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

More | Report Post

I’m not sure how the west coast does real estate closings; maybe
it’s a local custom. I’m only experienced with east coast
(Connecticut) customs. Here we use a buyer and seller attorney to
represent the interested parties (1 each). The seller attorney
makes sure the seller isn’t on the hook for any anomalies in the
title, etc. The title insurance company certifies the title, and
the real estate agents (both sides) have to make the seller and
buyer fill out full disclosure forms (by state statute). That
means the buyer’s attorney is tasked with making sure the buyer’s
interests are represented. Maybe this seems like overkill, but it
keeps everybody honest.
As for the grievance, if the buyer’s attorney doesn’t step up to
the plate and take the initiative to find out what his client’s
beef is, that’s just plain stupid. He should have reviewed the
package and made recommendations on the roof issue before the
closing was finalized. As for threatening, I think you’re
overreacting and taking it personal. I would appreciate a “heads
up” from the other side that would signify the opportunity
to “cure.” In CT anybody can file a grievance and there is no
burden of proof or production. Every grievance claim gets
investigated, frivolous or not. A grievance claim is just that … a
claim. An attorney has no recourse to file civil charges against
the claimant here, it’s a process that enables claimants to freely
file claims w/out the threat of being intimidated by lawyers who
feel personally attacked and resort to using their cronies to put
the pressure on the layperson.
All in all, the buyer attorney owes the duty to investigate his
client’s claim about the roof before resorting to threats of legal
action; around here that gets you sanctioned by the courts for just
the type of veiled threats you mentioned in your post. If we want
the public to respect us as lawyers, let’s raise the bar and take
the initiative to intervene ahead of time before it gets to
litigation. If the inspector conformed with the standard utilized
in his field, in his geographic area, and didn’t fraudulently
represent the condition of the roof, the attorney should have acted
to protect his client’s interests by demanding the price of the
house be reduced by the price of a replacement roof, by putting the
repair money in escrow, or by advising the buyer he was proceeding
at risk.

Zephyr.

On 2/02/05, Unhappyesq wrote:
> 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.