Re: Mauriice Murphy , 109,500 miles Bike to Work
Posted by Rem Dude on 3/04/10
Sharon, just because you’re ignorant to the facts and have no industry experience does
not make your uninformed assumption correct. Are you so myopic and dense to believe that
every lease dispute winds up in court?
Intentional negligence, as it is commonly referred to in the multi-family industry, is a
common practice in order to break leases. Turn off the HVAC system, run the shower for a
few days, buildup relative humidity, let the mold take off, start coughing and hacking,
call in the city inspectors and health inspectors and presto, you’re out of your lease.
Rather than regurgitating your uninformed opinion on all matters, you should first gain
a modicum of knowledge. Your title of village idiot is not attractive my dear.
On 3/04/10, Sharon wrote:
> I read mold litigation summaries all the time. There is no doubt alot of scammers in
> the remediation field. But, I have seen no cases of criminal activity by people
> putting wet towels, etc. to fabricate a mold claim. Perhaps you can enlighten us with
> evidence of this epidemic aka Urban Legend.
> Your citing to Sam Zell's Equity Residential as a definative source of accurate and
> scientific info over the mold issue, is pretty funny. Some day, I will let you in on
> the inside joke...."My Dear".
> On 3/03/10, Rem Dude wrote:
>> Right, in all your years as a remediation contractor and insurance investigator...
>> Just because you sit behind a computer stalking for a living, doesn’t mean you have
>> a clue about what happens in the field my dear. It is a common practice and it goes
>> on every day. Simply call up any large multi-family property owner like Equity
>> Residential out of Chicago and you will understand the folly of your statement.
>> Forming an opinion based upon “perception and plausibility” is the definition of
>> On 3/03/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> "In the early years there were individuals that would cook houses to
>>> rapidy develop mold conditions by soaking carpets, sealing doors, and
>>> walls. The litigation at that time was mold was gold. Fraud was being
>>> I have NEVER seen documentation of a single lawsuit in which the above was proven
>>> to have occurred. I think the above is urban legend that was mass marketed to make
>>> the "innocent" insurance industry appear to be the victims of greedy, unscrupulous
>>> people. Is there documentation somewhere of a legal proceeding in which the above
>>> was proven to have occurred?
>>> On 3/02/10, Deborah wrote:
>>>> So if the owner fails to disclose known damages to a prospective renter who has
>>>> informed owner of pre-existing health conditions, some one has breached contract.
>>>> If damage occurs whilst the tenant is occupying it and the landlord refuses to
>>>> properly repair or remediate, the tenant can either pay out of pocket for repair
>>>> and seek reimbursement, perhaps having to litigate over it, or move out.
>>>> If the tenant is ill but unaware of defects in the premise causing the illness
>>>> their responsibility to inform the owner cannot be triggered. Only at the point of
>>>> knowledge of the defect does that begin.
>>>> Why are you now deviating into proscriptive periods and statutes of limitation?
>>>> On 3/02/10, johncodie wrote:
>>>>> Maintaing a property is the responsibility of the owner as is the failure to
>>>>> maintain or failure to inform of defects. The standard is higher if the
>>>>> property is put up for lease than if the owner uses it themselves; when it
>>>>> is put up for residential lease, there is an unspoken and implied warranty
>>>>> of habitability.
>>>>> There are two standards; and under the present laws the renter and the
>>>>> landlord are by law to establish a standard of occupancy that both are willing
>>>>> to abide. The renter has full right to inspection prior to occupancy, and
>>>>> testing as required. The renter has the right to make notice of deficiencies
>>>>> and amend deficienceis to accomodate. The renter is not forced to confinment
>>>>> as is a prisoner. The landlord is not forced to bring accomodations up to a
>>>>> renters standards of health. The law is clear that the dwelling does not have
>>>>> to be preceived as perfect; not is the minimum occupancy requirements
>>>>> limited. The key here is the two individuals are governed by a peer review.
>>>>> This makes litigation after a period of five years, or a single year for mold
>>>>> illness very difficult to win.
>>>>> The premis is mold is not gold, to harbor and keep safe, it is to abandon. A
>>>>> person that claims to have been gravely unknowingly affected to be able to
>>>>> explain why their alergic response upon first occupancy was not triggered.
>>>>> Don't expect a landlord to be a monitor of your health. You acquire the right
>>>>> to privacy even when ill. Once occupied you have assumed the partnership, of
>>>>> notification. "The Landlord is not forced to bring accomodations up to a
>>>>> renters standards of health once given the opportunity for inspection.
Posts on this thread, including this one