On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter


Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. Even the 12K sounds
high. Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? $20K?




nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.



the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 4, 9:44*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
Imagine a house with a cast iron sewer pipe connected to the town's
PVC pipe at the property line. Imagine - in the past - roots finding
their way into the junction of the 2 pipes and causing a partial
blockage every couple of years. The evidence was a gurgling basement
toilet when an upper floor toilet was flushed. A power snake would
solve the problem for a couple of years.

Now imagine that for the last five years the owner has been using
RootX on an annual basis and he hasn't had any problem with blockages
or gurgling toilets. Obviously he doesn't know if the RootX is keeping
the roots at bay or if they just stopped entering the pipe for some
reason. The only way he would know for sure is if he stopped using the
RootX and waited a couple of years to see if they came back. That's
not something he's willing to test. The minor inconvenience of using
RootX once a year gives him peace of mind.

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Hi,
In my neighborhood, there is a house for sale for over 2 years. Nice
house but it suffered a sewage back up causing big professional clean up
and repairing the collapsed pipe. I think no one wants to buy i because
of that history. If there was no damage inside the house
it would've been different story.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If everything has been repaired, including the "root" cause (no pun
intended) then why would people be leery of buying a house that had a
sewage backup more than 2 years ago?

There must be something else wrong with this "nice house".

On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Lining a sewer pipe far cheaper than replacing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhE8UhWOnM0

BTW...where are you that you need to bury pipe 15 - 20 feet to prevent
freezing?

How deep do post holes for a deck have to be?


nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 4, 7:47*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:57 pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

I spent the years between 1940 and 1950 in Lynbrook, New York. (on Long
Island) We had cesspools dug in our front lawns. these were bottle shaped
chambers about 15 feet deep by 10 feet in diameter, with concrete covers
aroud 4 feet in diameter and a couple of feet under the lawn that were lined
with concrete blocks with popenings through them for water to seep through.
All of our sewage went into these things, and they were pumped out
periodically when they got full and didn;t work any more. The trucks that
pumped them out brought the sewage to a treatment plant somewhere, just as
sewer systems today take it through pipes to these same plants. At the
plant, it received, "primary" treatment before it was pumped into the ocean
where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...and this little story applies to the current thread ...wait for
it... how?

On Apr 5, 11:47*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:





On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

....

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. *I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. *Even the 12K sounds
high. *Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. *But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? *$20K?

nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.
the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -


The FEDS ordered a complete end to storm water runoff into sanitary
sewers. some were co mingled from the start of sewers in the
pittsburgh area. previously sewer water overflowed into rivers which
provide drinking water and recreation.connecting downspouts to sewer
lines were common till recently. now every home gets die test before
sale.

because of the very hilly terrain many lines are super deep, for not
only freeze protection but natural drainage to sewer plants. even with
all this many areas have lift stations.

a friend looked at a bargain home it was super cheap except the sewer
line went out of the back of the home to a stream bed 200
feet ........ 20 grand to replace the collapsed line. he looked at
another home, it was wrongly connected to storm sewerrather than
sanitary sewer. 18 to 20 grand, very deep plus street must be dug up
and replaved by bonded registered contractors.

allegheny county has rules out the wazoole. and so does most of
pennsylvania

On 4/5/13 1:46 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 7:47 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:57 pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in that
state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if they
were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that the
lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need to
be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm walking".
That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might otherwise not
be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

I spent the years between 1940 and 1950 in Lynbrook, New York. (on Long
Island) We had cesspools dug in our front lawns. these were bottle shaped
chambers about 15 feet deep by 10 feet in diameter, with concrete covers
aroud 4 feet in diameter and a couple of feet under the lawn that were lined
with concrete blocks with popenings through them for water to seep through.
All of our sewage went into these things, and they were pumped out
periodically when they got full and didn;t work any more. The trucks that
pumped them out brought the sewage to a treatment plant somewhere, just as
sewer systems today take it through pipes to these same plants. At the
plant, it received, "primary" treatment before it was pumped into the ocean
where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

..and this little story applies to the current thread ...wait for
it... how?

