Should I tell the new owner.... OMG are you kidding me!?

[CarlF]

I don't see the moral issue here. Apparently only the OP is worried about this keel -- this smells of a retribution for the divorce.

His wife is not asking him to hide a survey report about keel problems because the survey says the keel is fine. Instead he believes he knows better than the surveyor despite having no experience or training in surveying boats, engineering, or keel problems.

More importantly, no buyer should rely on a survey done by the seller. The buyer's survey is the only one that matters. And indeed, the buyer did his own survey. The OP knows nothing about the results of this buyer's survey except that he believes the boat was not hauled.

He refers to a 5" crack at the 2nd keel bolt besides the crack at the trailing edge. This crack is presumably seen from inside the boat. So the buyer's surveyor would have seen it even without hauling. Anyways, you can't tell much about keel bolts by looking at a hauled boat. You really need to drop the keel but almost no one does that. So most surveyors check the bolts and laminate on the inside. Presumably that was done. The insurance company would require something about the keel attachment in the report. Maybe they also used a diver. Or maybe they did haul it but didn't feel any need to tell the seller's husband about how they were doing their survey

Things would be entirely different if the OP knew something about the boat's history that might not be seen in a survey - such as a hard grounding that was not professionally repaired. But that is apparently not the case here.

[softdown]

I'm a bit curious about the wisdom of surveying a boat without a haul out. It would seem that the boats bottom would top the list of safety concerns.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Sailor647

This was just posted to the Liveaboard Sailboat page on Facebook.


Maybe not the best place for this, but you people know boats....
So the relationship goes south, the boat is being sold. (Her boat, I helped pay for.) Not to worry though, the dream hasn't ended here for me anyway.
The ex asks me to help with the sale, but also to hide our purchase survey from the buyer because of numerous semi small issues, and the larger ones like water intrusion in the deck.

While our surveyor downplayed the keel-hull separation at the rear of the keel, he also listed many things incorrectly. Such as our deck stepped mast as keel stepped? I saw him as more of just an equipment list maker, than any type of actual inspector which we shouldn't have paid for.

It particularly troubles me because this separation in the rear is accompanied by a roughly 5 inch long crack leading away from the second forward keel bolt. To me, there is no way a crack can develop from a keel bolt other than movement between the keel bolt/fastener and the hull.

Sure hulls flex and change shape while sailing, yes, but this is a fin keel. (1995 Dufour prestige 48) With this type of attachment, it would seem that the keel-hull interface should remain 100% rigid, and the hull should flex elsewhere.

Basically, should I tell the buyer? Would I be at risk for knowingly and intentionally hiding / failing to disclose knowledge of a potential structural problem should the boat sink/loss of life/injury should they loose the keel during the delivery (Morro Bay - San Fransisco bay) or even sometime after?
The buyer did have an in-water survey completed, the results of which are unknown. That surveyor would not know of the keel hull separation, and was surely not told about it.

I just don't want to be worrying about ending up in court or worse because I didn't say something that I feel I should have. However I feel at this point I may be risking a lawsuit from the ex if I do tell the buyer, causing the loss of the sale.
So yeah...thoughts?


I can't even believe this.... What has happened to people?

Wash your hands of the whole thing. Neither she or she is your responsibility.

[meatservo]

Just list the name of the boat with pics and location on this forum.




meatservo

[NorthCoastJoe]

If I bought that boat and later found out that you knew of the defect I would be looking for someone's head. As said earlier it's out on the internet now, timestamped evidence of the defect. Tell the buyer.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by NorthCoastJoe

If I bought that boat and later found out that you knew of the defect I would be looking for someone's head. As said earlier it's out on the internet now, timestamped evidence of the defect. Tell the buyer.

Nothing personal: I'm sure many would feel that way. Problem is, that ignores taking responsibility for one's impetuous behavior. I'm kinda agin that. As stated upthread, if buying a 4K$B ... who cares? Casual about a large complicated purchase? Shame on you, if shame there be.

