Recommend me an attorney

I figure this is kind of a random request for this forum, but the surprising number of local maggots have come through for me in the past.

The wife and I found an expensive wart on our house that we think the seller and the seller's agent had an obligation to disclose to us. Plus we feel that our home inspector absolutely should have caught it. We are considering trying to go after them for a few bucks to help pay for this expensive repair. We are hoping to sit down for a consult with somebody who knows local residential real estate law and isn't skeered of litigation if we need to go that way. I don't know if we have anything that we can make stick, but I'm hoping to sit down for a freebie fifteen minute discussion to see if its worth pursuing before we start racking up the billable hours.

Anybody know a decent attorney in the DC area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

I figure this is kind of a random request for this forum, but the surprising number of local maggots have come through for me in the past.

The wife and I found an expensive wart on our house that we think the seller and the seller's agent had an obligation to disclose to us. Plus we feel that our home inspector absolutely should have caught it. We are considering trying to go after them for a few bucks to help pay for this expensive repair. We are hoping to sit down for a consult with somebody who knows local residential real estate law and isn't skeered of litigation if we need to go that way. I don't know if we have anything that we can make stick, but I'm hoping to sit down for a freebie fifteen minute discussion to see if its worth pursuing before we start racking up the billable hours.

Anybody know a decent attorney in the DC area?

---

I don't think people ever have any success litigating this sort of thing.

I do, my sis. [no pics, sorry]. Top shelf.



at labor law. Sorry...i'll shoot her a note and ask if the dc mags don't have a good rec...

You didn't use an atty for the closing? Call him/her.

What is the "wart?" And what makes you certain that they had knowledge of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutcase

I don't think people ever have any success litigating this sort of thing.

---

Sometimes they do, but my understanding is that most often when the defects are a) large expensive items - ex. whole roof or foundation, b) sellers have gone out of their way to not disclose and the buyers can prove knowledge of the defect.

I too am curious what this wart is that you are so sure the listing agent must have known about.

And good luck getting the inspectors insurance to pay up....I suspect you'll need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

I too am curious what this wart is that you are so sure the listing agent must have known about.

---

Dead hookers in the walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutcase

I don't think people ever have any success litigating this sort of thing.

---

I disagree. Although it depends on the wart of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

I too am curious what this wart is that you are so sure the listing agent must have known about.

And good luck getting the inspectors insurance to pay up....I suspect you'll need it.

---

Toxic mold. Clearly visible to the naked eye if you knew what you were looking for. The seller had two previous potential buyers back out of the contract after the inspection. We were definitely spooked by that, but we assumed that it was because the retaining wall in the front of the house is going to be an arm and a leg to scrape and rebuild by the time we're done with it. Looking back on that now - the crumbling wall was obvious to anyone who made an offer, but the mold should have turned up on inspection.

I feel like kind of an ass that I didn't spot it myself when we were looking at the place. But I can't spot every potential problem during a 20 minute walk through with our agent. That's what home inspectors and legal obligations for disclosure are supposed to be for.

The inspector was recommended by our agent, our agent worked for the same company as the seller's agent. Everyone's incentive is to push the deal through, mold or no, because that's how they get their pay day. I'm not crying some sort of criminal conspiracy here, but in hindsight it feels like there was likely some sort of ethical breach on the part of at least one of those parties. Whether or not it is an ethical breach that we can make stand up for a few bucks towards our repair bill is something I am somewhat doubtful of. But I figure it's at least worth asking the opinion of someone who deals with these matters professionally.

As for going back to the attorney from closing - he came recommended from our agent, who worked for the same company (different office) as the seller's agent, etc. etc. I would prefer to get the opinion of someone whose bread isn't getting buttered by any of the other parties involved in the sale.

The situation sucks and I'm not normally a fan of lawyers (though pics of your sister can persuade me). But this might be one of those instances where a lawyer is the right tool for the job. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmg97

Dead hookers in the walls.

