Couple Win Lawsuit Against Developer - Concord Monitor 5/5/08
A Canterbury couple who bought a house for $377,500 in 2005 to find a faulty driveway, a leaky roof, a dry well and no central air as advertised have won $185,000 from a Merrimack County jury to remedy the deficiencies.
The case, already more than two years old, isn’t quite over. But Hope Ralph said the money and the vindication meant a great deal to her and her husband, Tom.
“It’s a great relief to see that the system works,” Hope said. “To tell the truth, stand your ground and go forward and people will believe you.”
The Ralphs filed their lawsuit in Merrimack County Superior Court nearly 2½ years ago after moving into the home at 139 Intervale Road and discovering what they described as endless and expensive problems. The heating system was so improperly installed that Eastern Propane investigated at the town’s request and shut off the gas, according to their lawsuit.
“Every time they thought they would have a handle on dealing with the problem, something else would go wrong,” said attorney Edward Philpot of Laconia, who represented the couple.
At one point, the couple’s 2-year-old son got his head stuck between balusters on the staircase because they had been improperly spaced, Philpot said. Hope Ralph freed the boy by sawing off the baluster, he said.
In their lawsuit, the couple asked to back out of their contract with the home’s builder, Joseph Harnois of Epsom. They also wanted their down payment back as well as reimbursement for attorneys fees and money they spent fixing the most obvious problems.
The couple also sued Harnois’s wife and their real estate company, Coldwell Banker Culbertson Realty, and Premium Home Inspections, the Auburn company that inspected the home. After mediation and settlement talks failed, the parties spent the last two weeks of April in court, arguing their positions to a jury.
Jurors returned a verdict for the Ralphs and awarded them $185,000 to repair the home to the condition they were told it was in when they bought it.
The award broke down this way: Joseph and Lori Hanois were ordered to pay the couple $167,000 for the majority of the home’s problems. Coldwell Banker Culbertson Realty was assessed $17,500 for driveway repairs, Philpot said, because someone from that company had assured the Ralphs there were no problems with the driveway. And Premium Home Inspections must pay $435, which is what company owner Dominic Scuderi charged the Ralphs to inspect the home.
The couple did not get attorneys fees, Philpot said, because jurors found they did not have a claim to justify them. Philpot didn’t ask jurors for a specific dollar amount but provided evidence that the Ralphs paid $187,000 more than they should have given the problems.
Both Philpot and the Ralphs were pleased with the jury’s award, they said.
Attorney Barry Scotch of Manchester, who represents the Harnoises, is considering an appeal but first intends to address some legal questions with post-trial motions.
The Harnoises lived in the Canterbury home before they sold it to the Ralphs and experienced none of the problems the Ralphs described in their lawsuit, Scotch said.
“It was a gorgeous house, and everyone who looked at it said so,” Scotch said. “The (Ralphs) had ample opportunity to look around and bring in a home inspector. Everything was obvious.”
Scotch said the Ralphs had notice that the home had no central air. The control panels were installed, but a pre-closing appraisal report disclosed the absence of a system, he said. And while the Harnoises were living at the home, the roof didn’t leak and the well supplied plenty of water, Scotch said.
Nor did the couple experience a problem with the driveway, Scotch said. So when their Realtor was asked if the steep driveway was troublesome, the Realtor had no reason to think it was.
The $185,000 awarded to the Ralphs isn’t theirs until the case is resolved, and it won’t be immediately. The couple still have the option of asking to back out of the contract and recoup their down payment. If they choose to invest the time and legal fees into that claim, it would be decided by a judge, not a jury. And if they won, the Ralphs would have to choose between keeping the house and the $185,000 to remedy its problems or leaving the house and their contract.
Hope Ralph said last week that she and her husband have not had time to consider their next step.
The legal fight has already brought strain to their lives, she said. Tom left his job with the state attorney general’s office for a better-paying job in Massachusetts to help with expenses, she said. The downside is that Tom’s commute keeps him away much of the day, even week sometimes.
“That was never part of our plan” when we moved to Canterbury, Hope Ralph said.
This experience has convinced the Ralphs that the state needs to begin regulating and monitoring home builders and home inspectors. Philpot, who has represented several clients in situations similar to the Ralphs’, has thought the same thing for ages.
“I have to tell you, unfortunately, I see dozens of these cases,” Philpot said. “They are everywhere, and there are far too many of them.” Even the builders he represents have begun to agree.
“They are good at what they do, and they say people are taking business away from them,” Philpot said. “There are too many good builders in the state for this to be happening.”
Lawmakers have tried repeatedly to pass regulation for home builders and inspectors only to have it shot down. There were similar bills proposed last year and this year, and both failed to garner enough support.
Scotch cautioned against reading this case as evidence of problems in the contracting world.
“I don’t think it’s a policy statement,” he said. “I think this is like anything we do in life. If you are going to check things out, check things out. Regulation does not guarantee quality. Just look at legal malpractice cases or medical malpractice cases.”
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080505/FRONTPAGE/805050302
In my opinion, Mr. Scotch is full of B.S. The State of New Hampshire’s motto is right on our license plates: “Live Free or Die”, and the NH Legislature would rather you did die than to pass laws protecting consumers from fraudulent builders, tradesman, and even, yes, building inspectors. See WMUR TV article about 5-year old Amelia Luhrman, who was killed in a gas explosion in her home, that was caused by a negligent contractor:
http://www.wmur.com/news/4700929/detail.html
Just this morning, I inspected the HVAC systems in a condominium development, and none of them would have passed National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, nor State of New Hampshire Energy standards, yet the local inspector approve the buildings for occupancy! Imagine that, you don’t need a license to install these systems, and the local code enforcement officials don’t need to be licensed either! Many of these inspectors don’t even know what they are looking at, yet approve these unsafe and inefficient installations.
Mr. Scotch needs to have his head examined! I feel for the consumer. - John Rocheleau
Tags: Fraud, Hope & Tom Ralph Case, HVAC Expert Witness, Merrimack Cty. Superior Court
May 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Let me get this straight, the inspector that was hired and did not catch vital material facts about the home is only responsible for the fee paid to him? If the inspector would have done his/her job the buyers probably would not have purchased the home.
Hiring a home inspector is worthless.