My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

On Dec 4, 4:41�am, hands on wrote:
My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

On Dec 4, 7:51Â*am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41�am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes


I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

hands,

You probably should seek the advice of a lawyer and check to see if the
builder is still in business.
Your post is a bit confusing since you claim the house is not able to
bear it's specified load but you prove this with soil tests. I suspect that
you mean that the foundation has problems. As others have said a house with
a bad foundation has little value. You'll need to fix this. With luck the
builder will pay.

Dave M.

On Dec 4, 4:41 am, hands on wrote:
My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

Have there been foundation failures in your immediate area?
Are there any indications that there is settlement?
What prompted you to have the soils analyzed 2 1/2 years later?
What did the test results indicate is the bearing capacity of your
soil?

R

hands on wrote:
My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

Do you have fire insurance?

Just asking.

On Dec 4, 9:05 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41 am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

Have there been foundation failures in your immediate area?
Are there any indications that there is settlement?
What prompted you to have the soils analyzed 2 1/2 years later?
What did the test results indicate is the bearing capacity of your
soil?

Yes having foundation issues, cracking.

HeyBub wrote:
My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.




I find this subject fascinating, I am thinking of buying a new home and never
thought this a problem. I assumed that this test was run by the builder
before construction. I guess I should never assume anything. Other posters
suggested fixing the problem and my question is how do you "fix" this problem?
The OP sounds like being stuck with a "defective house" means it cannot be
repaired. Did the engineer tell you this? Also, what kind of foundation do
you have? Full basement, concrete slab, crawlspace?

--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/repair/200712/1

Inspector,

There are lots of businesses that do foundation repair. The solution to a
problem depends on the problem. From the OP's post it sounds as if his home
was built on poorly compacted fill dirt, the house is now compacting the
fill dirt, and this is happening unevenly thus causing foundation cracks. So
someone needs to dig or push down to good, well compacted, soil and pour
some piers under the sagging foundation. Not cheap but the house is
repairable unless it was actually built in a swamp or someplace without good
soil within a reachable depth..

Dave M.

David L. Martel wrote:
Inspector,

There are lots of businesses that do foundation repair. The solution to a
problem depends on the problem. From the OP's post it sounds as if his home
was built on poorly compacted fill dirt, the house is now compacting the
fill dirt, and this is happening unevenly thus causing foundation cracks. So
someone needs to dig or push down to good, well compacted, soil and pour
some piers under the sagging foundation. Not cheap but the house is
repairable unless it was actually built in a swamp or someplace without good
soil within a reachable depth..

Dave M.

Thanks for the info

--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/repair/200712/1

On Dec 4, 3:41 am, hands on wrote:
My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

How do you know? Did someone dig down to the footing and test the soil
or
did you test the backfill next to the foundation? Are you using
information
from the lots next to you and not your own?
Lou

On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. But often it still does. For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:



On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. But often it still does. For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:



On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. But often it still does. For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

"hands on" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:



On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not
to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum
it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed
by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of
it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. But often it still does. For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"


What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE
building a house?

On Dec 5, 3:42�pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"hands on" wrote in message

...





On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not
to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum
it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed
by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of
it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. � If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. � And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. � The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. � If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? � Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. � If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. � �And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". �I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. � But often it still does. � For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. �If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE
building a house?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dig to solid bedrock or pour a large slab several feet thick to
distribuite the load....

or dig deep and backfill with proper gravel

some areas arent worth building on because the sub soil is just too
poor

On Dec 5, 5:27 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:42�pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



"hands on" wrote in message

...

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not
to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum
it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed
by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of
it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. � If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. � And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. � The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. � If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? � Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. � If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. � �And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". �I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. � But often it still does. � For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. �If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE
building a house?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dig to solid bedrock or pour a large slab several feet thick to
distribuite the load....

or dig deep and backfill with proper gravel

some areas arent worth building on because the sub soil is just too
poor

I found a county online GIS map that shows the soil type in my
neighborhood as "unsuitable for residential development". I also found
that the town building inspector was supposed to inspect footing soil
before they were poured. This is a monolithic slab on ground. I have
seen them pour concrete slabs in the rain, leave 2 x4's outside, roof
trusses outside uncovered in the rain and never saw anyone compacting
soil.

"hands on" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 5:27 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:42?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



"hands on" wrote in message

...