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure. The
appropriate response is "Thanks for sharing."

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

On Apr 5, 3:42*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:
Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

The other side of that is not telling enough and getting sued even
if you win the lawsuit it will cost big bucks and lots of
stress.......

neither of which are good for anyone.

On 4/5/13 2:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

Maybe for you. I was actually joking about people who tell their life
stories for no discernible reason. Perhaps I should have written "too
much 'disclosure.'"

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:42*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:
Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

The other side of that is not telling enough and getting sued even
if you win the lawsuit it will cost big bucks and lots of
stress.......


Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:45:28 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:





"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Lining a sewer pipe far cheaper than replacing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhE8UhWOnM0

BTW...where are you that you need to bury pipe 15 - 20 feet to prevent
freezing?

In VT it wasn't unheard of for water pipes to freexe and burst eight
feet down. I remember a main that broke at the top of a big hill in
Burlington. Lotsa ice! ;-)

How deep do post holes for a deck have to be?

4' wasn't enough!


nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:23:49 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

Maybe for you. I was actually joking about people who tell their life
stories for no discernible reason. Perhaps I should have written "too
much 'disclosure.'"

I think it's called "TMI". ;-)

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:




Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. Even the 12K sounds
high. Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? $20K?


I can easily see the 12K. I had a sewer problem. The town came out
and checked their part and it was OK. I had a guy come and check my
end and they found the problem, cause by the electric company hitting
my sewer line with the new pole.
Backhoe, repair of the line was $3500. They only dug a 3" wide hole.
So much for Dig Safe. They told the utility where to drill.

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:57:55 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:23:49 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

Maybe for you. I was actually joking about people who tell their life
stories for no discernible reason. Perhaps I should have written "too
much 'disclosure.'"

I think it's called "TMI". ;-)

....talkin' to an FBI agent one day - my jail is full, what the hell
are you guys doing out there...

Reply: "We have to slap 'em to shut 'em up!"

One big mouth leads to another big mouth.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 7:47 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:57 pm, carson ridder wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:36:54 -0700, Oren wrote:
You can't report something you do not know.

I know of someone who was sued, and lost - but then won on appeals,
that they "knew or SHOULD have known" (emphasis mine) that the
80-year-old septic system was about to crumble.

It's a long story, but they reason the lower court said they
'should' have known was that they had it pumped out once in
the five years they owned the 80-year old bungalow.

The travesty of the moronic lower-court judge was overturned by the
higher appellate court, who ruled unanimously that homeowners in
that state (NJ) would never sleep at night after selling a home if
they were subject to the Draconian "should have known" rules that
the lower court had arbitrarily decided upon.

In hindsight, it's clear that the judge, who was being reprimanded
for other grievances, was trying to make a name for herself.
Luckily, the system worked - albeit it was slow - painful - and
expensive to overturn the rulings of a judge who had her own
agenda.

So, after about two years of the slow legal process, everything
was set right (except, of course, legal costs - which were a loss
on one side as the other side was on a pay-if-you-win situation.

What lesson would the OP learn from this?

To each his own, but, to me, the lesson for the OP is:
* Better to disclose what you know, than to fight it in court
later.

While I tend to agree, disclosing things that don't (legally) need
to be disclosed can cost money that otherwise might not have been
spent.

I can imagine a buyer saying "replace the sewer pipe or I'm
walking". That's many thousands of dollars for a repair that might
otherwise not be needed, especially if it wasn't flagged during the
inspection.

If something gets disclosed then by definition, it's a "problem" and
needs to be dealt with to the buyer's satisfaction.