---

About three blocks away from me, that would be listed in the 'Highlights Include. . ." section of the brochure.

I've never killed a hooker. But in my experience the unconscious ones are still load-bearing.

does the home inspector you used have insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

I feel like kind of an ass that I didn't spot it myself when we were looking at the place. But I can't spot every potential problem during a 20 minute walk through with our agent. That's what home inspectors and legal obligations for disclosure are supposed to be for.

---

Shred, I dont want to dissuade you from pursuing this further AND I dont practice in DC so it may be a completely different ball game, but in WA it is darn hard to prevail in cases such as this as the precedent and statute sentiment is that even if a seller fails to disclose something, the buyer has the independent obligation to fully vet everything out. You have the ability to create a larger inspection contingency window. Inspectors are damn near faultless and the seller's legal obligations are fairly lax if they plead ignorance. Our form 17, which is the disclosure form here in WA, gives buyers little protection when the rubber really meets the road; however my state is now starting to shift more burden to sellers and that may be a function of other areas already doing the same. I hope yours is one of them. This is all qualified by the fact that out and out fraud is a slightly different standard that may be viable for you but requires some pretty specific evidence.

Again, this may be worthless advice because I dont know shit about your area. Just letting you know that it may be a semi-tough row to hoe.

Mold issues are often not as bad as they look, and clean up usually without too much hassle. I doubt it has undermined the structural integrity a retaining wall. Heathwise, white mold is bad, black not so much.

Have a mold specialist give you quote, and check your P&S contract for what the seller checked in the property disclosure section. If the seller/agent were noticed of the issue by those previously under contract (but did not close), you might have something.

You are pissed and for good reason. But the money likely doesn't make sense for a lawsuit. Legal fees are large, how much to fix the mold issue? Significantly more than 10k? If not, it may not be worth it.

Get 2-3 quotes on the cleanup. Call your agent and ask him to talk to the other agent about them both paying it. If the other sellers backed out for same reason, then the seller's agent knew what was going on.

Make sure you bring in their managing broker to the mix. Start there then escalate if needed.

After buying two houses (and selling one) in DC I think the only disclosure required in DC by the seller is if to their knowledge there is an underground oil tank - even if there is one and they don't know about it they cannot be held responsible for its removal. The rest either shows up on inspection or doesn't.

Mold Mitigation isn't that big a deal, especially if you were going to strip/re-point the wall anyway.

No RE lawyers in my circle, but my Mom does what Ty's sister does - Labor law.

Check the fine print in the contract with the inspector. It's pretty common for mold to be excluded. Also, I assume you brought this up with the inspector - what did he say? One other thought, did the seller include a year of home warranty and if so, what does that contract say. From a going forward standpoint, I'd be less concerned about getting rid of the mold and far more concerned about preventing it from coming back.

Are you in DC or in a suburb of DC in Virginia?

In VA, there are a ton of disclosure issues you have to follow. Problem you may have is if it was sold "AS IS." Read you sales contract first.

www.martindale.com is a good place to look, unfortunately you will be overwhelmed. I litigated a house case just outside of DC in Fairfax county a while back.

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Toxic mold. Clearly visible to the naked eye if you knew what you were looking for. The seller had two previous potential buyers back out of the contract after the inspection. We were definitely spooked by that, but we assumed that it was because the retaining wall in the front of the house is going to be an arm and a leg to scrape and rebuild by the time we're done with it. Looking back on that now - the crumbling wall was obvious to anyone who made an offer, but the mold should have turned up on inspection.

I feel like kind of an ass that I didn't spot it myself when we were looking at the place. But I can't spot every potential problem during a 20 minute walk through with our agent. That's what home inspectors and legal obligations for disclosure are supposed to be for.

