Nevada Court Cancels Big Construction Defect Award

December 20, 2005

  • December 21, 2005 at 11:05 am
    Cindy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The plaintiffs already won this case and to have to try 200 cases again seperately essentially means the homeowners won\’t be able to get lawyers because, individually, the cases won\’t be worth enough to interest law firms. They won and a judge wiped out that victory, which highly favors a builder who built at least these 200 homes wrong. This is a travesty of justice, and is all too much a reflection of what kind of \”justice\” most homeowners can expect when cheated by a home builder. It is a total MYTH that homeowners file frivolous construction defect suits and win huge awards. This kind of outcome is more like reality where even winners go home empty handed, or worse.

  • March 7, 2007 at 2:49 am
    Jesse says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Homeowners are often convinced that filing suit is their only or best option, even when they don\’t have problems with their homes. They are told that if they \”don\’t file, they could lose their chance forever\”, and that \”just because they haven\’t noticed a problem doesn\’t mean it doesn\’t exist\”, and \”what\’s the worst that could happen, you could get some money for a vacation.\”

    Class actions are only proper when number of plaintiffs is too large to handle otherwise. Also, the fact that land is unique lends itself to not allowing the use of class actions for alleged construction defect cases.

  • March 8, 2007 at 4:49 am
    Cindy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    200 cases IS too many to be practical to handle individually. Also, if a builder routinely does things the same way, then it is logical that each house will have the same defects. Omission of materials is a common one. Many new houses lack window flashing, \”kickout\” flashing, roofing felt is applied wrong or not at all, brick is wrong, grading wrong, etc, etc.

    Builders who build houses wrong, and won\’t voluntarily make things right, deserve to be sued. That is what the civil courts are for. Blaming the consumer doesn\’t change the fact that there are a lot of defectively built new houses out there that are rotting from the inside out because they LEAK.

    I volunteer for a consumer organization and we have never seen anyone file a suit just for the heck of it. Most are terrified of litigation. Most are prevented from suing by builders\’ arbitration clauses. FEW can afford to sue!

    By the time we hear from homeowners, they\’ve been trying for months or years to get the builder to fix defects that should never have happened in the first place. They\’be been stonewalled all that time, then the builder cries \”sue happy\” when someone tries to hold them accountable. BTW…Most of the homeowners we deal with have NOT filed suit, nor do they want to.

    When I asked our local builders association to show me some of the cases, which should be public record, that they said were numerous and frivolous, they could not show me ONE SINGLE CASE. I on the other hand, had documentation to back up my points.

    In the few years I\’ve been involved in this I\’ve seen major fraud cases where builders were also committing mortgage fraud. I\’ve seen builders fined by the federal govt for predatory lending, not honoring warranties, and for violating an FTC order regarding abusive arbitration practices. I\’ve seen families lose everything due to a bad builder. Many complaints are hidden, especially in private arbitration. Home buyers who are not online such as many seniors, cannot possibly do adequate research before buying.

    I sure DON\’T have sympathy for the industry when I can see hundreds of houses by the same builder in one small area that all DO have the same defects. Builders who do that should be charged with consumer fraud. That their industry protects them at all costs is despicable.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*