Can I sell land to a new buyer AND still sue the original land owner?
Posted once before with a slight update: We bought some land (Sept 2016) and eventually tried to resell in Sept 2017. However, the DEQ requires more testing and gave the a site a "no further action" (2005) meaning you can't build until further testing is done (b/c it has a low level of contamination). 

1. This issue with DEQ was NOT disclosed to us when we purchased in 2016. 
2. The Phase I we did was either inadequate or not done at all (weird, I know, so we waiting double checking with the agent).
3. The sale was As-Is. However, this issue was not disclosed so do we have a case? Also, the redhibitory has expired (?) b/c we found out about the issue Sept 2017 (and it has been more than a year since the discovery).

So...

A. Can I sue the previous owner, and still sell the land to next buyer?  (Note: the new buyer has been informed of the issue and we are working with DEQ to see if we lift the No Action requirement).

&amp;#x200B;
[{"id": "eajhy41", "text": "I don't have an answer for you but I would be curious if the original owner could claim your Phase 1 should have caught it and since it didn't, it's your tough luck.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajhyto", "text": "Not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt.\n\nIt really depends if the original seller knew about the status. If the they did not know and you can\u2019t prove they did know then it will be hard to sue.\n\nGotta do your due diligence properly. ", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajj68v", "text": "If you knew there was a gas station previously then my thought is you were told enough to know a phase one and probably a phase two was in order.  If I\u2019m a judge and you were suing under these pretenses, you\u2019re going to have a very difficult time proving to me that you didn\u2019t just pass on the phase two because it was too expensive and you took the risk. ", "replies": [{"id": "eajp6x7", "text": "I have said that we should have done a Phase I and Phase II b/c that would have prevented all this headache (it is a $90-150K mistake). \n\nHowever, DISCLOSURE is everything. In real estate, \"not knowing\" is inexcusable and why we disclosed this to all our potential buyers. I am not sure if we have strong case and it hinges on this DISCLOSURE. ", "replies": [{"id": "eajpsv3", "text": "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor\n\nhttps://www.einhornharris.com/businesslawblog/caveat-emptor-let-buyer-beware-due-diligence-commercial-real-estate-purchases/", "replies": [{"id": "eajpt0i", "text": "Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor\n***\n^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^224431", "replies": [], "depth": 4}, {"id": "eajpt7c", "text": "**Caveat emptor**\n\nCaveat emptor (UK: , US: ) is Latin for \"Let the buyer beware\" \n\n(from caveat, \"may he beware\", a subjunctive form of cav\u0113re, \"to beware\" + \u0113mptor, \"buyer\").  Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of other goods.  The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arise from the fact that buyers typically have less information about the good or service they are purchasing, while the seller has more information.  The quality of this situation is known as 'information asymmetry'.\n\n***\n\n^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/CommercialRealEstate/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^]\n^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}, {"id": "eajr2fq", "text": "Uh not knowing is an excuse actually. If they never had any phase 1 or 2 done then they probably didnt  know themselves. If they dont know an issues exists then how are they suppose to disclose it to you?\n\nDisclosures are only relevant if the person knows about the thing. So if they dont, then it's on you to find it before buying. If they did k ow, but kept it a secret, you have to prove they knew, which you probably can't. \n\nYou have no case, if that was a concern you needed to do more due diligence. ", "replies": [], "depth": 3}, {"id": "eakm4gj", "text": "&gt; DISCLOSURE is everything.\n\nDisclosure is almost nothing in real estate, actually.  Your own testing and research is what matters.\n\n\nYou acknowledge you didn't do your due diligence.  That's all the judge is going to see.  If you had done your due diligence and sellers had somehow intentionally hidden it from your ability to detect, that might be different.\n\nObviously I don't know anything about this particular situation, but it is *extremely* rare for judges to side with buyers in these situations.\n\n\n/not your atty", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajlmah", "text": "Here is a state by state comparison of what is required. \n\nhttps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/final_nfa_document_layout_8-1-16.pdf\n\nYou knew the prior use was a gas station with an underground well, so there was probably some disclosure somewhere that listed what you were buying and that you agree to hold harmless and indemnify the seller. \n\nYou would have to see if the seller is a person or an entity, if the entity is still solvent or if it was an LLC to sell this property. \n\nUsually banks will require an appraisal and knowing it was a former gas station would typically order a phase one or phase two ER. Were you using the sellers lender on this or your own agents? \n\nThe seller is not required to disclose all the bad things on their property if they can claim they never knew about them. That is why so many refuse to get any kind of testing done, since once they know about the issue they are required to either fix it or report it to the seller. \n\nWho is on the loan? You personally or an LLC? \n\nIn any event, it looks like you are in Louisanna, here is what you need to do:\n\nThe Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality \n(LDEQ) administers the state\u2019s Voluntary Remediation \nProgram (VRP). The VRP provides a mechanism for \nproperty owners, potential owners, or others to clean up \ncontaminated properties and receive a release of liability for further cleanup of historical contamination at a \nsite. This release of liability flows to future owners of the \nproperty.\n\nSo you need to go through this program to get a release of liability, then you can have a shot at actually selling this thing. \n\nThere is a fund that gas stations pay into that funds the cleanup. You need to see if your gas station is one of those that paid into this fund. If it is, there are mechanisms you can use to try to mitigate the cost of this cleanup. \n\nYou bought a lemon of a property. You did not do your own due dilligence. You need to clean up this mess, because the people who sold it to you found a sucker. Finding a bigger sucker will be very difficult for you, so you had better put your energies into cleaning up the site. ", "replies": [{"id": "eajq4vb", "text": "Good info. And we acknowledge that we didn't do our due diligence. Oddly enough, the bank didn't ask about a Phase I or II; and the agent brought it up initially but just got lost in the mix. \n\nAnyway, we ordered the Phase I and II a year later. The first test drew 12 bores and 9 were good while 3 came back with low level of contamination. DEQ requires us to draw a second test focusing on those 3 specific sites. If those come back lower, then DEQ can give us a seal of approval. \n\nOur potential lawsuit is based on: disclosure. DEQ sent the original letter to seller about this issue. So the two verdicts are:\n1) If she wins, it is because we didn't do our due diligence. \n2) If we win, it's b/c the issue should have been disclosed (not knowing or forgetting about is not a viable defense). ", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajn7uk", "text": "....You posted about this months ago. You fucked up. You bought a gas station without doing your due diligence. Take your medicine. And get off reddit and hire an attorney already.", "replies": [{"id": "eajq97q", "text": "We messed up and are talking with attorneys. As I have looked into this: It's basically an argument of due diligence VS disclosure. ", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajng55", "text": "While there is no principle stopping you from selling the land to a third party as well as suing the seller of the land, what theory you are suing under could matter, either outright if it is a particular statute or for tactical reasons. Whether you can sue the previous owner at all is not a question fit for reddit. Even talking in generalities and not into the many ways that statutes can be relevant in this question, (which vary greatly from place to place), the specifics to the language of the contract here will control what's going on. ", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajqnyt", "text": "I commented last time I think. \nThis is state to state. But in my areas I think if I didn\u2019t take a phase one, contact would state as-is how is. \nCaveat emptor. If you didn\u2019t run a phase 1 in DD, this isn\u2019t the sellers problem. \n", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "eajsosa", "text": "You fucked up big time by not getting a phase one prior to closing.  Your broker is an idiot and needs to be dragged out back and tied to the whipping post.  Be ready to spend buco bucks on a VCC and a lawyer.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]