it is totally fine and proper for it to be sitting in a closet with no plumbing. More accurately, you wanted to insure that the w/d were plumbed in the closet and properly ventilated per manufacturer's specs and building and code rules IN THE CLOSET. So even if you put in a clause that said it had to be legal and "proper" that would not necessarily have protected you when you learned that proper in this case means wheeling the thing to the kitchen or hooking up a network of hoses.

Yes, kylewest, that is a super point, as always.

Kylewest - All my attorney had to do after getting my email was to ask me what I was trying to achieve. A mobile unit doesn't really have plumbing (it has a hose). "properly connected" should have raised a question from him. So maybe my clause was not as good, it should have been my attorney's job to put it in a proper legal terms.

Younessi - I work with lawyers a lot, and yours sucks. A lot. Making a unilateral decision that a rider you requested is not necessary is completely unacceptable and inappropriate. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that it's your responsibility to be comfortable with what you're signing, and to close only if/when you're fully comfortable. Based on what you described, I think you're justified in going after your lawyer, but I am just skeptical that such a course of action would be productive. You may be able to get your lawyer to waive all/part of their fee given given what you described, but don't hold your breath on that either. In any case, good luck.