Houston Inspection Lawsuit

[Joseph A. Ferry]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Joe, the seller is the attorney

I know. And a quite obvious moron who, among his many other shortcomings, does not understand the law of damages.

This case should be remanded to small claims court because his maximum damages is $10,000, a sum that, to judge solely by the sheer number of filings that this case has generated, is dwarfed by the amount of attorneys fees already expended.

Che citrullo!

[Bruce A. King]

Joe Ferry, are attorneys allowed to handle their own personal issues like this or should they hire another attorney?

It seems unfair that he can do this with no expenses other than his time. I see it as extortion since he is expected to know better than to use his attorney license for personal gain or revenge as is this case.

Reminds me of that judge that sued the dry cleaners for 12 mil over a pair of pants.

[Joe Farsetta]

Joe,

The scary thing about this suit is that it is based on a sound principal (in theory). The seller had a contract with his client. The inspector came along, did the inspection, and based on the results of the inspection... the buyer walked.

Okay. This is fairly common. The seller's contention if interference is based on intent. He claims the inspector intended to interfere. He is using the Texas SOP against the inspector. He alleges the inspector's opinion in some cases crossed the line into professional engineering. He alleges the inspector is not qualified to have made some of the comments he made. He wants to examine the inspector's actual and advertised credentials, including "certifications". He alleges that the inspector alleged supposed "code" issues, where is his not qualified to do so, and it is beyond the SOP.

The other scary thing about this case is that all the plaintiff's requests for discovery were supported by the court, while virtually all of the defendants requests for discovery were denied.

Ridiculous perhaps. But the defendant is in a precarious position as he is footing the legal bill and the plaintiff is examining his business, business practices, inspector education, and reports for the past 10 years. The only thing I find laughable in this suit is the allegation that the report somehow stigmatized the property. It was the Seller who publicized the report, putting out to the public to see. Talk about contributary negligence...

I have always believed that the inspector has a duty to be honest with all parties in the transaction, including the seller. Too many inspectors make a habit of trashing a property, as opposed to simply observing and reporting their findings. In my area, there are some inspectors who, hard-up for money, will automatically kill the first deal so as to build confidence of the client thusly guaranteeing the next inspection.

[John Cahill]

Good points Joe. The Texas Standards continue to become more complex and it will be interesting to see how TREC lawyers can defend this big technical document. This could actually be good for the business if you look at controlling over regulation.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

This is really wild.

If I read this right, the seller asked $250,000.

After the buyers inspection came back with lots of legitimate deficiencies needing repair OR possible NEAR FUTURE expenditures, the buyers asked ONLY that the seller pay their closing costs. He refused / Buyers walked.

Seller maintains HI has caused loss of homes value.

Seller has reportedly resold house for same $$$$$$ as before.

Reportedly City / County appraised the sellers home several months before HI did inspection and determined its worth under $200,000.

Almost sounds like FRAUD / INSURANCE SCAM / VINDICTIVE ***** Wipe or other words that I'm not qualified to use since I'm not an ENGINEER

[Gary Farnsworth]

This can and will happen also in Kansas, Toto.

It is a circle. There is an attorney on the home inspection board in Kansas that needs the business. He, and they, set rules and regulations here in Kansas that actually attract lawsuits. Inspectors have to carry insurance, according to the laws, introduced by RE associations. Insurance will do nothing but settle the cases for millions. Attorneys get money, RE liability is changed to the inspector, inspector insurance rates skyrocket. RE's no longer have any financial responsiblilty to any RE transaction. If the seller complains about loosing a sale, sue the inspector. He has the insurance required by law, set by RE agents, written by the board and it's attorneys.

This is nothing but a racket. States such as Texas, Florida, Washington, North Carolina, are blind because they reap the benefits of campaign coffer contributions from all of these "special interest groups".

Make no question that the liability of any real estate transaction is being moved onto the inspectors by state laws written by attorneys for attorneys, financed by RE associations, insured by insurance companies for their revenue generation, and backed by lawmakers who need the pockets of their campaign pockets filled. Follow the money.