The inspector was recommended by our agent, our agent worked for the same company as the seller's agent. Everyone's incentive is to push the deal through, mold or no, because that's how they get their pay day. I'm not crying some sort of criminal conspiracy here, but in hindsight it feels like there was likely some sort of ethical breach on the part of at least one of those parties. Whether or not it is an ethical breach that we can make stand up for a few bucks towards our repair bill is something I am somewhat doubtful of. But I figure it's at least worth asking the opinion of someone who deals with these matters professionally.

As for going back to the attorney from closing - he came recommended from our agent, who worked for the same company (different office) as the seller's agent, etc. etc. I would prefer to get the opinion of someone whose bread isn't getting buttered by any of the other parties involved in the sale.

The situation sucks and I'm not normally a fan of lawyers (though pics of your sister can persuade me). But this might be one of those instances where a lawyer is the right tool for the job. :p

---

PM me with your phone #.
I'm GC in Maryland maybe 15 miles out rt 50 from you.
I've worked on plenty of those old DC houses.
I play golf with a few DC lawyers.
Also, have access to the latest EPA approved mold remedeation chemicals.

use America's top lawyer - Barack Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Toxic mold. Clearly visible to the naked eye if you knew what you were looking for. The seller had two previous potential buyers back out of the contract after the inspection. We were definitely spooked by that, but we assumed that it was because the retaining wall in the front of the house is going to be an arm and a leg to scrape and rebuild by the time we're done with it. Looking back on that now - the crumbling wall was obvious to anyone who made an offer, but the mold should have turned up on inspection.

---

Can't tell for sure from this... but sounds like the mold is OUTSIDE??? If I'm reading that wrong, where INSIDE is the mold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

.

The inspector was recommended by our agent,

---

There's your problem.
Never ever use the inspector they recommend. Hire your own, that you found by yourself, that came with references.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Toxic mold. Clearly visible to the naked eye if you knew what you were looking for. The seller had two previous potential buyers back out of the contract after the inspection. We were definitely spooked by that, but we assumed that it was because the retaining wall in the front of the house is going to be an arm and a leg to scrape and rebuild by the time we're done with it. Looking back on that now - the crumbling wall was obvious to anyone who made an offer, but the mold should have turned up on inspection.

I feel like kind of an ass that I didn't spot it myself when we were looking at the place. But I can't spot every potential problem during a 20 minute walk through with our agent. That's what home inspectors and legal obligations for disclosure are supposed to be for.

The inspector was recommended by our agent, our agent worked for the same company as the seller's agent. Everyone's incentive is to push the deal through, mold or no, because that's how they get their pay day. I'm not crying some sort of criminal conspiracy here, but in hindsight it feels like there was likely some sort of ethical breach on the part of at least one of those parties. Whether or not it is an ethical breach that we can make stand up for a few bucks towards our repair bill is something I am somewhat doubtful of. But I figure it's at least worth asking the opinion of someone who deals with these matters professionally.

As for going back to the attorney from closing - he came recommended from our agent, who worked for the same company (different office) as the seller's agent, etc. etc. I would prefer to get the opinion of someone whose bread isn't getting buttered by any of the other parties involved in the sale.

The situation sucks and I'm not normally a fan of lawyers (though pics of your sister can persuade me). But this might be one of those instances where a lawyer is the right tool for the job. :p

---

spend the money on getting it fixed instead of a lawyer. You aren't going to have any luck. Chalk it up to a life lesson. Dont ever us an agent who worked for the same company and use the inspector she/he recommended.

If this is something you feel you should have been able to catch yourself or through an inspector, then isn't it a little douchy to go after the seller? If you didn't notice it, what makes you think they should have? Anyways, simply because you admit you feel like you should have caught it, you should sack up, take responsibility and fix it yourself. Haven't you heard of buyer beware?

God damn I hate our litigious society!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mock vomit

Can't tell for sure from this... but sounds like the mold is OUTSIDE??? If I'm reading that wrong, where INSIDE is the mold?

---

Tim I think he meant SCRAP and rebuild, I read it as an unrelated issue.

Will AI completely replace attorneys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Will AI completely replace attorneys?