I spent the years between 1940 and 1950 in Lynbrook, New York. (on
Long Island) We had cesspools dug in our front lawns. these were
bottle shaped chambers about 15 feet deep by 10 feet in diameter,
with concrete covers aroud 4 feet in diameter and a couple of feet
under the lawn that were lined with concrete blocks with popenings
through them for water to seep through. All of our sewage went into
these things, and they were pumped out periodically when they got
full and didn;t work any more. The trucks that pumped them out
brought the sewage to a treatment plant somewhere, just as sewer
systems today take it through pipes to these same plants. At the
plant, it received, "primary" treatment before it was pumped into
the ocean where, (supposedly) it didn't harm the environment.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

..and this little story applies to the current thread ...wait for
it... how?

It is informative. If you don't learn anything from it, then don't comment
on it.

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant
exceed twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new
requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

Newer cities usually have a seperaqte sewer and storm drainage system. but
in the older ones, sometimes this isn't the case, and during heavy rains,
the system becomes overloaded with water, and the sewage treatment plant has
to be bypassed, and the water allowed to go in the river, lake, or ocean
without treatment. (information only.... I was almost a sewage treatment
plant operator before I became an engineer)

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:23:49 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

Maybe for you. I was actually joking about people who tell their life
stories for no discernible reason. Perhaps I should have written "too
much 'disclosure.'"



Sir,

I understood. Some folks want to be a Town Crier, and get to ring a
bell.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

....so you just poop on dry days or "something like that."

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:47:20 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant
exceed twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new
requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

Newer cities usually have a seperaqte sewer and storm drainage system. but
in the older ones, sometimes this isn't the case, and during heavy rains,
the system becomes overloaded with water, and the sewage treatment plant has
to be bypassed, and the water allowed to go in the river, lake, or ocean
without treatment. (information only.... I was almost a sewage treatment
plant operator before I became an engineer)

Again, you state the obvious.

On Apr 5, 4:44*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. *Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghe...tary_Authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghe...tary_Authority

Alcosan isnt all of allegheny county, just a part of it.

I live in mc candless, and our sewage is treated by the MTSA mc
candless twp sanitary authority. They replaced a mile or so of main
line some years ago in front of my home, the job took all summer. It
was root infested terracota.

the line turns and runs between me and a neighbor, and because
residents didnt follow the rules runs under a 20 by 20 foot shed in
another neighbors yard, and under a large fancy patio....

neither of which had a building permit or they wouldnt be
allowed.......

The sanitary authority tells me the line is as much as 15 feet deep
because of where it goes, and it was installed around 1949.

Replacing this section of just over 300 feet will cost a fortune, and
the neighbor with the offending shed and patio threatened legal
action. The sanitary company wanted the owner to pay restoration
costs.

I had a fence erected along the area and had no choice but to agree to
pay removal and restoration if work on the line is necessary

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 17:57:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Apr 5, 4:44*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. *Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghe...tary_Authority
We pay for our water twice - in and out. Sewage charge is currently
equal to the water charge but it is going up, and we are also paying a
stormwater management fee as well.

In Canada

On Apr 5, 10:03*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 17:57:21 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:





On Apr 5, 4:44*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. *Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghe...tary_Authority

*We pay for our water twice - in and out. Sewage charge is currently
equal to the water charge but it is going up, and we are also paying a
stormwater management fee as well.

In Canada

here sewage is now about 3 times the cost of water...and going up more

allegheny county has strict inspection requirements on sewer lines.
the inspections are done by retired plumbers.

they give anyone replacing say their own sewer main to their house a
horrible time....

they only want registered plumbers to do plumbing

"Bill Graham" wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant
exceed twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new
requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

Newer cities usually have a seperaqte sewer and storm drainage system.
but in the older ones, sometimes this isn't the case, and during heavy
rains, the system becomes overloaded with water, and the sewage treatment
plant has to be bypassed, and the water allowed to go in the river, lake,
or ocean without treatment. (information only.... I was almost a sewage
treatment plant operator before I became an engineer)

I got the tour from my brother many times. I'm not sure here, but the other
borough made their rounds checking all houses for proper exits. I just had
some interior work done. Always wondered how it was piped. Originally had
septic and clean water, which I guess the clean water went into the yard,
and clean water from roof.
Im sure Pittsburgh let's the flood gates open, but improvements were on the
way.
I pay a little less than 50% of my water bill for sewage.

