RRjackson wrote on September 15, 2008 11:41 AM: that builder statement:
"confirms that there were few issues with the homes and illustrates the unfortunate risk homeowners sometimes take in responding to solicitations from trial lawyers instead of working with their home builder." is misleading.

I tried working with my builder and they told me to just try and sue them, because they wouldn't do anything to help otherwise. That is far more common, because I couldn't sue, as it turned out.

Having such a large project riddled with sporadic defects, even with that settlement, was still cost effective for the builder's bottom line.

The ruling just tells the builder go on and half azz build houses when they feel like it, IMO.

But sure, this was better than most outcomes for defective home victims. The plaintiff's attorney likely couldn't reply as a result of the gag order the builder typically forces into the settlement agreement.

That let the builder put only their spin on the matter, which was misleading. Had these people not joined forces with an attorney, even as individuals, and instead worked with the builder, likely nothing would have been resolved at all.

Chances are they already had worked with the builder, and that's why they went to a lawyer.

SES wrote on September 15, 2008 05:56 AM: 'working with the builder' is not as easy as it looks in words. Homeowners strive to work out issues but the builder balks, procrastinates and demeans the homeowner. It must be in the homebuilder's book of play that builders will state the homeowner won't let them in, won't let them do the repairs. Unfortunately this is a game that is played by builders. They try to cloud the issue. If they talk about everything else not germane, the main issue gets lost. The loser is the homeowner. The homeowner just wants to live in a house that was guaranteed by the sales agreement that it was defect free upon closing - and it wasn't. Even though this wasn't a large settlement (by tort standards), it is a start AND it is proof of shoddy construction. The courts are finally putting the hammer down on builders who are biting the hand that feeds them. The 4 to 5 class action suits pending will pay attention to this verdict and act accordingly.

If someone lives in this builder's house and it is perfect, that is wonderful. However, those that live in a house that was built using shoddy construction methods can't say the same. One must stand in their shoes to understand. Would YOU want to live in a house that is falling down around you? I doubt it.

http://justanotherlemon.com/CCFL/pulte.htm

http://camplemonadestand.com

http://HADD.com

http://HOBB.org

Cindy wrote on September 12, 2008 01:57 PM: Nearly every builder claims the homeowner didn't try to work with them about defects before suing, but I am with a consumer org and we see this as a common EXCUSE. Most homeowners try for weeks, months, even sometimes years, to get a builder to fix defects. The mistake many homeowners make is in not documenting those attempts. If there is no proof, builders can claim they were never notified or were not given a chance to repair. Whole laws have been passed based on this ridiculous and often false claim, laws that help builders and hurt homeowners. Also, lawyers who try to get homeowners with the same construction/builder into one effort to hold a builder accountable are not necessarily predators. A case like this is a lot of work. Doing only an individual case here and there is not profitable to law firms, so they often reject individual cases. Banding together, (class action or not), makes it more efficient, and makes it more POSSIBLE for the homeowners to even get a lawyer and pursue a case. So many builder contracts and warranty policies prevent buyers from suing at all, due to mandatory binding arbitration clauses that favor the builder/warranty co, that the few lawsuits are the tip of the iceberg. Construction defects are common and shortcuts become almost industry wide because it's so hard for the individual to get compensation. Don't be so quick to assume these homeowners were sue-happy or trying to profit either. I bet most lost money, even the ones that "won." In some states you can't even recover legal fees in a civil case. Reality is far from tort reform propaganda, folks.