Is it possible to cancel a compromise de vente because of increased risk of natural disaster?

[Ugo]

I early July I signed a compromise de vente for a chalet in Saint Gervais les Bains and paid the 5 per cent deposit.

 

Two weeks after signing the compromise de vente the Mayor of the town released a report showing that there is a significant risk that a glacier which sits on top of the town will collapse and destry a signifcant part of the town (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/melting-glacier-threatens-valley/story-e6frg8ro-1225900403709 ). The property that I am planning to buy is in the most at risk zone and I am very worried. The compromise de vente does not say anything about risk of natural disaster, but this is a huge new piece of information (the whole town is in state of emergency). Does anybody know if I can walk away from the contract without losing my deposit?

[Will]

Very unlikely. You have signed a legal contract. The French system is geared to buyers satisfying themselves that they are happy and are prepared to go through with the purchase before they sign. That includes making sure the house will not be adversely affected by things like floods, or developments like TGV tracks, new high voltage power lines, or wind farms, or any other proposals which will affect the amenity value.

It is possible to include clauses under which the sale will become void - if you and the seller agree then any clause, including natural disaster, can be included, but only before signature by all parties.

You have a limited period to change your mind, as you signed and paid a deposit in July you are now well past that.

Moreover, if you pull out now you are liable to a penalty of 10%, plus any reasonable fees incurred so far by notaires, agents etc, so you stand to lose more than just your 5% deposit.

You can certainly ask the notaire and the seller to allow you to withdraw, but I don't put the chances very high.

Sorry if it's not the answer you wanted, but I think you have to prepare for the worst.

[WJT]

Will, would this not be considered a vice caché?

I would think that the seller must have known about this and it does seem strange that something of this magnitude wasn't picked up by the Notaire. [8-)]

[mint]

Isn't the notaire supposed to tell you about adverse environmental factors?

Or is it that, in this case, the increased potential of hazard has only just come to light?

You have my utmost sympathy, OP.

[Will]

If the report was not issued until after the compromis de vente was signed then it seems likely that it was not general knowledge. To prove vice cache, you would have to establish to a tribunal that the seller was fully aware of the risks at the time you viewed, and deliberately sought to conceal the problem. When the problem is something like a glacier, I would imagine a tribunal would decide that it was just as visible to the buyer as to the seller.

The notaire establishes that the sellers have correct title, that things like boundaries are correctly recorded, in other words that the legal documentation is all in order. He is also responsible for collecting all taxes due. Searches on behalf of the buyer for potential difficulties are not part of the official duties - if buyers require these they should make separate arrangements. Some notaires may advise buyers if they are aware of problems, but unless specifically requested there is no obligation to do this.

[Judie]

Yes, didn't your diagnostics show up any previous problem with this environmental problem under "risques naturels et technologiques"

[Ugo]

Dear All, 

Thank you very much for the answers (especially for all the details provided by Will) and sympathy of Sweet 17.

In case you are interested, these are some more details. The Major commissioned a study on the risk of the glacier in 2007 (apparently everybody in the town knew about this study but nobody told me about it and the study was not mentioned in the compromise de vente).  The results of the report were given to the Major on July 13 (the day before I paid my deposit) and the Major made a public announcement on July 28.

The compromise the vente mentions the standard geological risks to which any mountain town is subject to, (avalanche etc.) but does not mention that the area of my chalet is at particular risk (in fact the plot in which my chalet sits was indicated as a being a low risk area in the town risk map) or that a study on the risk of the glacier that sits on my chalet was being undertaken.

[Will]

It's not a good position to be in - but it has to be worth saying how disappointed you are and asking to withdraw. You may just strike lucky. I hope that whatever happens it works out well for you, and you either manage to pull out, or the glacier and its contents stay in place and you get to enjoy your chalet.

[mint]

Ugo, did you buy through an estate agent?

I'm not sure about France but, in the UK, if a local estate agent with knowledge of local conditions knew about this and did not warn you, then that agent was negligent.

Actually, I am quite shocked by your situation because, on a personal level, I love that area, having walked for a week around there last summer.

 

[PaulT]

Yes, a terrible situation to be in. However, if you turned this around and you were the seller, have a buyer who has signed the compris, then an adverse report comes out, would you let them pull out? After all, it is going to be harder to sell now.

I think you now need to weigh up whether you are willing to lose the amounts indicated by Will OR to go through with this and hope that the glacier stays put.

Best of luck with whatever you decide - and I assume you are in Oz, so difficult to just pop over.

Paul

[Ugo]

thanks again to everybody. Yes, I bought through an agent.  I just talked to him and I am meeting with him on Friday to discuss possible options (luckily, I am in Geneva not oz J).  I also found an English speaking lawyer in neighboring France and I will try to speak with him after I talk with the agent.  

 

Besides the financial implications, we are so disappointed because my wife and I really loved the chalet and Saint Gervais. But of course I understand that problems of the residents (including the owner) are much more serious than ours.

 

Will keep you posted

 

Ugo

 

[mint]

Ugo, I have just been discussing your problem with my OH and this is what he says (and I respect my OH's opinion because he is a very clever, lateral thinker):

You tell the seller you are going to pull out and are prepared to lose the deposit.  In the course of that, you tell him that the property is now blighted but that you might still buy it if he could reduce the property by x amount.

This is, of course if, as you say, your wife is very disappointed and you'd still like the chalet.

You say that the threat of the avalanche means that the property is not now worth what it was before the report comes out.

Make sure, he understands that you are prepared to pull out of the deal otherwise.

OH thinks you are in a great position to do a deal.  As someone says, look at it from the vendor's viewpoint:  he thinks he has sold his property, the adverse report comes out, his property has plummeted in value, his buyer is going to pull out, what would he do if the buyer comes back and says, well, I'll still buy it but I want the price reduced by x amount?

[mint]

BTW, OH also says that, whilst he doesn't know how much the 5% deposit is in money terms, he imagines that the decrease in value has got to exceed 5%.

[pachapapa]

The situation has been featured on TF1 news recently together with the proposed security measures.

The cable arrangement for warning is rather ingenious see below:

[IMG]http://www.glaciers-climat.fr/Catastrophes/1280961215_510538286BI.jpg[/IMG]

A forum thread considers the topic see below:

http://skimontblanc.forumactif.com/wwwglaciers-climatfr-f15/le-glacier-de-tete-rousse-et-saint-gervais-t172.htm#2014

 

[Daft Doctor]

Hi

I know a fair bit about this problem in St Gervais as I am a property owner in the town and I have read a lot about it on the Marie's website.  It seems that there are approximately 65,000 cubic metres of water trapped under pressure in the Tete Rousse glacier on top of Mont Blanc.  In 1892 the glacier exploded, releasing 80,000 cubic metres down the valley, killing 175 unsuspecting people.

Following the disaster, they have been monitoring the glacier since 1904, and as the OP has said commissioned a more detailed survey in 2007.  The good news is that although there is a build up of water and pressure, work is commencing on 23rd August for 2 months to pump out the water pocket(s), and so reduce the pressure in the glacier.  This is costing the french tax-payer 2 million euros, but should sort out the problem and remove the risk.  The other thing of course is that there are now emergency procedures and early warning systems in place, so minimising risk to persons (if not all properties).

I am just concerned that the OP might be a bit premature in wanting to withdraw, and the seller may well cite the above-mentioned remedial works as good reason to deny the OP that priviledge (I am sure I would if I were the seller).  St Gervais is a lovely place and I am sure once the work on the glacier is finished in October any mild anxieties about property will evaporate. 

  

 

[AnOther]

Really sweets I'm shocked, who in their right mind would now touch this property with a bargepole - at any price, would you  ?

Remember too that in these sort of circumstances insurance will be next to impossible to find.

[mint]

Well, Erns, he can always withdraw, as I said, losing his deposit.  However, there IS an opportunity, if he is prepared to take a risk, and get a huge reduction in the price.

I would imagine that the powers-that-be would do all they could to minimise the risk.  The area is one of outstanding beauty plus property is expensive and it is a top tourist destination winter and summer.

Damn it:  if I had a spare few hundred thousand euros, I myself might be tempted![;-)]

[AnOther]

And here was me thinking that you were 100% risk averse sweets [;-)]

[mint]

That's why I'm not into the big league, Erns.  Don't speculate to accumulate, or whatever the expression is![:D]

[andyh4]

I wish Ugo all the best with this difficult problem, but I am not sure the Sweet's idea will necessarily work. 

The problem is that a contract has been drawn up and signed by both sides: this is not like a UK style purchase where the price can be haggled after the offer. 

Renegotiation of the price will be difficult especially given that there are other interested parties involved - notaire and agent. 

In the worst case, I believe the seller can force the sale to tribunal and they in turn can force the contract through.

 

On the positive side:

It is a wonderful area.