[JPA Cate]

I don't know if there is an equivalent sort of descriptor in common use in the US, but here there exists "for sale, as is, where is." The phrase is a warning to a buyer that the item has not been fixed up for sale, and that there are flaws. It is a legal way to sell them, here.

A64pilot, I don't know how much liability would accrue to an ex-husband (assuming they are divorced) and his ex-boat. For that, the poster should check with his attorney.

We don't even know if the OP will be part of the sale process.

Maybe their divorce isn't final. This may be mid-divorce posturing. Imho the OP sells his honor very cheaply indeed if he fails to warn the buyer of known defects, especially so, if he just wants to get revenge on his "ex". Men often express their anger towards an ex via property.

Both partners put money into a possibly unworthy boat: they should both take the hit, and go on, hopefully wiser about boats, and their choice of partner. Being furious with your ex is no excuse to potentially endanger someone else. Take a peek at the Doug Innes case.

Ann

[TrentePieds]

"Ex-hood" is a function of the existence of: 1) A registered Separation Agreement, 2) a Decree Nisi or 3) a Decree Absolute. No such document - no "ex"!

This jurisdiction is a "Common Property" jurisdiction, and the chattel that the boat is, is therefore in JOINT ownership until one of the above-listed documents assigns ownership of it to one or other of the parties. Thereafter the title to the asset, and therefore the right to dispose of it, resides with the person stated in the document to be the owner of that chattel.

If the "ex" is truly, legally an "ex" (for which we have only the Joe Blogg's assertion which may or may not conform to the facts), then Joe should have nothing whatsoever to do with the future fate of the boat, and indeed has no right to be involved in the sale at all.

OBVIOUSLY, if a prospective buyer contacts Joe with a direct question about the boat, Joe should tell the truth.

CLEARLY, if my conjecture that the ex-wife has shown signs of ethical deficiencies in the past, and this "request" is only the latest of several such, then Joe is best off by turning his back on the entire affair.

If my conjecture is wrong, of course, we would have to give some thought to Joe's rectitude.

As I've said so often: If you buy a boat, singly or together with others, you should ensure when you do so, that if needs be, you can walk away from the "investment" with a smile on your face.

TP

[Nikki S]

I would never buy a boat without a full proper survey on the dry. I would never trust a broker or the seller. As far my experience goes, You'd just be in the norm if you didn't say mention the dangerous cons and only mentioned the pros..... sad but true.
However, I think you should tell them to get a proper survey.

[sandy stone]

I agree with TrentePieds - everything hinges on the current ownership of the boat. If totally owned by the ex, and she is selling it, then it's really none of your business. If you still have an interest in the boat, then you should at least make the broker aware of any hidden defects, which I think he would be legally obligated to pass along to the buyer. When I bought my current boat through a broker, I never even had any contact with the owner until after the sale was completed, and I wouldn't really have expected him to call me on his own to warn me about problems with the boat. For that kind of money, I was inspecting it pretty carefully. And of course it was in my best interest not to have it sink underneath me.

[Clewless]

I'd love to know the name of the company who did the survey so we can avoid them

[buzzstar]

I did not see that you had a financial interest in the boat until post 23. With that you cinched your general obligation, subject to the law of the place where the transaction is taking place. Depending on specifics, the failure to disclose, or to conceal, or to misrepresent information can be a form of fraud. If you do anything but disclose fully, I suggest you get legal advice first. I can only assume the sale mentioned in your OP is dead in the water. One possible future avenue is to have you ex buy out your interest before any sale to a third party (make sure anything your know about the boat is included in the agreement). If the documents are all in her name, you can perhaps keep your mouth shut -but get that legal advice first. Who was the poet you wrote about "when at first we ... deceive?

[Jim Cate]

Brian, the OP, Sailor647, is not the owner nor the deceiver. He's just reporting someone else's Facebook posts. Not sure why, but that's how he describes the situation. So, the guy with the ex is not involved with the CF discussion. Weird.

Jim

[Dave22q]

I would not want to be you if they ever sue you and discover the documentation. If you are not judgement proof now you will be after that.

[Blue Crab]

IMHO, if folks are going to take the time to comment they should be required to read the thread first. Comprehension is a whole nother thang.