Litigation, Who Has War Stories?

[Concrete Helmet]

BTW my legal experiences have all gone well so far knock on wood.....Lots of massages and I found after going through a half dozen MRI's I kind of like the hypotonic hum of being trapped in that tube for 30 minutes or so.

Professionally I had to threaten to beat the livin sh!t out of a HR manager once when leaving a job when he brought up a non compete issue that wasn't one in my mind....he dropped his case pretty quickly when I turned his desk over on top of him....

 

[Gatordiddy]

Have you ever seen the opening barroom gunfight scene from Waterhole #3? James Coburn is my idea of fair fighting duelist.

I haven’t- been looking for it on YouTube

 

[URGatorBait]

Bunch of friggin ambulance chasers

 

[B52G8rAC]

I haven’t- been looking for it on YouTube

Short synopsis. Never take a pistol to a rifle fight.

 

[Alumni Guy]

Litigations is very expensive and usually counter-productive.

At the initial consultation, the prospective client always says it's not about the money, it's about the principle.

Couple months of $20K/mo. legal bills and guess what...it's about the money.

So here's the problems...

1. Even if you're right and the other guy is wrong, if the other guy has deeper pockets, he can still beat you (unless it is a contingency fee case which generally only happens in personal injury). This is a dirty little secret of litigation and the wealthy can win even if the poor has a rock-solid case. As long as the wealthy can survive past an early motion to dismiss or summary judgement, he can run up legal fees during discovery until he's bled you white and you have no more money to continue the fight. This is particularly heartbreaking.

2. If there's no prevailing party fees provision, even if you win, your litigation costs shrink your recovery. Say you have a slam dunk of a $200K case. If you spend $100K on your attorney, you really only recover $100K so overall you're in the hole $100K. Of course, you could lose the case too.

3. If there is a prevailing party fees provision, you rapidly reach the point where the combined fees exceed the damages. When that happens...you can't settle without both sides losing which means you can't settle. Then it becomes a death march to the end, fees keep rising, winner take all, but that leads to...

4. A judgement in your favor is nothing more than a piece of paper. You can get $1M judgement against me, and it's not worth much of anything. My homestead is protected, my retirement is protected, my car is protected, my salary is mostly protected (got dependents), etc. What's worse, I can file for bankruptcy and you'll get even less. All that fighting, all that litigation, all those legal fees, and in the end you win big, you get all your damages and all your attorney's fees and the other guy turns around the next day and files for bankruptcy. Whomp-Whomp.

Sometimes, the best advice is to settle early before the fees make settlement impossible. You have to do enough litigation so both sides know what the case is really worth (otherwise settlement negotiations will be a waste of time).

A young attorney advising a client focuses on the facts of the case, and whether the facts and the law are on the client's side. A seasoned attorney also takes into account things like deep pockets, likelihood of recovery (or bankruptcy), etc.


Alex.

This x 1,000. Especially when it becomes a “fee driven case” (collection of attys fees exceeds any damages). Very difficult to settle those.

You’re right: A good attorney should should warn you at the initial consult it will turn into a few driven case. A bad attorney won’t know it until it’s too late. But, an evil attorney will know it will be one a fees driven case but won’t tell you, because they want the fees.

Be careful, there are A LOT of lawyers who will deceivingly file a fees driven case for you, then make up some BS excuse a few months later about unexpected events or a judges bad ruling. They deserve to go to hell.

Always get at least 2 legal opinions before going to court. You’re better off going to the hospital than getting trapped in a bad law suit.

 

[CDGator]

Good thread and I appreciate reading the advice and experience.

 

[Gulfstream]

Bunch of friggin ambulance chasers

Very shortsighted of you to say this.




oops, wrong thread.

 

[Alumni Guy]

Interesting. How was the contract written for the purchase of the house? How can you be sure the prior owner was responsible for installing the flooring? Was there any kind of verbal or written acknowledgement? Was it sold as is?

In Florida, Unless waived, there’s an obligation of a seller to disclose latent defects (those that can’t be seen upon inspection) in a residential property sale

We have continuous flooring throughout home, except for the dining room where there was cheap laminate clearly laid on top of the flooring. He had glued on cheap laminate in the dining room that started coming up a month after we bought it.

Underneath the laminate was a huge hole in the continuous flooring. He glued some crap over it to hide the hole. You can see his crappy glue job below.

 

[URGatorBait]

Very shortsighted of you to say this.




oops, wrong thread.

Why you gotta be like dat doh?

 

[Concrete Helmet]

In Florida, Unless waived, there’s an obligation of a seller to disclose latent defects (those that can’t be seen upon inspection) in a residential property sale

We have continuous flooring throughout home, except for the dining room where there was cheap laminate clearly laid on top of the flooring. He had glued on cheap laminate in the dining room that started coming up a month after we bought it.

Underneath the laminate was a huge hole in the continuous flooring. He glued some crap over it to hide the hole. You can see his crappy glue job below.

View attachment 53835

Yeah I'm pretty familiar with FARBAR but I've often wondered how far down the rabbit hole you can go with that(proving time and knowledge).....there is just so many variables and circumstances involved with real property and then intent, ignorance and so forth. Sorry about your luck though...that sucks.