Greg

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:47:20 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant
exceed twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new
requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

Newer cities usually have a seperaqte sewer and storm drainage
system. but in the older ones, sometimes this isn't the case, and
during heavy rains, the system becomes overloaded with water, and
the sewage treatment plant has to be bypassed, and the water allowed
to go in the river, lake, or ocean without treatment. (information
only.... I was almost a sewage treatment plant operator before I
became an engineer)

Again, you state the obvious.

It may be obvious to you, but in my experience, many people don;t know that
the sewer system and the storm drainage system are, or should be two
seperwate systems, and when they are not, heavy rains can stop the sewage
treatment plantss from working.

bob haller wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:44 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant
exceed twice the normal flow, or something like that.

I think that deserves a citation. Note that many communities
(including NYC) only have one sewer system.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new
requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghe...tary_Authority

My water/sewage bill here in Oregon runs about $100 a month for my wife and
myself, and we donlt water the lawn or any garden plants. Just the two of
us.

On 4/5/2013 1:25 PM, bob haller wrote:
The EPA has strict rules about sewage flow, during rain it cant exceed
twice the normal flow, or something like that.

sewage rates are tripling their old rate to meet the new requirements,

currently sewage costs far more than water


We had a terrible scandal here in Jefferson County Alabama involving
billions of dollars meant to be use to rebuild and modernize the sewer
system. The county commissioners and people involved including Wall
Street companies handling bonds and the huge sums of money just went
bonkers and turned the whole affair into one giant cluster coitus. Now
many of those involved are in prison and we the peasants are stuck with
huge sewer bills that are often higher than the water bill in which both
charges are combined. Long gone are the days when we had a water bill of
$10 or perhaps a whopping $20. It's a travesty of justice for the people
of the county and those in surrounding areas who may be dependent on the
county sewer system. o_O

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/07/..._10_years.html

TDD

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:09:48 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:




currently sewage costs far more than water

Maybe where you live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghe...tary_Authority

My water/sewage bill here in Oregon runs about $100 a month for my wife and
myself, and we donlt water the lawn or any garden plants. Just the two of
us.

In my CT town we get billed quarterly. My water is $148, the sewer
$92. That averages $73 a month combined. Rates went up this years
to pay for a major overhaul of the sewer treatment plant.

On Apr 5, 2:53*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:47*am, "
wrote:





On Apr 5, 10:46*am, bob haller wrote:

On Apr 4, 5:19*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

Finally, fast forward into the future and imagine the owner putting
the house on the market 5, 10, maybe 15 years from now. Does he have
to disclose that 10, 15, or even 20 years ago (depending on when he
puts the house on the market) he used to get roots in the pipe? Does
he have to disclose that he uses RootX once a year as a "peace of
mind" exercise?

Because this is a legal question, the answer is relative to the
country or state in which the vendor lives. *It is also relative to
time. *Who knows what local consumer protection law may
require in 2023?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Around here the manager of the MTSA said publically a new sewer line
done in bulk that is entire neighborhoods customer owned lines
averages 12 grand per home plus restoration. The lines are under
streets driveways sidewalks walls etc.

replacing customer service line can easily cost 20 grand per home,
lines are often 12 to 15 feet deep, done to prevent freezing in the
winter

Where is "around here" that has a frost depth of 12 to 15 ft?
Here in nyc area it's 4ft. *I think somewhere around twice that
is near the extreme for the lower 48.
I think you're going off the deep end again......