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests
not
to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity
minimum
it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation
failed
by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out
of
it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and
walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. ? If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would
be
just about unsalable. ? And if you don't, the buyer is going to
figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. ? The holder of the mortgage can still come after
you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income,
etc,
collect. ? If the overall financial situation is so bad you have
to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed
by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy
doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? ? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. ? If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. ? ?And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". ?I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. ? But often it still does. ? For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. ?If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly
what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE
building a house?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dig to solid bedrock or pour a large slab several feet thick to
distribuite the load....

or dig deep and backfill with proper gravel

some areas arent worth building on because the sub soil is just too
poor

I found a county online GIS map that shows the soil type in my
neighborhood as "unsuitable for residential development". I also found
that the town building inspector was supposed to inspect footing soil
before they were poured. This is a monolithic slab on ground. I have
seen them pour concrete slabs in the rain, leave 2 x4's outside, roof
trusses outside uncovered in the rain and never saw anyone compacting
soil.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++


It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?

On Dec 8, 4:20 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"hands on" wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 5:27 pm, " wrote:



On Dec 5, 3:42?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"hands on" wrote in message

...

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests
not
to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity
minimum
it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation
failed
by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out
of
it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and
walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. ? If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would
be
just about unsalable. ? And if you don't, the buyer is going to
figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. ? The holder of the mortgage can still come after
you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income,
etc,
collect. ? If the overall financial situation is so bad you have
to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed
by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy
doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? ? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. ? If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. ? ?And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". ?I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. ? But often it still does. ? For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. ?If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly
what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE
building a house?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dig to solid bedrock or pour a large slab several feet thick to
distribuite the load....

or dig deep and backfill with proper gravel

some areas arent worth building on because the sub soil is just too
poor

I found a county online GIS map that shows the soil type in my
neighborhood as "unsuitable for residential development". I also found
that the town building inspector was supposed to inspect footing soil
before they were poured. This is a monolithic slab on ground. I have
seen them pour concrete slabs in the rain, leave 2 x4's outside, roof
trusses outside uncovered in the rain and never saw anyone compacting
soil.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?

recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:27 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:42?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



"hands on" wrote in message

...

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:28 pm, Bubba wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:51 am, " wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:41?am, hands on wrote:

My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not
to
meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum
it
was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed
by an
engineering company test.
So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of
it
and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all
buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.

your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk
away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.

you need a lawyer, best wishes

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. ? If you disclose it as
required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be
just about unsalable. ? And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure
it out and sue you when they find out.

Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined
credit rating. ? The holder of the mortgage can still come after you
for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc,
collect. ? If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to
file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.

In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by
an independent agency that covers major structural issues like
this.

I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.

and now trader is a realtor/lawyer expert.
You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt
always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bubba, is this your new pastime? ? Following me around, attacking me
over nothing?

If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away
from a bad house and letting
the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. ? If the
bank is still owed more than
the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or
income. ? ?And yes, I said:

"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file
bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."

Note the word "could". ?I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe
out all of it. ? But often it still does. ? For example, if the
debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can
go for liquidation bankruptcy. ?If not, then it gets more complicated
and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to
pay back some of the debt over time.

You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.

And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what
that was helpful to the discussion?

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6
feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil
impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time
to "lawyer up"

What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE
building a house?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dig to solid bedrock or pour a large slab several feet thick to
distribuite the load....

or dig deep and backfill with proper gravel

some areas arent worth building on because the sub soil is just too
poor

I found a county online GIS map that shows the soil type in my
neighborhood as "unsuitable for residential development". I also found
that the town building inspector was supposed to inspect footing soil
before they were poured. This is a monolithic slab on ground. I have
seen them pour concrete slabs in the rain, leave 2 x4's outside, roof
trusses outside uncovered in the rain and never saw anyone compacting
soil.

I live in the Mojave Desert. Builders took a beating some years ago,
because some homes were actually sinking into the ground. Elevation
2100 feet.

A person I know collected a large sum, made the repairs himself and
sold the house.

His lawyer may have been from out of town - not sure. Google house
defects +LAS VEGAS +Attorney. (or some such, post 1996)

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?

recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company
thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:





Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.



thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Dec 9, 7:24 am, wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:



On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes you sue the builder. His insurance company may or may not cover
it. For example, if he knowingly built on fill, then insurance is not
going to cover it. However, if he hired a sub who forgot to compact
or something, then it's possible they will cover it. Insurance covers
an "occurance" which is like an accident, only broader. Building on
fill is not an accident. (Hiring a sub who screws up is considered an
"accident"). Liability insurance companies do not just roll over and
cut checks for foundation replacements. They have good attorneys
etc. It isn't like submitting a claim for windshield replacement on
your auto policy. Also, you need some damages. Your damages can not
be "I think it's going to fail" or "this builder left 2x4's in the
rain" therefore I need a new house. What are the damages?

