Fine Print Has Homeowners Scared To Discuss Damage

[genieroze]

Fine Print Has Homeowners Scared To Discuss Damage
Homeowner Says She Was Sued For Complaining About Damage

POSTED: 5:08 pm EST November 18, 2004
UPDATED: 7:58 am EST November 19, 2004
Homeowners say a Brevard County homebuilding company is bullying, threatening and even suing homeowners for complaining about inferior construction.

Video

Mercedes Homes
Fine Print Has Homeowners Scared To Discuss Damage
Download RealPlayer
A NewsChannel 2 investigation -- part of our Building Homes: Building Problems series -- found Mercedes Homes actually filed a lawsuit against a woman for telling her neighbors about severe leaks in her home.

Jay Ann Contardi couldn't imagine a problem any worse than the deluge of rainwater pouring into her leaking home. That is, until she ran afoul of the aggressive lawyers representing her builder, Mercedes Homes.

"It has changed my life. I'm afraid to talk to my neighbors. I'm afraid to walk my daughter to the bus stop. I'm afraid to talk to you right now," she told NewsChannel 2 reporter Dan Billow.

http://www.wesh.com/news/3931117/detail.html

[annabanana]

1. This reporter deserves some pats on the back.

It's not legal to insist that people sign away their first amendment rights, is it? Of course no.

How much can I get that the builders are BIG 'Pug donaters.

[johncoby2]

2. 1st and 7th amendment rights are signed away

7th amendment rights to a jury trial in a civil case is also removed in the contract. So you cant sue them either. You have to submit to mandatory binding arbitration which many believe is faster, cheaper and just as fair than the civil trial.

This is NOT the case, with arbitration under investigation in many states, especially in Texas.

John R. Cobarruvias
President HADD, Texas
Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings
www.hadd.com

[TahitiNut]

9. California has laws that specifically address this scam.

Such overreaches 'consumer contracts' are common. In California, you cannot agree (in a contract) to not exercise your Constitutional rights unless the signed agreement has a separate disclosure that specifically identifies the right being surrendered and you sign that separate disclosure/agreement. This is to prevent predatory companies from embedding such provisions in the fine print and obtaining the consumer's agreement without their awareness of that proviso.

[Nite Owl]

3. I can't help wondering

just how many of these folks voted for * and his brother. This is the that they want it to be, be afraid to stand up for anything, protect the corporation at all costs. Maybe things like this will wake people up to what they really mean by frivolous lawsuits.

[Walt Starr]

4. The contract is unconsionable on its face

and would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

It's scare tactics, nothing more.

[MisterP]

5. this happened in Texas under Chimpy:

"tort reform" made Tx. go from one of the most consumer-friendly to the least; no "lemon laws"--if your house sucks eggs, you can't do anything about it.

[genieroze]

6. Shouldn't someone send this to the ACLU

[gratuitous]

7. Oh sure, you all side with the wealthy homeowners

Some of those properties are valued in the five figures, and you're all jumping in to defend these wealthy homeowners and landed gentry who are trying to bring down a struggling entrepreneur! By golly, there are some cages opening up at Guantanamo for all you unamerican commies trying to stifle the small businessman!

I'll be wearing a white carnation when you get there. Bring a pinochle deck, please.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. You bet those lawyers will intimidate you.

Developer's lawyers, lawyers for insurance companies...and some of the things they tell common people can't possibly be ethical.

[BurtWorm]

10. Gods forbid you legitimately damage a company's rep in the community!

"It's not intended to be intimidating. What it's intended to do is to discourage a homeowner who may or may not have legitimate concerns from damaging the company's reputation in the community."

I've got an idea, you crummy Mercedes Homes bastards. Why not make well-constructed buildings instead of your shoddy Mercedes Homes company pieces of shit!

MERCEDES HOMES SUCK!! PASS IT ON!!

[jmowreader]

11. I've always been concerned about assembly-line builders

The sad thing is, this is a pretty common kind of contractor in the South. Mercedes I hadn't heard about, but Pulte I had, and naturally you've heard of Jim Walter.

Last year, my wife wanted to go out to the Jim Walter showlot in town and "look at the houses." They're pretty, don't get me wrong. But I glanced at the grade stamps on the studs--they were really good, number-one grade stuff. Oops. No one in the world uses number-one lumber--the absolute best, prettiest softwood lumber on the market--as studs because it's too expensive. I can't even GET studs that good. I've got some gorgeous Swedish studs on the floor--just fantastic lumber with no wane and very few knots, some of the nicest SPF I've ever dealt with--that's not number-one grade. You will probably never see number-one lumber; 99 percent of it goes to furniture factories. Studs are generally grade-three--ugly but perfectly good as studs. So I kinda ambled up to the second floor of this house and looked down into their lumber storage area--you guessed it, the lot was full of stud-grade lumber.

More atrocities: 2x4 studs in the first floor outside walls of a two-story house--code calls for 2x6 studs there because 2x4s won't support the weight. No ridge vents. No soffit vents. Not enough foundation vents. (They don't put the vents in the houses they build for customers either; we're doing a nice little business selling ventilation systems to Jim Walter customers.) Three-eighths-thick OSB roof decking, which not only just barely meets code but screws the customer in the future because most lumberyards don't have it that thin--my thinnest is half-inch, meaning that if you have to replace a sheet because the shitty "20 year shingles nailed down with 3/4" tacks and installed with no felt under them" roof job they did started leaking, you can either replace the whole roof deck or have a real obvious 4x8 lump in the middle of the roof. And not only do you NOT get gutters without paying extra, you don't even get water diverter over the doors--and a ten-foot hunk of water diverter, which will do two doors easily, costs six whole dollars.

Oh, I feel sorry for the poor girl who came to ask us if we had any questions..."yeah, I have a question--why are you misrepresenting the materials you put in your homes and selling homes that don't meet code?"

Needless to say, we didn't buy one.

[johncoby2]

12. Visit hadd.com for homebuilder nightmares

Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings.

This "shut up" clause made even the most conservative Senators in Texas cringe. The clause was put in deed restrictions, developed by the builders.

There is legislation probably coming out to prevent this from happening again.

Imagine, you have to make a law to guarantee your rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Only in America.