Failure to disclose in California real estate transactions can result in significant liability. Under California real estate disclosure law, sellers and their agents have affirmative duties to disclose material facts affecting the value or desirability of residential property. When those duties are breached, buyers may pursue claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory violations.
Real estate nondisclosure in California is heavily litigated. Courts examine what was disclosed, what was known, what was reasonably observable, and whether the buyer justifiably relied on the alleged omission.
At Vokshori Law Group, our real estate litigation attorneys in Los Angeles represent both buyers and sellers in residential real estate disclosure disputes throughout California.
Seller disclosure obligations in California arise from both statute and common law. Together, these authorities define when a duty to disclose exists and when liability attaches
Civil Code § 1102 requires sellers of most one-to-four unit residential properties to deliver a completed Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS). The TDS requires disclosure of known material defects affecting the property’s condition, including issues relating to structure, roof, plumbing, electrical systems, and water intrusion.
Failure to disclose known material defects may support statutory claims and common law fraud claims
Civil Code § 2079 imposes a duty on brokers and agents to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection and to disclose material facts that such inspection would reveal. A seller’s agent does not ordinarily owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer, but does owe statutory duties of honesty, good faith, and disclosure. See Holmes v. Summer (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510 (holding that although a seller’s agent does not generally owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer, the agent owes statutory duties of honesty, good faith, and disclosure).
Civil Code § 2079.5 further makes clear that buyers retain their own duty to exercise reasonable care.
California’s fraud statutes apply in real estate nondisclosure cases. Civil Code § 1710 defines deceit to include suppression of a material fact by one who is bound to disclose it. Civil Code § 1572 defines actual fraud, including active concealment.
These provisions often serve as the statutory foundation for failure to disclose defects in California home sales.
Lingsch remains the cornerstone case. A seller must disclose material facts affecting value or desirability where:
Materiality is broader than structural defects. Even non-physical conditions may be material if they affect value and are not readily observable.
An “as is” clause does not shield a seller from liability for fraud or intentional concealment of material defects not reasonably observable. “As is” does not eliminate seller disclosure obligations in California.
Failure to disclose in California typically gives rise to claims for:
Each claim has distinct elements, but all require proof of materiality, causation, and damages.
To prove fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must establish:
See Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230 (holding that concealment liability requires suppression of a material fact where the defendant had a duty to disclose, the plaintiff was unaware of the fact, and the concealment caused damage).
These cases often turn on knowledge and reliance.
Seller misrepresentation claims require proof of:
See Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039 (reaffirming that fraud requires misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages).
Negligent misrepresentation involves:
See Hydro-Mill Co. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1145 (holding that negligent misrepresentation requires a false representation made without reasonable grounds for believing it true, with intent to induce reliance, resulting in justifiable reliance and damage).
Many purchase agreements include “as is” language. However, under real estate disclosure law in California, an “as is” clause does not shield a seller from liability for intentional concealment or misrepresentation of material defects that were not reasonably observable.
See Shapiro v. Hu (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 324.
“As is” does not eliminate a seller’s disclosure obligations in California.
Nondisclosure of material facts in California requires proof of justifiable reliance. Even where a seller’s disclosure was incomplete or inaccurate, courts evaluate whether the buyer reasonably relied on that information.
California law makes clear:
See Civil Code § 2079.5; Furla v. Jon Douglas Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1069 (holding that buyers are not relieved of the duty to exercise reasonable care and are deemed aware of patent and obvious conditions).
For example, if a buyer obtains an inspection report identifying the alleged defects before removing contingencies, reliance may fail as a matter of law.
A buyer generally cannot establish reliance where the inspection report or other pre-closing information clearly disclosed the specific condition at issue and the buyer proceeded with the purchase anyway. However, if the disclosure was ambiguous, incomplete, or contradicted by affirmative representations, reliance may remain a triable issue of fact.
