[CA] Can the buyers of our home demand $2,200 for a dead lawn area?
17
6
Generally, after closing, buyers can only seek compensation if they prove you knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material fact (Civ. Code §1709). They had a right to a final walkthrough and could have seen the lawn/sprinkler issue then. Your disclosures appear accurate if you were unaware of any gap. A single dead patch is typically normal wear/tear, not post-closing liability—especially with a pre-close inspection opportunity. If they pursue it in small claims, they must prove misrepresentation and that the issue wasn’t discoverable (CCP §116.220). Usually sellers aren’t obligated to pay for minor landscaping issues unless promised otherwise. The ball is in their court.
Upvote if this is a clear answer
Downvote if this is not a clear answer
Full Conversation
Hi, I sold a house that closed on 5/27/2025. Our real estate agent says the buyers are requesting $2,200 for a dead patch of lawn, claiming the sprinkler doesn’t reach it and that we failed to disclose a gap in coverage.
Did you provide a disclosure statement before the sale?
Yes. On the Seller Property Questionnaire we answered:
- “Operational sprinklers on the property — Yes.”
- “Any areas with trees, plants, or vegetation not covered by the sprinkler system — No.”
Does the sales contract address condition/disputes after closing?
Section 16 (“Final Verification of Condition”) gives the buyer the right to a final walkthrough within 5 days before close to confirm the property’s condition and that agreed repairs are complete. One more note: we didn’t know about any dead spots, and the buyers waited a month after closing to move in.
Generally, after closing, buyers can only seek compensation if they prove you knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material fact (Civ. Code §1709). They had a right to a final walkthrough and could have seen the lawn/sprinkler issue then. Your disclosures appear accurate if you were unaware of any gap. A single dead patch is typically normal wear/tear, not post-closing liability—especially with a pre-close inspection opportunity. If they pursue it in small claims, they must prove misrepresentation and that the issue wasn’t discoverable (CCP §116.220). Usually sellers aren’t obligated to pay for minor landscaping issues unless promised otherwise. The ball is in their court.
Should we send a response or just ignore it?
If you don’t intend to pay and believe there was no misrepresentation, it’s fine to ignore. Responding can trigger unproductive back-and-forth. It’s on them to decide whether to take formal action.
We live in Chicago but the property was in Los Angeles. Would we have to fly back if they filed in small claims?
Likely yes. If they file in Los Angeles, you’d generally need to appear there. Remote appearances are uncommon and judge/courthouse-specific. Missing court could lead to a default judgment.
If I have to fly, can I counter-sue for my travel costs?
Unfortunately, no. Small claims typically doesn’t award a defendant’s travel costs; each party covers their own attendance expenses.
So best to ignore them for now?
Yes. Ignoring is reasonable here. If they file something formal, you can respond then.
The buyer says our old gardener told them the sprinklers were “not a good system.” How would that affect things?
That’s just an opinion. Your duty was to disclose whether sprinklers were operational and whether there were uncovered areas—not to grade the system’s quality. Unless there was a known malfunction or gap you failed to disclose, the gardener’s comment doesn’t create liability.
Got it—thanks!
