| Copyright 2005-2007 All Rights Reserved Charles E. Marunde & FreeRealEstateLaw.com |
In typical civil
litigation, everyone
loses. Ask anyone
who has litigated
and "won" their
case, and they will
tell you they still feel
like they were raked
over the coals. Our
justice system is a
real nightmare for
anyone who gets
caught by it.
Practice preventive
law!
litigation, everyone
loses. Ask anyone
who has litigated
and "won" their
case, and they will
tell you they still feel
like they were raked
over the coals. Our
justice system is a
real nightmare for
anyone who gets
caught by it.
Practice preventive
law!
| Mold & Mildew Litigation |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I represented a Plaintiff who purchased a house that was full of high levels of mold
and mildew. While this kind of litigation is resulting in huge judgments in California
and Texas and elsewhere, in Washington judges don't know what standard to use to
make their decisions.
The Plaintiff purchased his home and moved in. He was a bachelor, but would have
friends come over to play cards and get visits from his granddaughter. Coughing,
sneezing, runny noses and itchy eyes triggered questions by the Plaintiff until he
decided to hire an expert from the Seattle area to take samples and get lab results.
The experts testimony at court was that after 14 years of doing this kind of testing in
Washington, this home rated in the 97th percentile of the most polluted homes in the
State. The Sellers had made changes to the heating and circulation system that
were not according to design and installation specifications. The crawl space acted
as the plenum for the forced air, but the design called for a concrete floor. The
Sellers used only vis queen on a the dirt ground. The mold built up throughout the
house to very high levels, which would have required very expensive cleaning and
replacement to make it inhabitable. The Sellers had not disclosed this to the Buyer
and so it was misrepresentation and fraud.
The judge granted judgment in favor of the Defendant Sellers based on his decision
that every human being is different, and that there are no medical standards that
define what is unacceptable or dangerous. After the judgment, the Seller had a
problem, he had to sell the house and disclose the mold problem, but who would
want to buy it then? The judge ruled that the Plaintiff had to pay his own attorney's
fees as well as Defendant's attorney's fees based on the Purchase & Sale
Agreement attorney's fees clause.
and mildew. While this kind of litigation is resulting in huge judgments in California
and Texas and elsewhere, in Washington judges don't know what standard to use to
make their decisions.
The Plaintiff purchased his home and moved in. He was a bachelor, but would have
friends come over to play cards and get visits from his granddaughter. Coughing,
sneezing, runny noses and itchy eyes triggered questions by the Plaintiff until he
decided to hire an expert from the Seattle area to take samples and get lab results.
The experts testimony at court was that after 14 years of doing this kind of testing in
Washington, this home rated in the 97th percentile of the most polluted homes in the
State. The Sellers had made changes to the heating and circulation system that
were not according to design and installation specifications. The crawl space acted
as the plenum for the forced air, but the design called for a concrete floor. The
Sellers used only vis queen on a the dirt ground. The mold built up throughout the
house to very high levels, which would have required very expensive cleaning and
replacement to make it inhabitable. The Sellers had not disclosed this to the Buyer
and so it was misrepresentation and fraud.
The judge granted judgment in favor of the Defendant Sellers based on his decision
that every human being is different, and that there are no medical standards that
define what is unacceptable or dangerous. After the judgment, the Seller had a
problem, he had to sell the house and disclose the mold problem, but who would
want to buy it then? The judge ruled that the Plaintiff had to pay his own attorney's
fees as well as Defendant's attorney's fees based on the Purchase & Sale
Agreement attorney's fees clause.
