Re: pay for my roof???????????????

More | Report Post

Well for a different perspective... in California we don't use
closing attorneys so I don't know their legal liability but I
always assumed that they had the same function as a Combined
Escrow Companies & Title Company in the Western States. An
Escrow company is only responsible for making sure the money and
grant deeds can be exchanged simultaneously. The Title Companies
simply insure that the Title is clear. Under now circumstances
would the Title Company or the Escrow Company even look at the
inspection reports. The responsiblity to make sure that the
warnings, if any, in Inspection report are taken into
consideration are the Buyers Real Estate Agent/Broker. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but the Closing Attorneys in the Eastern States
are not supposed to be Buyer Advocates, they are supposed to be
nuetrals, its the Buyers Agent's job to protect the Buyer.

In California, if the Escrow agent told the buyer that he should
renegotiate the contract because of a roof leak, he would be
liable for interference with contract in civil court. And if
word got out, he would be blackballed, no broker would ever use
him again.

Of course, when the Inspector says "Fair" thats not going to
raise any red flags in the Paperwork, unless you can show that
every Home Inspector uses the term "Fair" to describe that
particular condition and that its generally understood by
professionals that a "Fair" roof might need to be replaced the
month after closing. Personally, I don't consider that "Fair",
I consider that "Poor" or my preferred "At end of useful life,
needs replacement or significant repair." The last one would
shift the liability from the Home Inspector to the Buyer's Agent
and Buyer.

And BTW, if you "discussed filing a grievance with the local
bar with me" to extort money, I wouldn't give you a dime, and
would consider making a Criminal Complaint for Attempted
Blackmail and probably report you to the Local State Bar
immediately for unethical behavior. And if someone did file a
bar complaint based on your recommendation, and you had been
stupid enough to try to extort me previously, I would sue you
personally, the lawyer who recommended it, for Slander,
Defamation, and conspiracy to commit fraud, and whatever other
Cause of Action I could find. You make it personal with me,
I'll make it personal with you. Jealous advocacy is one thing,
but don't put yourself on the firing line for a client who will
probably stiff you on the bill when its all done.

To put it simply, it is the Job of the Home Inspector to protect
the Buyer and the Buyers Lender. The whole point of Home
Inspections is to shift Disclosure Liability from the Seller,
who is considered biased, to the Home Inspector who is supposed
to be an unbiased professional, for the protection of the
Buyer.

On 2/02/05, The Zephyr wrote:
> Sounds like another closing attorney didn't do his job. I'd
> discuss the filing of a grievance with the local bar with the
> closing attorney, maybe he'll talk to his buyer and work it
out
> between them. His job was to protect the buyer, it wasn't
> yours!!
>
> Zephyr
>
> On 2/01/05, Curmudgeon wrote:
>> You definition of "fair" is completely meaningless. To say
>> that in item "will need maintenance or replacing in the
>> future" does not communicate any useful information. Of
>> course, everything needs to be maintained or replaced at
>> some point in time. The homeowner needs to know if that
>> point in time is "tomorrow" or "10 years from now." If you
>> were hired to provide useful information and failed to
>> provide useful information, I would submit that you breached
>> your contract with your client. The damages resulting from
>> your breach are exactly as you described---the homeowner had
>> to replace the roof shortly after purchase.
>>
>> A completely different argument exists if your inspection
>> was inadequate or just plain wrong. You didn't say why the
>> roof was replaced so soon. If he replaced it for cosmetic
>> or preventative reasons, they you may be ok. But if the
>> roof leaked like a sieve, you blew it and should owe him for
>> your mistakes.
>>
>> The fact that you have posted this question leads me to
>> believe that you are not a certified member of any
>> association of home inspectors. They all have standard,
>> sample, or recommended forms that contain exculpatory
>> clauses or limits on their liability.
>>
>> Our brethren in Michigan will be glad to accept your fees to
>> defend this claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/01/05, detroit home inspector wrote:
>>> I am a home inspector. I inspected a house last august
>>> and rated the roof as "fair" I define fair in my report
>>> as: "will need maintenance or replacing in the future"
>>> i took some pictures of some problem areas, inspected the
>>> attic and made note of water marks on the underside of the
>>> roof. so the guy i did the inspection for bought the
>>> house anyway without re-negotiating the price with the
>>> seller.
>>>
>>> the guy/buyer/ now wants me to pay him 2500 dollars for
>>> the roof. the actual price of the roof was 5000 but the
>>> guy only paid the roofer 2500 and refused to pay the rest
>>> because the new roof did not pass city inspection. he
>>> refused to let the roofer back on the house to do the
>>> necessary repairs. so, basically he wants me to pay the
>>> entire cost of his new roof.
>>>
>>> should i just tell him to sue me.