Twenty grand to dig a 50ft ditch and install a sewer line
sounds mighty high to me, even for NJ. *Even the 12K sounds
high. *Just how long does any of this take with a backhoe?
Sure, you could have the pathological case, where there
is every obstruction imaginable in the way. *But for
the typical house where you go across a lawn, a couple
bushes, maybe a sidewalk? *$20K?

nearly every home has troubles, when roots enter so does rain water
which floods the sewer plant.

I seriously doubt very much ground water is going to get in
there.
the sewer authority has tripled or more the capacity of their plants,
replaced mains in many areas and still has troubles- Hide quoted text -

The FEDS ordered a complete end to storm water runoff into sanitary
sewers. some were co mingled from the start of sewers in the
pittsburgh area. previously sewer water overflowed into rivers which
provide drinking water and recreation.connecting downspouts to sewer
lines were common till recently. now every home gets die test before
sale.

because of the very hilly terrain many lines are super deep, for not
only freeze protection but natural drainage to sewer plants. even with
all this many areas have lift stations.

a friend looked at a bargain home it was super cheap except the sewer
line went out of the back of the home to a stream bed 200
feet ........
20 grand to replace the collapsed line.

Sure, if it's 200 ft, I can see that. I'll bet DerbyDad's isn't
200ft though, which is more than 2x the distance of the
sewer line in any house I've lived in.



he looked at
another home, it was wrongly connected to storm sewerrather than
sanitary sewer. 18 to 20 grand, very deep plus street must be dug up
and replaved by bonded registered contractors.

Sure if it's 12 to 15 ft deep, which is what you claim they
are where you are located. And if the street has to be dug up too,
etc. But again, those are not the more typical case.




allegheny county has rules out the wazoole. and so does most of
pennsylvania- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 5, 4:41*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:42 pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:
Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

The other side of that is not telling enough and getting sued even
if you win the lawsuit it will cost big bucks and lots of
stress.......

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout *from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! *It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

Derby Dad:

Here's where I'd look for the answer to your question:

I don't know what state or province you live in, but a more reliable way to find an answer to this question is to look at what the courts in your jurisdiction have decided on a case by case basis, and that will let you know what's legally required of a seller in the way of disclosure.

Here is the web site for the Ontario Court of Appeal. Often the lower courts like Queen's Bench, Family Court, Probate Court, Small Claims, etc. are so busy that they don't have the money or time to transcribe every case they hear and post it on their web site. But, the higher courts, like the Court of Appeal for each province, the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada will have every case they hear transcribed and posted on their web sites. And, each transcript will explain the circumstances surrounding the case, the reasoning used by the judge(s) in each of the lower court rulings, the reasons the case was appealed to a higher court, and the reasoning used by the judge(s) to support their decisions in the current court. If you read Supreme Court cases where there are 5 or 7 judges, the majority decision will be given, but the reasoning of each of the dissenting judges will also be provided.

While the law on a subject like this might differ from place to place because of the different precedents that have been set in each jurisdiction, the reasoning of the judge in the lower courts and the judge in the Appeal should make sense regardless of where you live.

If you live in the US, you should be able to find a similar web site to search the decisions of your state's Court of Appeal.

Here is the web page for the Ontario Court of Appeal:

Court of Appeal for Ontario

On the left side you'll see a link entitled "Decisions of the Court", and if you hover your mouse pointer over that link you'll get another list of links, one of which will be "Search Decisions". Click on that link.

Now, in my experience, the search engines on court web sites will all be different, but they'll all be easy to learn to use cuz they're meant to be used by everyone, not just lawyers and other judges. And, the way to use them is to start with some pretty generic terms to search for, and as you learn more about the law concerning disclosure in real estate sales, you'll find out which sections of which laws describe what is required of the seller in the way of disclosure, and then you can search for court cases where that particular section is quoted in the transcript. That way, you'll find cases where the argument is entirely about whether the disclosure by the seller met the requirements of the law or not.