On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:
On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:





On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.



thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened

On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:





On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


As usual Bubba, you add nothing constructive to the thread and you're
dead wrong. FYI, you sue the party responsible, not their insurance
company. The insurance company didn't do anything wrong. The
insurance company, if they believe their policy covers the suit, will
then either reach a settlement or defend the insured. That's how it
works. But keep following me around in the newsgroup and making an
ass out of yourself, so more people can see what you're all about.

On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba

The builder has 7 homes he built with no buyer. I get the feeling he
is trying to finish this up so he can fold the company. Many owners
are having the same problems. Also problems with water leaks and
concrete driveways cracking. Builders like this make them all look
bad.Funny thing, I asked for copies of all public records for my house-
(like building inspections),asked in person 3 times, phoned 5 times
and sent a registered letter last week. I think someone in the town is
trying to hide something.

"hands on" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've
had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case
is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash
their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of
ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area
give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'?
Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they
run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over
sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level
of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that
runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all
over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular
houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision
that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses.
Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off
to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious
blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a
bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or
maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or
land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in
this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped
out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on
a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge
growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce
around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin
coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the
party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You
have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle,
or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you
did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty
of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with
whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you
sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance,
the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in
a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to
others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba

The builder has 7 homes he built with no buyer. I get the feeling he
is trying to finish this up so he can fold the company. Many owners
are having the same problems. Also problems with water leaks and
concrete driveways cracking. Builders like this make them all look
bad.Funny thing, I asked for copies of all public records for my house-
(like building inspections),asked in person 3 times, phoned 5 times
and sent a registered letter last week. I think someone in the town is
trying to hide something.


Call the newspaper and ***all*** your local TV news departments NOW. If
you're in a small city like mine, they love stuff like this.

Public employees often do better work when faced with embarrassment and
humiliation. Television can help with this.

On Dec 10, 6:40 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:52:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual Bubba, you add nothing constructive to the thread and you're
dead wrong. FYI, you sue the party responsible, not their insurance
company. The insurance company didn't do anything wrong. The
insurance company, if they believe their policy covers the suit, will
then either reach a settlement or defend the insured. That's how it
works. But keep following me around in the newsgroup and making an
ass out of yourself, so more people can see what you're all about.

I find it funny that now you are explaining this to me. Like what the
hell do I care. You're so wrapped up in your confrontations in here
that you missed the whole point. I think you are a wanna be moron. You
think that EE degree makes you something special and in reality all it
does is make your BOORING!!! But like all EE's such as yourself, it
can be quite entertaining at times.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And I find it funny how you're so huffed up over my having the
Aprilaire 760 humdifier for 10 years, liking it and recommending it
that you're now following me around in other threads like a juvenile
and making an ass of yourself.

You obviously must care, cause you keep posting crap and taking pot
shots. Like entering this thread, huffing and puffing with personal
attacks after I simply pointed out that the poster that told the OP he
can't sue the builder but must sue his insurance company is wrong.
That was simple and correct, yet you chose to attack me over it.

On Dec 10, 9:31 pm, wrote:
On Dec 10, 6:40 pm, Bubba wrote:



On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:52:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual Bubba, you add nothing constructive to the thread and you're
dead wrong. FYI, you sue the party responsible, not their insurance
company. The insurance company didn't do anything wrong. The
insurance company, if they believe their policy covers the suit, will
then either reach a settlement or defend the insured. That's how it
works. But keep following me around in the newsgroup and making an
ass out of yourself, so more people can see what you're all about.

I find it funny that now you are explaining this to me. Like what the
hell do I care. You're so wrapped up in your confrontations in here
that you missed the whole point. I think you are a wanna be moron. You
think that EE degree makes you something special and in reality all it
does is make your BOORING!!! But like all EE's such as yourself, it
can be quite entertaining at times.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And I find it funny how you're so huffed up over my having the
Aprilaire 760 humdifier for 10 years, liking it and recommending it
that you're now following me around in other threads like a juvenile
and making an ass of yourself.

You obviously must care, cause you keep posting crap and taking pot
shots. Like entering this thread, huffing and puffing with personal
attacks after I simply pointed out that the poster that told the OP he
can't sue the builder but must sue his insurance company is wrong.
That was simple and correct, yet you chose to attack me over it.


