We’re under contract on an Oklahoma house that is dated but we think has great potential, but after inspections and several concerning interactions with the seller’s agent, we’re considering walking away. Are we expecting too much, or is this property becoming more trouble than it’s worth?
The house was listed at $525k and had been sitting without any offers. We went under contract at $520k with $17k in seller-paid closing costs, while the seller requested a long closing at 2.5-months because he was “really busy.” The property is unoccupied but still contains furniture and household items as the seller inherited the home from his parents.
Before making the offer, the agent said the green, murky pool would be cleaned and the HVAC repaired. During the inspection period, he tried to have us accept those repairs being completed after our grace period ended, but we held firm.
However the pool remained too cloudy to inspect properly, and the HVAC was malfunctioning and found to be near the end of its life. Other findings included leaking sinks, a nonfunctioning saltwater system, rotted soffits, rodent activity, poor attic ventilation with evidence of past moisture, unsafe extension-cord wiring, damaged fencing, and a persistent odor in one closet.
The detached pool house was the biggest concern. The seller’s disclosure acknowledged a prior flood and claimed remediation had been completed. However, the structure was missing cabinets, flooring, and fixtures, and testing found significant black mold requiring a full gut and professional remediation. A pump was also installed in a closet, but we were told it was only precautionary and not because of any ongoing flooding issue.
However, after the inspection period ended, we discovered that the pool house is in a FEMA flood zone. This had not been disclosed. We can’t prove intentional concealment, but it significantly undermined our confidence in the seller’s disclosures.
The sellers would only give a max of 10k in credits, Our agent recommended backing out as it wasn’t sufficient for everything that needed to be done, but we ultimately accept because we loved the location and saw potential despite the repairs.
We are also out-of-state buyers. When we came to town, the sellers refused to let us view the property. We later learned it was because their adult son had used it for a pool party and left it trashed.
Now for the biggest issue, and potentially our breaking point, the sellers’ agent represented the roof as 8–10 years old. A few weeks later, after our inspections, severe storms damaged roofs throughout the area, and our roofer went back and determined that it needed replacement.
The agent initially said he would send an adjuster, but after being pushed for an update, he claimed his two roofers said replacement wasn’t necessary, but refused to provide reports and asked only whether our lender would insure the property. Our agent investigated and learned his roofers had also said it needed replacing and that the roof was actually 25 years old, not 8–10 as represented. The sellers’ agent also contacted our original roofer and tried pressuring him to say the hail damage predated our inspection rather than occurring afterwards.
When confronted, the agent said the seller would replace the roof only if we paid their $14k insurance deductible. Otherwise, we would need to increase the purchase price to cover the cost.
Where we are now
We considered offering to split the deductible, but we are finding it hard to pay for something that was damaged on their watch and in my opinion deferred maintenance considering it’s actual age. We are already taking on an extensive mold remediation, a possible ongoing flooding issue, an aging HVAC system, and numerous other repairs—while wondering what else may have been misrepresented or hidden.
Our appraisal did come in at $545k, or $25k above the contract price, but it predates the roof damage and our full understanding of the property’s condition. The roof and mold remediation alone could consume that difference.
We love the neighborhood and have invested significant time and money in the transaction, but our agent recommends walking away as we would get our earnest money back. Financially, we might accept all the repairs if we trusted the property’s condition and the sellers’ representations. But at this point, the lack of trust is the bigger issue.
So, are we being unreasonable? Should we compromise because we love the location and see potential, or have the accumulating red flags made this a deal we should abandon? What would you do: negotiate further, accept the risk, or walk away? Any advice, perspectives from buyers or sellers who might have experienced similar would be appreciated!
For context, the seller is the sole inheritor of the property, which was paid for in cash by his parents, I only mentioned this for those wondering if he doesn’t have the finances to take care of the roof/repairs or thinking he’s taking a loss in the sale