[Joe Farsetta]

Dan,

After the buyers inspection came back with lots of legitimate deficiencies needing repair OR possible NEAR FUTURE expenditures

The seller disputes the inspector's opinion, is pointing to the TREC standards of what constitutes a home inspection, alleges the inspector crossed the line into professional engineering, disputes the alleged building code issues the inspector pointed out, and questions the inspectors alleged "certifications".

The other points are moot. The true importance of this case is not the mumbo-jumbo, or whether the home sold or not.

It will address this concept of an SOP being a minimum standard or THE standard. It will address the opinion of an inspector where the law may question the validity of said opinion, based upon a numner of factors.

[Michael Larson]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -William Shakespeare. 2 Henry VI, Act 4, scene 2

[Joseph A. Ferry]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -William Shakespeare. 2 Henry VI, Act 4, scene 2

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourseves.

[Joseph A. Ferry]

The bottom line is the guy wasn't harmed. No damages.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

You inspect houst A and house B. They are adacent to each other. You find 10 defects in house A, and 20 in house B. But in house B you decided to exceed the SOP. You are sued for failing to find a defect in house A, which the plaintiff alleges you performed a negligent inspection of. In discovery, it is found out that the same defect you missed in house A you found in house B, because in that house, you exceeded the SOP.

The plaintiff argues that they did notget what they bagained for...

Man, I take a couple of days off, don't talk to Joe and don't read the bb and miss a bunch of stuff!! The law suit sounds like a money grab, but I haven't been able to get the link to work to read it. I will take Joe Ferry's word for it though.

I see the argument in Joe's secnario, but I am curious how one would "exceed" the SOP to find a defect. I would be more inclined to state that the inspector would perform an action not encompassed by the SOP, or not contained in the SOP. The SOP merely states what we are required to inspect, not how we are required to inspect it in many instances. Methods seem to be where inspectors think they are "exceeding" the SOP.

For example, we are required to inspect the roof. The SOP additionally states that we are not required to walk on any roof. Personally, I walk every roof I can, and state in the report when I can not. It is the method I use to check the roof, because it is the method I feel most comfortable with, the method I feel I am best able to satisfy the requirement to inspect the roof for my client. By walking the roof, I have not exceeded the SOP, nor have I worked outside the SOP, for I am not prohibited by the SOP from walking on the roof.

So, Joe, how does one exceed the SOP?

As to the scenario, if the inspector worked within the SOP on both homes, he may just have not seen the defect in house A. Probably has happened to every one of us who has been in business for any significant length of time.

[Joseph A. Ferry]

Keep this in mind: No good deed goes unpunished.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by bwiley

but I haven't been able to get the link to work to read it. I will take Joe Ferry's word for it though.

Blaine...not sure which links you are having trouble with but I just checked the links in posts #1 and #4 and both work fine. The link in post #4 is the complaint and the inspection report. Other filings can be viewed at the link in post #1.

[Bruce A. King]

Originally Posted by jferry1

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourseves.

That link makes mention of too many laws.... Nope thats not all of it, the main problem is the gray areas built into the laws (which are written by lawyers). Gray areas allow for "argument", arguments bring in massive income.

Let the average public write the laws and they will be clearer, more enforceable and eliminate most of the BS.

One of the smartest men I have ever talked to was the man that installed by septic system. Maybe he used to be a lawyer but somehow I doubt it. What makes him so smart? He gets the big picture and has no ego to support.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

The sellers claim that the HI was practicing engineering.

I saw nothing I felt would qualify as "The practice of engineering".

I'm not a Doctor. If I see a deer get hit by a semi, and the head was severed. The head was on 1 side of the highway; the body on the other side of the highway. If I say "In my opinion the deer is dead", am I practicing medicine without a license.............

If I go to the museum and see a 1,000 year old mummified corpse, are we ALL: practicing medicine without a license if we say the mummy is dead??

If as an inspector, I see a 60 Amp MAIN electrical panel with 5 sub-panels wired off of it (going to a 240v A/C unit; 240v tanning bed; 240v disconnect in a detached workshop; etc), Am I practicing engineering by saying "In my opinion, the service needs upgrading"?


For the record, MY OPINION is mine. Its not yours; its never wrong because its MY OPINION.