Anyhow, on the Search Decisions web page cited above, it asks you for some keywords for the search engine to look for, and whether you want cases where ANY of those words appear, or only cases where they all appear. So:

1.) Type "house sale disclosure" into the keyword box,
2.) Click on the "ALL" radio button to only return case transcripts that contain all those words,
3.) Click on the "Search all court decisions" (rather than only the decisions made during one particular year), and
4.) Click on the "Search" button in the top right corner of the search area.

When I do that, I get 4 pages of 20 court cases each.

Maybe bookmark that web site so that you can come back to it easily.

By the time you skim through those 80 odd cases, you'll be an expert on what's required of the seller in the way of disclosure when it comes to real estate sales. And, even if the facts of the cases are different from yours, what's important is the reasons the judge gives to determine whether something was significant enough that it needed to be disclosed to the buyer or not.


PS:
Here's the search decisions page of the web site for the Tax Court of Canada and the Tax Court of the United States:

Tax Court of Canada - (Access to judgments)

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/...ricOptions.asp

The US site has the interesting footnote:

"* Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 7463(b), Summary opinions may not be treated as precedent for any other case."

...which basically says "We reserve the right to be inconsistant in our decisions." That's in there because every judge's decision is going to be heavily influenced by the circumstances and the credibility of the people involved. Depositing $5000 in a local credit union that pays 2% interest is NOT the same thing as depositing $5,000,000 in an unnumbered bank account in the Cayman Islands where you have to pay interest to the bank to keep your bank account details a secret.

One thing to consider is to search the Tax Court Decisions for the phrase "income tax attorney" or "income tax lawyer" because that will find all the cases where income tax lawyers were taken to court for cheating on their income taxes. Now, if I were an income tax lawyer, I'd use the smartest way I'd know of to weasel my way out of paying my fair share of income tax because I'd consider that if I got caught, that would provide me with the greatest chance of convincing the judge that I'm right, and the less experienced lawyer prosecuting me is wrong.

On Apr 6, 9:42*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:41*pm, Oren wrote:





On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:42 pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:
Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

The other side of that is not telling enough and getting sued even
if you win the lawsuit it will cost big bucks and lots of
stress.......

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout *from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! *It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. * And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. * And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. *Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. *Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. *The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. *I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. * The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. *They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. *He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

well if you had a choice would you like to be sued? and even if you
win theres still lawyers fees.... they can amount to thousands...

all easily prevented by disclosure... hey the sewer has backed up a
few times roto rooter cleared them

now I live in pittsburgha very hilly area with freeze thaw cycles that
make the ground move, two old friends do backhoe work, they report
lines deeper around here to minimize earth movement and breaking
lines.. Its very common to see a dig around here with those heavy
steel plates supported by heavy steel rods holding them apart, to keep
ditches from collapsing.

my neighborhood water line is 6 foot deep, its broken a few times and
it gets fixed... my dads water line in phoenix is just a foot deep at
best.,.

it all depends on where you live

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:08:51 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Apr 6, 9:42*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:41*pm, Oren wrote:





On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:42 pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:54:20 -0500, deadrat wrote:
Some people have a problem providing too much disclosure.

This is another ding, ding DING moment folks.

The other side of that is not telling enough and getting sued even
if you win the lawsuit it will cost big bucks and lots of
stress.......

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout *from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! *It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. * And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. * And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. *Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. *Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. *The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. *I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. * The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. *They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. *He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

well if you had a choice would you like to be sued? and even if you
win theres still lawyers fees.... they can amount to thousands...


.... some body nudge him. Bob is stuck on being sued..

all easily prevented by disclosure... hey the sewer has backed up a
few times roto rooter cleared them


Did the law require you to disclose a sewer back up?

now I live in pittsburgha very hilly area with freeze thaw cycles that
make the ground move, two old friends do backhoe work, they report
lines deeper around here to minimize earth movement and breaking
lines.. Its very common to see a dig around here with those heavy
steel plates supported by heavy steel rods holding them apart, to keep
ditches from collapsing.