How long have you two been married anyway?

On Dec 11, 7:39 am, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:31:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 6:40 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:52:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual Bubba, you add nothing constructive to the thread and you're
dead wrong. FYI, you sue the party responsible, not their insurance
company. The insurance company didn't do anything wrong. The
insurance company, if they believe their policy covers the suit, will
then either reach a settlement or defend the insured. That's how it
works. But keep following me around in the newsgroup and making an
ass out of yourself, so more people can see what you're all about.

I find it funny that now you are explaining this to me. Like what the
hell do I care. You're so wrapped up in your confrontations in here
that you missed the whole point. I think you are a wanna be moron. You
think that EE degree makes you something special and in reality all it
does is make your BOORING!!! But like all EE's such as yourself, it
can be quite entertaining at times.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And I find it funny how you're so huffed up over my having the
Aprilaire 760 humdifier for 10 years, liking it and recommending it
that you're now following me around in other threads like a juvenile
and making an ass of yourself.

You obviously must care, cause you keep posting crap and taking pot
shots. Like entering this thread, huffing and puffing with personal
attacks after I simply pointed out that the poster that told the OP he
can't sue the builder but must sue his insurance company is wrong.
That was simple and correct, yet you chose to attack me over it.

Boo Hoo. It sounds to me like you would like a little cheese with that
whine. Grow some balls you little girl.
and there is NOTHING simple OR Correct about anything you post.
It looks more like you just like to see the alphabet (and lots of it)
printed on a white background.
Bubba

How do you not archive messages?
I found out this used to be wetlands that they built on-that's why I
have wet clay 6 feet down.

On Dec 11, 8:03 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:13:52 -0800 (PST), hands on



wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:39 am, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:31:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 6:40 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:52:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:27 pm, Bubba wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:57 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, wrote:

On Dec 9, 2:40 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 9, 11:06 am, aemeijers wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on
wrote:

It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to
contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class
action or not.

What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their
lawyers.

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many
judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and
financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them
the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the
lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up
a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.

None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen
subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes.
There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the
houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs
through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over
the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses
dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that
failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed
out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and
hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to
clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood
plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm,
and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the
neighborhood.

Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe
moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use
planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this
township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for
me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm,
as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing
up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around
here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of
topsoil.

aem sends...

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance
company

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection
against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party
responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have
no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing
wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place
that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or
go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing
the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did
sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for
more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of
other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever
you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue
the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the
insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a
judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more
expensive to
get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........
see if the builder
built close by and check other properties and go through a class
action.

good luck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty
you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing
But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder
in the end
But both will suffer in the end.
Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?

Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case
where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers
together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might
hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind.
Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to
watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual Bubba, you add nothing constructive to the thread and you're
dead wrong. FYI, you sue the party responsible, not their insurance
company. The insurance company didn't do anything wrong. The
insurance company, if they believe their policy covers the suit, will
then either reach a settlement or defend the insured. That's how it
works. But keep following me around in the newsgroup and making an
ass out of yourself, so more people can see what you're all about.

I find it funny that now you are explaining this to me. Like what the
hell do I care. You're so wrapped up in your confrontations in here
that you missed the whole point. I think you are a wanna be moron. You
think that EE degree makes you something special and in reality all it
does is make your BOORING!!! But like all EE's such as yourself, it
can be quite entertaining at times.
Bubba- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And I find it funny how you're so huffed up over my having the
Aprilaire 760 humdifier for 10 years, liking it and recommending it
that you're now following me around in other threads like a juvenile
and making an ass of yourself.

You obviously must care, cause you keep posting crap and taking pot
shots. Like entering this thread, huffing and puffing with personal
attacks after I simply pointed out that the poster that told the OP he
can't sue the builder but must sue his insurance company is wrong.
That was simple and correct, yet you chose to attack me over it.

Boo Hoo. It sounds to me like you would like a little cheese with that
whine. Grow some balls you little girl.
and there is NOTHING simple OR Correct about anything you post.
It looks more like you just like to see the alphabet (and lots of it)
printed on a white background.
Bubba

How do you not archive messages?
I found out this used to be wetlands that they built on-that's why I
have wet clay 6 feet down.

Yeah, I need another drink too.
Bubba

Well the lawyer said I have a good case. Veranda Homes has 7 homes
they built without a buyer that they can't sell-they have cracks in
the concrete slabs already.