File this lawsuit under bullshit - Home owners please comment

[rudder]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Counter-Sue for stupidity

The original owner's plan to countersue for travel expenses and lawyer fees.

Sometimes just the filling of a countersuit should be enough for this lady to rethink her suit. Had she done an inspection prior to purchase and noted it in the contract that it was to be repaired, then she may have a case. The lady is just stupid and wants someone else to pay for it.

 

[StageLeft]

Really more details would be made for me to weigh in with my morality. It sounds stupid at face value. However, if the faulty roof was because of gross negligence in construction, then she should be able to recover some losses, even though ideally she'd have seen them before.

For example: I recently heard of a guy who bought a new house. He has had a lot of problems. 6 months after buying it he was down under the crawl space and found that one of the sinks/bathtubs was draining _into the crawl space_. No draining at all - just straight under the house. He's got a nice little swamp under there now and some horrific repairs if the house has started to rott. Even if that was 2 years later he should be able to nail the builder.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Citrix
Tom Martino had a person call in with a very similar issue. from what i remember he said. The house inspector doesnt negate anything, he is there to look for very obvious problems and to make recomendations if the house needs any work. For the lady to sue for a faulty roof? umm yea maybe even after 2 years.

how old was the roof before the sale? If its was new and problems develope then yes she can sue even after 2 years. if the roof was old... well that is a gray area that the court will have to work out.

Roof was approximately 8 years old.

If the new owner can prove that the old owner knew about the faulty roof, then she has a strong case even if an inspection failed to detect a problem. If she can't, then she will be hard pressed to win even some sympathy from the judge. What type of roof was it, and what is its life expectancy?

If there is a warrantee on the roof then it is the roofing company/manufacture is the people that she needs to go after.

Warrantee normally have a clause that say labour and/or parts are free limited by conditions such as residue of the time on life span.

Normally roof have 15~25 years warrantee depending on the parts & contractor. That could mean that the she could recover at best ½ of the cost of the part and/or labour. And, it seemed as if it is not worth it when factoring in the court/lawyer fee & time for the lawsuit.

As other members has mentioned that she have more of a case verses her inspector. If I am the judge in this case I would fine her for wasting court resources.

 

[SweetSweetLeroyBrown]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I'd think that 2 years is beyond any reasonable inspection period.

Doesn't matter if the defect is "hidden"...and yes I am a home owner...multiple homes actually.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: prvteye2003
2 years and her own inspector signed off on it?? Sounds like she needs to be suing the inpspector, not the previous owner. That being said, I don't think she will win.

 

[ExplodingBoy]

IANAL but IMO one way in which the buyer might be able to prevail if, on the seller's disclosure, the roof's problem was not disclosed ... esp. if the buyer can prove that either the seller knew about the problem (faulty roof). The company could also have a claim agains the original owner if they can show something similar (i.e. the orig. owner knew about a problem but failed to disclose it).

The two years does make it much more difficult to establish there was a faulty roof problem _before_ sale and that the seller knew about it and failed to disclose it. But keep in mind just because someone doesn't have a case doesn't mean they aren't gonna sue.

Talk to a lawyer immediately...

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: ExplodingBoy
IANAL but IMO one way in which the buyer might be able to prevail if, on the seller's disclosure, the roof's problem was not disclosed ... esp. if the buyer can prove that either the seller knew about the problem (faulty roof). The company could also have a claim agains the original owner if they can show something similar (i.e. the orig. owner knew about a problem but failed to disclose it).

The two years does make it much more difficult to establish there was a faulty roof problem _before_ sale and that the seller knew about it and failed to disclose it. But keep in mind just because someone doesn't have a case doesn't mean they aren't gonna sue.

Talk to a lawyer immediately...

Lawyers have already been contacted including the company's head lawyer by the employee.

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
She has a point

Yeah, and it's perfectly fine for Apple to just use an artist's music without permission.

Moron.

Please do not use this thread as way to launch more personal attacks at me. It's obvious the woman is wrong and will lose the lawsuit.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: ExplodingBoy
IANAL but IMO one way in which the buyer might be able to prevail if, on the seller's disclosure, the roof's problem was not disclosed ... esp. if the buyer can prove that either the seller knew about the problem (faulty roof). The company could also have a claim agains the original owner if they can show something similar (i.e. the orig. owner knew about a problem but failed to disclose it).

The two years does make it much more difficult to establish there was a faulty roof problem _before_ sale and that the seller knew about it and failed to disclose it. But keep in mind just because someone doesn't have a case doesn't mean they aren't gonna sue.

Talk to a lawyer immediately...

This happened to a neighbor of one of my relatives. The person sold their house with problems and not only didn't disclose them,
but also hid problems with crappy repair work to fool inspectors.

While a few people said that he had a home inspector come through the house and that he was screwed he found out that
that he had a leg to stand on and ended up talking to a lawyer, and going to court and won to have the past owner repair
problems in the house that he didn't disclose or covered up. However in this case there was obvious evidence that
the previous owner knew and covered up problems. Not sure how the law does when there really isn't evidence that the seller knew.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: minendo
Scenario:

Owner of house is transferred out of state. Owner's employer allows employee to attempt to sell house, but offers to buy house through their mortgage company if owner can't sell. Turns out owner can't sell and company takes over the house. 3 months later lady buys the house. Hires her own inspector to check out the house and he approves. She buys and moves in. Two years later she sues original owner, original owner's employer, and the employer's mortgage company for a faulty roof (less than ten years old) and a faulty septic tank.

What a headache this will be for the original owner and companies.

depends on the kind of deed it was sold under

 

[Eli]

She will lose.

I hope.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
Most roofs have a lifespan of 20-30 years.

This lawsuit is frivilous regardless, although the faulty septic tank is the greater cause for concern. Still, her inspector signed off, she should sue him.

it's very possible there was a latent defect in the construction of the house that didn't manifest itself to even a trained eye.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: lancestorm
Frivulous lawsuit. Don't worry dude, if she bought the house and it was under no warranty coverage from you, then you have nothing to worry about.

deeds have all sorts of warranties built into them. unless it was some sort of quitclaim deed, which it probably wasn't

 

[Yax]

She'll lose. Its a simple case.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
She has a point

She must have a desert eagle. That is why you are siding with her.