Poll of the Day > lol the American court system is fun

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I'm being sued.

The person that purchased the house is claiming I knew about something (I didn't) and didn't disclose it.

Two things here

I didn't know about the thing.
I didn't have to disclose anything because it's an estate and I wasn't an occupant of the house.

Their lawyer thinks everyone involved should all throw in on a settlement and get this done and over with. Estimate of my contribution is $5000.

Estimate from three attorneys if this goes to trial is $5000-$10000 just in legal fees with the possibility of being found liable and having to pay up to $25000

What kind of fucked up choice is this?
---

Sounds pretty typical. The legal system from enforcement, through attorneys, through judges, and jails/prisons (although not in this case because its civil) is set up as a profit making scheme.
---

People are dicks. If you think you can win, counter sue...
---

Post this on \r\legaladvice.

Seriously.

I cant think of any PotDers that are lawyers are qualified to give legit advice.

That sucks man, but Id probably just take the 5g hit to make it go away. Either way it looks like youre going to be paying them or a lawyer unless youre able to win and make them pay your legal fees. What was exactly wrong with the house?
---

There are cheaper ways to make a problem like this go away
---

LinkPizza posted...

People are dicks. If you think you can win, counter sue...

I have a strong case against my realtor but that would only cover his fees and possibly whatever I lose from this case but it would take years after this case is over and this case could take years. Fucking dude didn't even list the house correctly.
---

Are you not going to tell us what the issue with the home is?
---

XxZiomaxX posted...

Are you not going to tell us what the issue with the home is?

one of the walls is completely encrusted with jizz
---

So offer to help fix the problem if they drop the suit.
---

Oh and dont think if you win that its guaranteed you get paid.

Sometimes people just dont pay up and then you have to take them back to court which costs more money.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

So offer to help fix the problem if they drop the suit.

Except doing that can be construed as admitting ownership of the problem

Really stupid advice
---

Mead posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

So offer to help fix the problem if they drop the suit.

Except doing that can be construed as admitting ownership of the problem

Really stupid advice

Yeah. Thats why I also wouldnt pay the settlement. Thats basically admitting guilt. Unless you get a contract sign that says otherwise...
---

Mead posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

So offer to help fix the problem if they drop the suit.

Except doing that can be construed as admitting ownership of the problem

Really stupid advice

was just about to say the same. i don't understand how this guy goes through life by following his own shitty compass, ok?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Unless you get a contract sign that says otherwise...

That's the whole point of "dropping the suit, we'll fix the problem together". You'll also avoid the legal fees.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Unless you get a contract sign that says otherwise...

That's the whole point of "dropping the suit, we'll fix the problem together". You'll also avoid the legal fees.

If his case is strong enough, he could also get any legal fees he spent back (possibly) saving him all his money. Where if he helps, his cost would be much higher...
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Unless you get a contract sign that says otherwise...

That's the whole point of "dropping the suit, we'll fix the problem together". You'll also avoid the legal fees.

but just offering that solution can be considered this thing called "admission of guilt", sunny, and can be used against him, ok?

like, i know that this terrible idea works in your own head, but it won't in the real world unless he wants to lose, ok?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Mead posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

So offer to help fix the problem if they drop the suit.

Except doing that can be construed as admitting ownership of the problem

Really stupid advice

Yeah. Thats why I also wouldnt pay the settlement. Thats basically admitting guilt. Unless you get a contract sign that says otherwise...

Paying the settlement makes it go away. She can't sue me again for the same thing.

My best option so far is to just give this lady $5000 for something I had no part in or control over.
---

Lol
---

Damn, that really sucks. Have you tried filing a claim under your dad's old homeowners insurance to see if it's something that could be covered for repair under the policy? Or has that shipped already sailed? If there was coverage in force when the damage began there may be coverage depending on what it is. Unless it's some type of continuous water leak which is what it usually it. Unfortunately your best option probably really is going to be to contribute to the settlement and move on with life.
---

Hire someone to 'take out the trash' for $1000. We can't know for sure if you could have done something differently but the fact that a lawsuit was their first choice and $5000 is surely going to pad the lawyers pockets, it just makes me dislike society more. Greed should be a punishable crime.

DPsx7 posted...

Hire someone to 'take out the trash' for $1000. We can't know for sure if you could have done something differently but the fact that a lawsuit was their first choice and $5000 is surely going to pad the lawyers pockets, it just makes me dislike society more. Greed should be a punishable crime.

I dont think its that cheap, is it?
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

So I'm being sued.

The person that purchased the house is claiming I knew about something (I didn't) and didn't disclose it.

Two things here

I didn't know about the thing.
I didn't have to disclose anything because it's an estate and I wasn't an occupant of the house.

Their lawyer thinks everyone involved should all throw in on a settlement and get this done and over with. Estimate of my contribution is $5000.

Estimate from three attorneys if this goes to trial is $5000-$10000 just in legal fees with the possibility of being found liable and having to pay up to $25000

What kind of fucked up choice is this?

They have to prove you knew and they can't do that so... you win. I'd drag them through every court in the country and counter-sue for emotional damages and lost wages etc so they have to pay on top of their expenses and legal fees. Take it to Judge Judy.

Also, is it a fact that the problem existed when you owned the place?

At least up here it's extremely hard to collect on a judgment anyways. Which is what I'll be going through soon.
---

LinkPizza posted...

DPsx7 posted...

Hire someone to 'take out the trash' for $1000. We can't know for sure if you could have done something differently but the fact that a lawsuit was their first choice and $5000 is surely going to pad the lawyers pockets, it just makes me dislike society more. Greed should be a punishable crime.

I dont think its that cheap, is it?

Depends who you find? Lol.

Good thing you recently got all that cash to throw around, SMT.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

Good thing you recently got all that cash to throw around, SMT.

Yeah from selling the house guy

The city is forcing the street the house is on and a few others to convert from septic to sewer next year. I had no idea this was happening. I don't live in the same city as the house and no one bothered to tell me about it. My realtor didn't know, her realtor didn't know, the inspector didn't know, the bank appraisal dude didn't know, and the title company didn't know. All of us are named in the case. It's about $15-25000 to do it.
---

The one who sells the house usually is responsible for everything. Even if you "didn't know" wont be a good enough answer in court. I hate to say it but... I think you wont win the case. Sucks, I know... but if you can hire a good ass attorney and all... yeah...

SmokeMassTree posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

Good thing you recently got all that cash to throw around, SMT.

Yeah from selling the house guy

The city is forcing the street the house is on and a few others to convert from septic to sewer next year. I had no idea this was happening. I don't live in the same city as the house and no one bothered to tell me about it. My realtor didn't know, her realtor didn't know, the inspector didn't know, the bank appraisal dude didn't know, and the title company didn't know. All of us are named in the case. It's about $15-25000 to do it.

Sue the city. If theyre forcing homeowners to do that then their property taxes should cover the cost.
---

Man. The burden of proof is on them. You don't even need a lawyer for this one. Easy-peasy. They're just upset that they're going to have to pay so they wasted more money on legal counsel. Fuck 'em.
---

Yeah so you should be able to clear up the jizz wall with some peanut butter to loosen it up and a rake to scrape it down.

SmokeMassTree posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

Good thing you recently got all that cash to throw around, SMT.

Yeah from selling the house guy

The city is forcing the street the house is on and a few others to convert from septic to sewer next year. I had no idea this was happening. I don't live in the same city as the house and no one bothered to tell me about it. My realtor didn't know, her realtor didn't know, the inspector didn't know, the bank appraisal dude didn't know, and the title company didn't know. All of us are named in the case. It's about $15-25000 to do it.

I think you're going to run into the problem that knowing that is required to sell a house (the house I bought had a similar issue, we caught it before hand and the seller had to pay for the fix).

The fact that you didn't know is understandable, the fact that no one else, what with it being their job, knew is odd to say the least. It's easy to check and should be confirmed before the sale even goes through.

TaKun782 posted...

The one who sells the house usually is responsible for everything.

I'm no real estate lawyer, but I don't think this is true. To the best of my knowledge, real estate law in the US - except for the sale of a brand new home by the builder - falls under caveat emptor. Basically, the onus is on the buyer to research the house and conduct whatever inspections are necessary (at their own cost) to determine the house's condition and satisfy themselves that the house will suit whatever purposes they are buying it for. The seller is generally not liable for any damages discovered after the purchase of the house. The only exception to this is if the seller deliberately tries to conceal some flaw or damage in the house; if the seller is ignorant of the defect, that is a legitimate defence in this case.

That's exactly why the suit is claiming that TC *did* know about the problem (and even then, it still seems like a weak case to me - you'd have to prove that TC not only knew about it but deliberately tried to hide it from the buyer). The case might be better against the realtor, since they're supposed to be up on that kind of stuff, but honestly I'd be surprised if the suit was successful based on what TC has posted.
---

darkknight109 posted...

TaKun782 posted...

The one who sells the house usually is responsible for everything.

I'm no real estate lawyer, but I don't think this is true. To the best of my knowledge, real estate law in the US - except for the sale of a brand new home by the builder - falls under caveat emptor. Basically, the onus is on the buyer to research the house and conduct whatever inspections are necessary (at their own cost) to satisfy themselves that the house will suit whatever purposes they are buying it for. The only exception to this is if the seller deliberately tries to conceal some flaw or damage in the house; if the seller is ignorant of the defect, that is a legitimate defence in this case.

That's exactly why the suit is claiming that TC *did* know about the problem (and even then, it still seems like a weak case to me - you'd have to prove that TC not only knew about it but deliberately tried to hide it from the buyer). The case might be better against the realtor, since they're supposed to be up on that kind of stuff, but honestly I'd be surprised if the suit was successful based on what TC has posted.

well that's true, some things are required to be done by the seller in order to legally sell a house (may vary by state). Like having a title 5 or having town sewer. I don't know if that breaches contracts or anything like that.

zebatov posted...

Man. The burden of proof is on them. You don't even need a lawyer for this one. Easy-peasy.