---

When AI replaces attorneys, will it frequently attempt to re-litigate 15 year old cases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Will AI completely replace attorneys?

---

No, but it will replace most of the work done by paralegals and legal assistants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Will AI completely replace attorneys?

---

Will AI ever be cost competitive with an army of offshore workers earning $50 a month?

I say that AI will get rid of attorneys, judges and juries. Feed in the evidence, out comes a verdict.
It will get rid of detectives too since AI can fake evidence better than any detective can.

Did SirShred get a lawyer or just use an AI? Did he get rid of the mold???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Will AI completely replace attorneys?

---

https://i.etsystatic.com/32887768/r/...30792_i9qc.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_pdx

Will AI ever be cost competitive with an army of offshore workers earning $50 a month?

---

They were supposed to replace legal assistants and paralegals by now. Maybe we will just have a technological leap frog effect.

https://www.dpor.virginia.gov/Consum...ty_Disclosures

I have litigated on both sides several of these cases. On your claim against the inspector, many jurisdictions now limit recovery against the inspector to the cost of the report.

On the disclosures, in Virginia, there are two ways to sell. No disclosures, in "AS-IS" condition, or with disclosures. Not sure which way it was sold. You may be able to make some headway.

If I was putting parties on notice, I would include the sellers, the listing agent, the inspector, and anyone that attempted remediation of the existing problem which was ineffective.

Get in touch with an environmental engineer to do testing to make sure the contamination raises the spore counts to exceed the allowable limits. Make sure you don't start remediation without given the other side notice to avoid the defense of "spoiliation" of the evidence. The other parties should have the opportunity to inspect and perform independent testing to be able to defend the claim.

§ 8.01-379.2:1. Spoliation of evidence.
A. A party or potential litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation. In determining whether and at what point such a duty to preserve arose, the court shall include in its consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which the party or potential litigant was on notice that specific and identifiable litigation was likely and that the evidence would be relevant.

B. If evidence that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, or is otherwise disposed of, altered, concealed, destroyed, or not preserved, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court (i) upon finding prejudice to another party from such loss, disposal, alteration, concealment, or destruction of the evidence, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice, or (ii) only upon finding that the party acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive another party of the evidence's use in the litigation, may (a) presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, (b) instruct the jury that it may or shall presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, or (c) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

C. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause of action for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

I have litigated on both sides several of these cases. On your claim against the inspector, many jurisdictions now limit recovery against the inspector to the cost of the report.

On the disclosures, in Virginia, there are two ways to sell. No disclosures, in "AS-IS" condition, or with disclosures. Not sure which way it was sold. You may be able to make some headway.

If I was putting parties on notice, I would include the sellers, the listing agent, the inspector, and anyone that attempted remediation of the existing problem which was ineffective.

Get in touch with an environmental engineer to do testing to make sure the contamination raises the spore counts to exceed the allowable limits. Make sure you don't start remediation without given the other side notice to avoid the defense of "spoiliation" of the evidence. The other parties should have the opportunity to inspect and perform independent testing to be able to defend the claim.

§ 8.01-379.2:1. Spoliation of evidence.
A. A party or potential litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation. In determining whether and at what point such a duty to preserve arose, the court shall include in its consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which the party or potential litigant was on notice that specific and identifiable litigation was likely and that the evidence would be relevant.

B. If evidence that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, or is otherwise disposed of, altered, concealed, destroyed, or not preserved, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court (i) upon finding prejudice to another party from such loss, disposal, alteration, concealment, or destruction of the evidence, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice, or (ii) only upon finding that the party acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive another party of the evidence's use in the litigation, may (a) presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, (b) instruct the jury that it may or shall presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, or (c) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

C. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause of action for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence.

---

Solid advice. My real concern is that the statute of limitations may have run since the mold was discovered, according to the post history, at the latest, in August of 2010. Could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums