Short answer. No. When a buyer waives the warranty against eviction with full knowledge of the risks and explicitly accepts the consequences, the seller is completely released from liability. The law distinguishes this from a simple waiver, where the seller still owes the property's value at the time of eviction.
What the law says
If the vendee has renounced the right to warranty in case of eviction, and eviction should take place, the vendor shall only pay the value which the thing sold had at the time of the eviction. Should the vendee have made the waiver with knowledge of the risks of eviction and assumed its consequences, the vendor shall not be liable.
Civil Code, Article 1554 — Effect of Waiver of Warranty. Read the full provision →
Two levels of waiver, two very different results
Article 1554 draws a critical distinction between two types of waiver. A simple renunciation of the warranty — where the buyer waives the right without clearly knowing the specific risks involved — still leaves the seller on the hook for the property's value at the time of eviction. The seller is excused from broader liability, but the core obligation to return value survives. A knowing waiver with assumption of consequences is different: the seller walks away with zero liability, even if the buyer is evicted.
What a knowing waiver actually requires
The statute requires two elements for a full release of the seller. First, the buyer must have had knowledge of the risks of eviction — meaning awareness that a specific, identifiable legal threat existed at the time the waiver was made. A generic clause saying "the buyer waives all warranties" is not necessarily enough; the buyer must have known there was an actual risk of losing the property. Second, the buyer must have assumed its consequences — actively accepting that if eviction occurs, they take the loss themselves. Both elements, knowledge and assumption, must be present.
Why buyers agree to such a waiver
A knowing waiver typically appears in distressed property sales or transactions involving property with a known encumbrance or pending legal dispute. The seller is transparent about the cloud on title, and in exchange for disclosing the risk, the price is reduced — sometimes significantly. The buyer, understanding the gamble, agrees to accept all risk in exchange for the lower price. If that describes your transaction, the waiver you signed likely reflects this bargain, and the seller calculated the price on the assumption of zero liability for eviction. Revisiting that calculation now that the risk has materialized is difficult.
Can the waiver ever be challenged
A waiver that looks complete on paper can still be challenged in specific circumstances. If the seller concealed material information about the eviction risk — information the buyer could not have discovered with ordinary diligence — there may be grounds to argue that the waiver was not truly informed and therefore not a genuine assumption of risk. Fraud or misrepresentation in inducing the waiver is not protected by the statute. These situations are fact-specific, and the burden of proving that the seller withheld information or deceived falls on the buyer. The strength of a challenge depends heavily on what was disclosed and what the documents show.