Posted on 01/08/2014 5:09:05 PM PST by nickcarraway
She didn’t sue the neighbor, just the realtor. She never even called the cops on him from the article.
The worst that can happen to her is that she’ll have to pay her legal fees.
At best she’ll win damages etc.
As someone said above “You can’t win if you don’t play!”, she’s facing a small cost versus a large payout.
I think she’s just fluffy-headed and not venal, but who knows.
That website jacked up my browser.
Good points. I asked my daughter--a reporter in Philly--to look into it.
Did it take the wheels off too?
Nah, I’ve only got cheap rims.
“Phoenix’s complaint names Potter but not as a defendant. “
Owwww…… That is truly interesting.
If she named him as a defendant, then it opens the case up to legal discovery by him and his lawyer. And it opens up her for return lawsuits.
Without him as a defendant, then they are dead end complaints that have no weight behind them, or affect on the person she is complaining about.
They are complaints that lead to nothing beyond laying the groundwork for the bigger lawsuit against the company. Yes it looks like a well orchestrated attempt to get some easy money with the help of her relatives.
Based on that Mail Online article, it seems that both sides might be telling the truth - they each probably see themselves as being victimized - she by her neighbor, and he by the landscaper and her.
But, I don’t see how she has a case against the developer. No one is legally obligated to warn you that a neighbor is cantankerous, especially not in this state where she lives (unless the law changed and I didn’t hear about it).
It must vary from state to state. I saw something a couple weeks ago where a Californian sued and won becuase the previous owner failed to disclose nuisance dog barking in the neighborhood.
Is it the developer’s fault that he didn’t know the neighbor was a card carrying KKK member racist?
Not what I read, what you say.
“She probably thought all white people cower obsequiously in the face of strong women of color.”
The developer did know the neighbor was trouble. They had in fact stopped providing services to his home because he had threatened their own workers.
If the developer had no prior knowledge themselves, I’d say they would not have concealed anything. But they did. It’s like covering up and conealing physical problems with the house so a person will buy it. anywhere in the country this is illegal.
I’m surprised to hear that. I can understand that buyers need to know everything about the house/property that they’re buying, but not about annoying neighbors or pets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.