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

More | Report Post

So let me if I got this straight...You use both real estate agents
and brokers, and then everyone is also represented by attorneys.
Well then whats the Buyer's Agents responsibility?

As for the grievence... your "claim" against the Attorney is a
negligence claim, not an ethical claim. It sounds to me like you
want to threaten administrative action to get an advantage in a
civil dispute which is an ethical violation in my state, and
according to the model rules. And the way you describe it is that
you are threatening to file a frivolous grievance as harrassment if
the Attorney doesn't "fix the problem" which sounds like Extortion
to me.

We don't "raise the Bar" by threatening file frivolous state bar
claims to extort payoffs from Closing attorneys. If its like
California, if you file a Bar Complaint thats priviledged. When you
use the threat of a Bar Complaint (or Criminal Prosecution, or other
Agency Referrals) to attempt to extort me, thats actionable, even if
the underlying complain is valid. And since you are an attorney
assisting in extortion, its also an ethical violation by you. I'm
willing to guess its the same in your State. And this case, you have
all but admitted you are willing to file a frivolous complaint as a
harrassment procedure. Is that what you mean by raising the bar? :)

Which returns us to the alleged Closing Attorney negligence. The
attorney looked at the Home Inspection Report and saw the
words "Roof in Fair Condition" and said "no problem." Are you
saying the Attorney should have ignored the Home Inspection and did
his own? Is so why are we paying the Home Inspector? Is the Standard
in the Industry that if the Closing Attorney sees a description of
Fair, he should immediately tell the Buyer that the roof is about to
need either replacement or need major repairs? Its possible, but
that stretches the definition of "Fair Condition" to
meaninglessness.

On 2/02/05, The Zephyr wrote:
> 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.