See Blackman v. Howes (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 275 (holding that a purchaser who inspects property and learns the true facts cannot claim reliance on alleged misrepresentations).
In many residential real estate disclosure disputes, inspection reports and contingency removals become the central issue.
A seller’s agent does not typically owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer. However, the agent owes statutory duties of honesty, good faith, and disclosure.
See Holmes v. Summer (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510 (holding that although a seller’s agent does not generally owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer, the agent owes statutory duties of honesty, good faith, and disclosure).
Failure to disclose defects in California may implicate both the seller and the listing broker depending on the facts.
Constructive fraud requires a fiduciary or confidential relationship.
See Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105 (holding that constructive fraud requires a fiduciary or confidential relationship and resulting injury from nondisclosure).
In most arm’s-length transactions, sellers are not fiduciaries to buyers. Constructive fraud claims are more commonly asserted against a buyer’s own broker.
A buyer purchases a residential property. The seller’s Transfer Disclosure Statement states there are no known foundation problems. The buyer hires a licensed inspector. The inspection report identifies significant foundation cracking and drainage issues. The buyer receives the report before removing contingencies, does not review it, and proceeds with the purchase.
After closing, the buyer realizes the extent of damages were significant, would cost six figures to remedy, and sues for failure to disclose defects in California.
The court analyzes:
If the buyer had knowledge of the defect before removing contingencies, the failure to disclose claim may not survive summary judgment because fraud and nondisclosure claims require justifiable reliance. A buyer generally cannot establish reliance where the inspection report or other pre-closing information clearly disclosed the specific condition at issue and the buyer proceeded with the purchase anyway. However, if the disclosure was ambiguous, incomplete, or contradicted by the seller’s affirmative representations, reliance may still present a triable issue of fact.
This illustrates how courts evaluate reliance under real estate nondisclosure in California.
Legal remedies for undisclosed property defects may include:
Buyer remedies for nondisclosure in California depend on the specific cause of action and the evidence of knowledge and reliance.
Attorney’s fees are not automatically recoverable unless authorized by statute or contract.
Sellers must disclose known material facts affecting the value or desirability of the property, including structural issues, water intrusion, roof defects, and other significant conditions. Civil Code § 1102 governs most residential disclosures.
To prove a failure to disclose claim in California, a plaintiff must establish duty, knowledge, concealment or misrepresentation, justifiable reliance, and damages. Fraud claims require proof of intent; negligence-based claims do not.
Failure to disclose cases are fact-intensive and often resolved through summary judgment motions. Consulting a real estate litigation attorney in Los Angeles early can help assess the strength or defensibility of the claim before litigation escalates.
Possibly. “As is” language does not eliminate liability for intentional concealment or seller misrepresentation of material defects that were not reasonably observable.
Whether you are a buyer pursuing claims for failure to disclose in California or a seller defending against allegations of real estate nondisclosure, early legal analysis is critical.
Our firm regularly handles:
If you are searching for a failure to disclose attorney in Los Angeles or a real estate fraud attorney in Los Angeles, contact Vokshori Law Group to discuss your matter.
“Excellent service thank you vokshori for you service”
“My experience with Vokshori Law Group has been brief (so far) but exceptionally positive. Within a day or two they solved my initial problem and we are well on our way to dealing with the rest. Five stars.”
“Stephen Vokshori has exceeded our expectations and couldn't recommend him enough. He has helped us twice already in regards to a real estate matter and are very satisfied. Thank you so much!”
“If I could give more stars I surely would. I was extremely stressed out about this whole situation with my house, and a bad realtor. I was about ready to give up hope when I Googled Vokshori Law Group.”
"*" indicates required fields
If you need legal assistance, don't hesitate to contact us today.
We are here to help you achieve a successful outcome
and protect your rights every step of the way.
Monday to Friday: 9.00 AM – 5.00 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed
© 2026 Vokshori Law Group. All rights reserved. Sitemap | Privacy Policy