True

my neighborhood water line is 6 foot deep, its broken a few times and
it gets fixed... my dads water line in phoenix is just a foot deep at
best.,.

it all depends on where you live

We get it.

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout *from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! *It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.

I've been through this property disclosure at least seven times. I'm
kickin'. No beans off my plate.

On 4/6/13 3:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.

No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit. If
you allege specific harm to yourself, you have standing to sue. That
doesn't mean your case has enough merit to survive summary dismissal on
other grounds.

I've been through this property disclosure at least seven times. I'm
kickin'. No beans off my plate.

On Apr 6, 4:52*pm, deadrat wrote:
On 4/6/13 3:40 PM, Oren wrote:





On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Tell what you know, Bob. Tell what your local laws require. Don't
shout *from every roof top every single abstract detail. Dang! *It
really is easy if your hair is not on fire. I do not live under threat
of being sued, by anybody, ever, period.

I did once get sued for brutality by a Nigerian Prince. There was
nothing brutal about his ass-kickin'.

neither of which are good for anyone.

Sigh

Bob seems to think that anyone threatening a lawsuit is worse
than the grim reaper and that anyone actually filing a suit against
you
is the end of the world. * And on that basis, if you're going to sell
a house, you must fix everything and anything that a potential
buyer might object to or one day sue you over.

So, you could pay to fix 10 things that cost $10K each on
the chance that one day they could result in a buyer coming
back to you demanding payment for something. * And that
something might still not be on the list of things you did fix.
And I think we're on the same page, that if that person comes
back and says, it cost me $12K to put in a new sewer, you
could just pay it then;. *Or offer to pay $8K of it, etc. *Yeah, I
guess there is the pathological case, where the sewer clogs
up, the dummies living there continue to flush the toilet,
filling the basement up with 7 feet of sewage, grandma opens the
basement door, falls in and drowns, the house develops mold
and is condemned, but it doesn't sound like the more common
outcome to me. *The more common thing would be they have
a problem, they fix it, they shell out the money, then try to recover
what it actually cost to fix from you, the seller.

And again I'll issue the disclaimer that I'm not saying that
you should not disclose the sewer issue. *I'm just saying that
living in fear of some mega lawsuit doesn't make sense to me.
It's going to be mighty hard to turn a blocked sewer line into some
huge lawsuit. * The plaintiff has to prove actual damages, ie what
they really spent to fix it. *They can't just show up in court
saying pay me $100K. *He also thinks lawyers take these cases
on a contigency basis and I doubt that is true for the typical
sewer clogged up case.

I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
case has to have a leg to stand *on or it is tossed.

No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit. *If
you allege specific harm to yourself, you have standing to sue. *That
doesn't mean your case has enough merit to survive summary dismissal on
other grounds.





I've been through this property disclosure at least seven times. I'm
kickin'. No beans off my plate.

anyone can sue anyone for any reason. but even a lawsuit brought
against you that has little viability can cost legal fees, and perhaps
hurting your reputation in the community....

while it may get tossed eventually it can still be a big hassle that
costs large sums of money.....

but hey dont disclose, your paying legal fees does not effect me at
all....

when i was a child my family sold a home with a collapsing wall, you
could put your hand outside from in the basement the bow was that bad.
the new owner had to fix it......

if that happened today my family would of been sued....

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:52:57 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.

No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit.

I thought I said exactly that. Without standing, it can or will be
tossed out the doors of the court house.

On 4/6/13 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:52:57 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I think the court's legal term is you have to have "standing". The
case has to have a leg to stand on or it is tossed.

No, "standing" means that you have the legal ability to bring suit.

I thought I said exactly that.

Not quite.

Without standing, it can or will be
tossed out the doors of the court house.

There are many reasons why suits can be "tossed out the doors" (which I
take to mean before the merits of the case get heard). Failure to state
an actionable claim, collateral estoppel, incorrect jurisdiction come to
mind. These are all different from lacking standing.