Teardown Home in Rosemary Beach

[seaside2]

The mold in this house was mostly from the fact that the windows (nice mahogany windows) had been improperly installed. The leaks below the window sills caused mold that was concealed inside the walls.

Does the word "lawsuit" come to mind?

I know the house is over one year old and outside the general contractor's normal one year warranty period, but there is a term called "Latent Defect" that addresses items like this.

'course in this case, the buyer probably doesn't care about minor things like that. He apparently only wanted the lot (and got it!!!!)

 

[NoHall]

Does the word "lawsuit" come to mind?

I know the house is over one year old and outside the general contractor's normal one year warranty period, but there is a term called "Latent Defect" that addresses items like this.

'course in this case, the buyer probably doesn't care about minor things like that. He apparently only wanted the lot (and got it!!!!)

Even if he did only want the lot (and weren't richer than God) there could still be a lawsuit. I saw it happen several years ago in Atlanta. A huge house (in a tiny neighborhood where I did garden work every week) sold for several million, and soon the marble pool was coming out with a backhoe. Then the rest of the yard was coming out with a backhoe, and extensive work was done to the house--several million dollars' worth of work. If I remember correctly, they ended up spending more on the work than they spent in the original purchase.

Turns out that when the house was built, the builder buried the construction debris. I'm not sure if it was already illegal to do that when that particular house was built, but the new owner sued the pants off the original owner, stating that the original owner knew that the sinkhole from the debris was causing damage to the foundation and had destroyed the pool.

So wouldn't the latent damage and the original owner's knowledge of it come into play?

 

[seaside2]

Slightly different.

The Owner's knowledge of problems falls under disclosure.

Latent defect goes to the contractor that built the thing or, in the case of larger buildingd, the architect/engineer of record that did the design work.

In either case, you have to let them have the opportunity to correct the damage before you go in and bulldoze the place and make corrections yourselves. Legal process and all that.

 

[Mango]

Slightly different.

The Owner's knowledge of problems falls under disclosure.

Latent defect goes to the contractor that built the thing or, in the case of larger buildingd, the architect/engineer of record that did the design work.

In either case, you have to let them have the opportunity to correct the damage before you go in and bulldoze the place and make corrections yourselves. Legal process and all that.

I am not so sure about that. I'm dealing with a similar issue and a top notch construction law attorney has been retained by our Association for this and Assoc. affairs. If you have an engineers report and they have experience in court, one can sue at a later point. Don't mark my words, but I believe Florida statute allows up to 10 years and a new law has come into effect that may allow for a longer period of time, which some attorneys are trying in court to see the results. In any event, we have Counsel and he has been involved in the discovery and a future possible lawsuit. Apparently construction defects are rampant along the Gulf. We will be repairing the construction defect ourself because we have no choice, but frankly I'm not placing any hopes whatsoever for any kind of recompense in the future from the builder and subs. Further, even if one does sue and wins, quite often they settle for about 50% or so of the costs incurred and these suits take years.

 

[NoHall]

Slightly different.

The Owner's knowledge of problems falls under disclosure.

That's true...this was why the new owner sued the original owner. The original owner was a flaming ar$ehole, though--a famous retired football player from back in the day, actually--and the last I heard of the case he was trying to put it off on the builder. Like I said, it was unclear whether the debris was buried before it became unlawful to do so or not, and whether or not the original owner knew that the debris was buried. The new owner sued because he said the original owner had to have known about the damage.

Latent defect goes to the contractor that built the thing or, in the case of larger building, the architect/engineer of record that did the design work.

In either case, you have to let them have the opportunity to correct the damage before you go in and bulldoze the place and make corrections yourselves. Legal process and all that.

I'm not sure how much opportunity was given in this case, but the original owner wasn't about to fix ANYTHING. Jerk...

 

[SHELLY]

'course in this case, the buyer probably doesn't care about minor things like that. He apparently only wanted the lot (and got it!!!!)

For the life of me, I don't know why folks around here have the notion that high net worth individuals don't give a rat's rectum about wasted money. Sure, there is an assortment of idiots who've stumbled upon/were born into wealth...but for the most part, folks with lots of money worked hard for every dollar and respect the purchasing power of every single one--and they aren't apt to mindlessly toss their money into the fire.


.

 

[NoHall]

For the life of me, I don't know why folks around here have the notion that high net worth individuals don't give a rat's rectum about wasted money. Sure, there is an assortment of idiots who've stumbled upon/were born into wealth...but for the most part, folks with lots of money worked hard for every dollar and respect the purchasing power of every single one--and they aren't apt to mindlessly toss their money into the fire.


.

Very good point, as always. The wonderful irony of it is that among the "high net worth individuals" around my area, many of them will not mindlessly toss money away and waste it in cases like this. They will get what they pay for and pinch pennies till Abe screams. But they are also gloriously generous. If the football team or the drama program needs a couple million, it's there. The hospital gets a new heart center. Their front gate and their boat docks are always wide open for their friends...

 

[seaside2]

I am not so sure about that. I'm dealing with a similar issue and a top notch construction law attorney has been retained by our Association for this and Assoc. affairs. If you have an engineers report and they have experience in court, one can sue at a later point. Don't mark my words, but I believe Florida statute allows up to 10 years and a new law has come into effect that may allow for a longer period of time, which some attorneys are trying in court to see the results. In any event, we have Counsel and he has been involved in the discovery and a future possible lawsuit. Apparently construction defects are rampant along the Gulf. We will be repairing the construction defect ourself because we have no choice, but frankly I'm not placing any hopes whatsoever for any kind of recompense in the future from the builder and subs. Further, even if one does sue and wins, quite often they settle for about 50% or so of the costs incurred and these suits take years.

I agree, I should have added "normally" to the front end of the statement. But in the case you cite, if there is written documentation by a professional engineer/architect then that can become the basis for the suit. And laws do vary from state to state, plus you can sue anyone you want any time you can get an attornely to file.

Trouble with winning lawsuits is you don't always win.


For the life of me, I don't know why folks around here have the notion that high net worth individuals don't give a rat's rectum about wasted money. Sure, there is an assortment of idiots who've stumbled upon/were born into wealth...but for the most part, folks with lots of money worked hard for every dollar and respect the purchasing power of every single one--and they aren't apt to mindlessly toss their money into the fire.

Didn't mean to suggest that they have that attitude, it just looks like from a distance that the buyer wanted the lot and was not interested in seeking damages for alleged poor construction. You are right: people that made a lot of money didn't do it by throwing it away. At the same time, given the $ paid and the actions taken, it sure looks like the land was far more valuable to this particular person than an opportunity to file suit.

 

[Matt J]

Could just be cost/benefit analysis too. From what I was told he was originally going to make the repairs and a few changes. Apparently as things started to mount his architect, engineer, or builder suggested just tearing it down due to the costs associated with repair/remodel. Along these lines he may have considered the cost of repairs vs. the cost and time of retaining a lawyer and then going thru the most likely years of litigation.

 

[TooFarTampa]

As a hard-core art collector, maybe he also realized he needed special spaces for some of his special pieces, and the light, layout, or whatever, wasn't going to be right either. Hence the need for an entirely new design. I know of people who have designed their entire houses around glass collections. Also any mold problem that was difficult to resolve might make some of the art difficult to insure. Just a guess.