The problem is known and understood.

Warning systems are in place.

Remedial action is immenent.

 

Just because somewhere is under threat of natural catastrophy does not mean that it has to be blighted - many alpine areas have an avalanche threat and where I am now (Cologne) has a "well known" earthquake risk (and in the words of Michael Caine,"there's not a lot of people know that".

[just john]

The question is do you feel lucky? if in doubt, pull out. 5 or 10% loss now might be better than a greater loss in a few years time. Knowledge costs. Opening the negotiation now by expressing your concerns is essential, preparation for the meeting would be to obtain quotes for Insurance, you may find adequate reassurance or not . . . perhaps they have people queueing up to buy . . .

[PaulT]

Certainly does not sound as bleak as first indications. Sounds as though they are carrying out works to reduce greatly any possibility of their being a disaster. Understandable as there is the tourist industry to think about - oh, and the people living there.

Paul

[pachapapa]

Sweet is on the right track.[:)]

Forget the conjectural hypo....get out there and see what is happening to the market as a result of the potential risk.....note the pumpling will only account for an estimated 25000 M3 of the 65k M3.

If the current market is not shaky there is no way the seller will budge.....all you brits do is jaw jaw....lets see a bit of positive action.

I am ****** sure (sorry hoddy)  spending a couple of hours on the phone talking to a randomish geographical selection of potentially affected St Gervaisiens, the market sentiment would be self evident.

[Daft Doctor]

I am not sure how much water they are planning to remove (perhaps papachapa could give a link to the info?), but the key is relieving the pressure. I am led to understand that the risk of the glacier exploding will be reduced exponentially within a few days of starting the works, as the pressure will immediately begin to reduce once the first few 000's cubic meters are drawn off. It may be that to take all the water out would destabilise the glacier in other ways, but 25,000 cubic metres is all that matters.

It would be a real shame if the OP gives up on a lovely chalet because of this, and it is very true that many areas of the world carry some risk of natural disaster. In most cases, as is my belief in this case, the risk is extremely small. Certainly when we bought our property in the town it was stated as being in an area prone to flood, landslip and avalanche. Knowing insurance companies, they will know all about the risks (including the Tete Rousse glacier), and their premiums will reflect it already.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Daft Doctor"]I am not sure how much water they are planning to remove (perhaps papachapa could give a link to the info?), but the key is relieving the pressure. I am led to understand that the risk of the glacier exploding will be reduced exponentially within a few days of starting the works, as the pressure will immediately begin to reduce once the first few 000's cubic meters are drawn off. It may be that to take all the water out would destabilise the glacier in other ways, but 25,000 cubic metres is all that matters. It would be a real shame if the OP gives up on a lovely chalet because of this, and it is very true that many areas of the world carry some risk of natural disaster. In most cases, as is my belief in this case, the risk is extremely small. Certainly when we bought our property in the town it was stated as being in an area prone to flood, landslip and avalanche. Knowing insurance companies, they will know all about the risks (including the Tete Rousse glacier), and their premiums will reflect it already.[/quote]

Read it a while back in Le figaro but it was also mentioned in the PDF on the mayor's site.

 En outre, à partir du 20 août, «des travaux de pompage vont commencer afin de prévenir tout risque de rupture», a annoncé le maire. Seule une cavité contenant 25.000m3 a pu être localisée avec suffisamment de précision, à 75 mètres de profondeur, et devrait pouvoir être vidangée.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/2010/07/29/01029-20100729ARTFIG00352-mont-blanc-une-poche-d-eau-glaciaire-menace-les-vallees.php

Also snippet from Compte Rendu of the 28th July;

Intervention de Nicolas Cart (RTM de la Haute Savoie)

 

Le début des travaux est prévu la deuxième quinzaine d’août avec :

- accès à la cavité par forage thermique (eau chaude sous pression) pour atteindre –30 mètres, -40 mètres et -50 mètres.

- pompage avec immersion des pompes dans les puits de forage ; débit des pompes limité, pas plus de 150 M3 heures. L’eau pompée sera ainsi rejetée au fur et à mesure. L’important est de diminuer la pression exercée sur la glace. Il sera nécessaire de pomper rapidement les premiers, 10000 M3 afin de diminuer le risque.

- fin des travaux mi-octobre en fonction des problèmes climatiques (avalanches…) sur le glacier ce qui est souvent le cas avec l’avancée de la saison.

http://www.alambik.info/index.php?page=affiche_publi.php&id=1741&type_msg=1