 

[Alumni Guy]

Yeah I'm pretty familiar with FARBAR but I've often wondered how far down the rabbit hole you can go with that(proving time and knowledge).....there is just so many variables and circumstances involved with real property and then intent, ignorance and so forth. Sorry about your luck though...that sucks.

Yup, you touched on the hardest part of proving the latent defect case. The seller had to have “actual knowledge of the defect”. It’s tough to prove a person actually knew of a defect:

So, ignorance actually can be a valid defense. You see it a lot in nondisclosed termite damages.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

Yup, you touched on the hardest part of proving the latent defect case. The seller had to have “actual knowledge of the defect”. It’s tough to prove a person actually knew of a defect:

So, ignorance actually can be a valid defense. You see it a lot in nondisclosed termite damages.

I think in some cases people "hide" behind Realtors for that exact reason when selling that way they don't stick their foot in their mouth about any unpermitted repairs or alterations or be put on the spot about them. How would it play out if there was a verbal communication about such an event? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Alumni Guy]

How would it play out if there was a verbal communication about such an event?

Not sure about the question, but if you are talking about the seller’s agent discussing latent defects with the seller, and not disclosing to the buyer, now the agent and his agency are just as liable as the seller.

That conversation, if proven (very difficult to prove what was said orally) is GREAT evidence to prove actual knowledge.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Yeah I'm pretty familiar with FARBAR but I've often wondered how far down the rabbit hole you can go with that(proving time and knowledge).....there is just so many variables and circumstances involved with real property and then intent, ignorance and so forth. Sorry about your luck though...that sucks.

Johnson v. Davis

Hard to prove, but the cover-up can be good evidence.


Alex.

 

[Gatordiddy]

I think in some cases people "hide" behind Realtors for that exact reason when selling that way they don't stick their foot in their mouth about any unpermitted repairs or alterations or be put on the spot about them. How would it play out if there was a verbal communication about such an event? Just out of curiosity.

This is exactly why I get kicked out of the house any time we had a house showing.
I’m Mr. Blabbermouth and am like a cocker spaniel…”ooh, let me show you how I tore up all of the subfloor in here” or… “man, I really should have known better than to use 14 wire on a 20 amp circuit!”
I’m the guy that needs Dr. Rick

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Litigations is very expensive and usually counter-productive.

At the initial consultation, the prospective client always says it's not about the money, it's about the principle.

Couple months of $20K/mo. legal bills and guess what...it's about the money.

I learned a very long time ago that when somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money.

 

[B52G8rAC]

This is exactly why I get kicked out of the house any time we had a house showing.
I’m Mr. Blabbermouth and am like a cocker spaniel…”ooh, let me show you how I tore up all of the subfloor in here” or… “man, I really should have known better than to use 14 wire on a 20 amp circuit!”
I’m the guy that needs Dr. Rick

You just described my bride. She would talk about things we had permitted and repaired years ago.

 

[B52G8rAC]

I really don't have a personal story about lawyers or litigation. The only times I have dealt with a lawyer was for wills. However, I had a Major who worked for me whose wife decided she loved her boss more than him, after 23 years of marriage, and hired a divorce lawyer. She wanted the house, the kids, the savings account and half his salary and retirement pay. He of course eventually had to hire a lawyer in self defense. He contested everything and after 18 months or so, the couple had zero assets. His performance at work was adversely affected and a guy who was a hero (special ops helicopter pilot) got passed over for Lieutenant Colonel. Of course the retirement pay thing was settled by Congress, they had to sell the house to pay the lawyers, the kids were 16+ by then and chose who and when to stay with. The wife married her boss, who turned out to have been bled in his divorce, and stayed with him less than 5 years. The Major retired at 20, married again and went to work for the school system. That was 25 years ago and he is still married. Guess who the only parties in this drama are that benefitted financially?

 

[Alumni Guy]

I really don't have a personal story about lawyers or litigation. The only times I have dealt with a lawyer was for wills. However, I had a Major who worked for me whose wife decided she loved her boss more than him, after 23 years of marriage, and hired a divorce lawyer. She wanted the house, the kids, the savings account and half his salary and retirement pay. He of course eventually had to hire a lawyer in self defense. He contested everything and after 18 months or so, the couple had zero assets. His performance at work was adversely affected and a guy who was a hero (special ops helicopter pilot) got passed over for Lieutenant Colonel. Of course the retirement pay thing was settled by Congress, they had to sell the house to pay the lawyers, the kids were 16+ by then and chose who and when to stay with. The wife married her boss, who turned out to have been bled in his divorce, and stayed with him less than 5 years. The Major retired at 20, married again and went to work for the school system. That was 25 years ago and he is still married. Guess who the only parties in this drama are that benefitted financially?

Divorce law is the ugliest area of law. There’s good money to be made in it for the lawyers, but everyone in divorce court is miserable: the parties, lawyers, even the judges.

It sure is expensive too: you know what the average cost of retaining a good divorce lawyer is? Not nearly as much as retaining a bad one.

 

[Detroitgator]

Divorce law is the ugliest area of law. There’s good money to be made in it for the lawyers, but everyone in divorce court is miserable: the parties, lawyers, even the judges.

It sure is expensive too: you know what the average cost of retaining a good divorce lawyer is? Not nearly as much as retaining a bad one.

Is that your billboard?