Depends on the issue. In cases like this, where the defendant will obviously just say "I didn't know", the level of proof required is convincing the judge that a reasonable person would have known about it. They don't need an admission from you or hard concrete proof, just enough to pass "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And on top of that, the odds of winning a counter-suit or getting your lawyer fees back are pretty slim as they often only award that when a lawsuit is either malicious or frivolous (i.e. they knew they had no case and were wasting everyone's time). People often have this false illusion that if they win the court case they automatically get the other person to pay for their legal fees.

So basically, assuming this topic is true, he's pretty much fucked and should probably take settlement as he's not guaranteed to win the lawsuit, and even if he does it could potentially cost him even more in fees.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

Good thing you recently got all that cash to throw around, SMT.

Yeah from selling the house guy

You really shouldn't be selling people.
---

Unless the judge believes the case is frivolous. If the plaintiff goes into court and just says he knew because he sold the house and has no proof, the judge may believe the case was just a waste of time and an attempt to get money...
---

zebatov posted...

Man. The burden of proof is on them.

This being a civil case, no one has "burden of proof", because you don't have to prove anything. Civil cases work on preponderance of evidence, meaning the judge/jury just has to decide who is *more likely* to be responsible.
---

Dynalo posted...

zebatov posted...

Man. The burden of proof is on them. You don't even need a lawyer for this one. Easy-peasy.

Depends on the issue. In cases like this, where the defendant will obviously just say "I didn't know", the level of proof required is convincing the judge that a reasonable person would have known about it. They don't need an admission from you or hard concrete proof, just enough to pass "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And on top of that, the odds of winning a counter-suit or getting your lawyer fees back are pretty slim as they often only award that when a lawsuit is either malicious or frivolous (i.e. they knew they had no case and were wasting everyone's time). People often have this false illusion that if they win the court case they automatically get the other person to pay for their legal fees.

So basically, assuming this topic is true, he's pretty much fucked and should probably take settlement as he's not guaranteed to win the lawsuit, and even if he does it could potentially cost him even more in fees.

That's basically what I'm hearing from the attorneys I've met with last week. Well two of them, one thinks I can beat it and reclaim his fees but it will take years (up to three).

The ball was dropped on all sides here. My realtor should have known (I believe he did and didn't disclose), her realtor should have known, it should have came up when the inspectors pulled the info from the city, it definitely should have came up when the appraiser pulled the info from the city, and the title company never should have allowed a transfer with a septic tank unless a full inspection was done (it wasn't).

I feel like I'm only named in the suit because I have to be.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

I feel like I'm only named in the suit because I have to be.

You're named because you're the owner and they're going to name everyone. It's actually lucky for you there are so many players involved so that you don't have to shoulder the whole burden yourself.
---

Dynalo posted...

zebatov posted...

Man. The burden of proof is on them. You don't even need a lawyer for this one. Easy-peasy.

Depends on the issue. In cases like this, where the defendant will obviously just say "I didn't know", the level of proof required is convincing the judge that a reasonable person would have known about it. They don't need an admission from you or hard concrete proof, just enough to pass "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You're thinking of this like a criminal trial - it's not. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not used in civil law, as it is considered the highest possible threshold of responsibility and is reserved for criminal trials. In civil law, the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence" (sometimes also referred to as "balance of probabilities"). It's a much lower threshold than "beyond reasonable doubt" - you just have to convince the judge or jury that it is more likely than not your version of the story is true. The way it's usually illustrated is if A sues B and the evidence suggests that A is 51% likely to be correct and B is 49% likely to be correct, A would win the suit. By contrast, in a criminal trial if A was the prosecutor and B was the defendant, A could be 90% likely of being correct and B 10% and B would still win the case.
---

Ah yes, that is what I meant. Got the point across (the threshold is much lower), just used the wrong terminology.
---

darkknight109 posted...

zebatov posted...

Man. The burden of proof is on them.

This being a civil case, no one has "burden of proof", because you don't have to prove anything. Civil cases work on preponderance of evidence, meaning the judge/jury just has to decide who is *more likely* to be responsible.

@darkknight109
That's the way it works here. I guess the US is different in that sense. I'm suing my old roommate for breaking my stuff and he's already admitted to breaking it because he thinks that the police not charging either of us for criminal mischief, as the charges would cancel each other out, also applies to "he broke my stuff so I get to break his". Unfortunately for him that isn't the case and now all I have to do is present all the receipts I have for the damage he did plus extra expenses I incurred from the entire situation and that's the game. I've spoken to one judge and five lawyers about this.

Jen0125 posted...

SmokeMassTree posted...

I feel like I'm only named in the suit because I have to be.

You're named because you're the owner and they're going to name everyone. It's actually lucky for you there are so many players involved so that you don't have to shoulder the whole burden yourself.

@SmokeMassTree
When I spoke to a lawyer about another lawsuit (that I won) he said "Most of the time we don't know who to sue, so we name everybody and the people that should be there will show up."

I quoted Jen because she was saying the same thing I think.
---

Why tag him, this is his topic
---