Re: Another Mold Settlement
Posted by ff on 11/27/07
Once again, you reveal your dis-satisfaction with life, yourself,
and your inability to behave in a civil manner.
Not a fragment, but part one.
Of course you wouldn't own a building like that, and why would I
argue with that, you see, that was not a fragment either, that was
OK, good info, you've got twenty years of education, training, and
experience gained while working on environmental and toxic tort
litigation. Thank you. Do you have any first hand experience, i.e.
have you ever been poisoned, and if so, does that include biological
On 11/27/07, Mike B. wrote:
> Okay, AW.
> First, let me point out that you're using only a "fragment" of
> post, obviously choosing to leave out the racial slurs. Do as you
> say; not as you do.> To answer your hypothetical as limited below,
I would never own a
> building that has the problems this piece of real estate obviously
> had. Plain and simple.
> I know you can't accept that answer because of its simplicity and
> truthfulness. You can't have any reasonable argument or rant
> against that answer because you don't know me.
> Further, I firmly believe that no matter a person's position in
> life, they and their home can be clean. If you see mold in your
> home and don't clean it, then you chose to live with it. If you
> someone because of mold in your home that you didn't keep clean,
> then the landlord should and will use that as a defense.
> Considering the injuries and illnesses claimed by the tenants, and
> the number of people claiming to be injured, I believe the amount
> of the settlement reflected some of these defenses. I base that
> feeling on over 20 years of education, experience and training I
> have gained while working successfully on environmental and toxic
> tort litigation.
> On 11/27/07, ff wrote:
>> Mike B.:
>> Here, I'll help you to get started.
>> Assuming the description of the referenced property was
>> accurate, hypothetically, how would you as a landlord, have
>> handled the situation?
>>> On 11/20/07, ff wrote:
>>>> Mike B.:
>>>> The rest of the story could be...?
>>>> ...the litigants' state of health has continued to decline,
>>>> while at the same time, the previous landlord has leased the
>>>> contaminated property to more families, claiming that the
>>>> CDC, US Chamber of Commerce, ACOEM, and other credible
>>>> entities stand behind him in his accepted view that mold is
>>>> On 11/19/07, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>> What are ya'll doing wrong with your litigation?
>>>>> Apartment Mold
>>>>> Oakland, CA: (Nov-18-07) Twelve immigrant families who
>>>>> lived in a dilapidated, unheated, mold and cockroach
>>>>> infested apartment, brought charges against their
>>>>> Roosevelt Owyang, accusing him of not providing a
>>>>> dwelling at the complex. The suit also alleged breach of
>>>>> contract. The former tenants stated that rain water leaked
>>>>> into their apartments from windows and ceilings so the
>>>>> apartments were constantly damp and mold was thick.
>>>>> Cockroaches were everywhere, and stairway railings and
>>>>> floorboards were often broken. Several plaintiffs claimed
>>>>> that they developed asthma along with the 39 former and
>>>>> current residents who are party to the suit. Several
>>>>> claimed that they suffered from chronic sinusitis and
>>>>> respiratory problems as a result of staying at the
>>>>> apartment. The complaint was filed in state Superior Court
>>>>> in Alameda County. As part of a settlement reached, the
>>>>> twelve immigrant families received a $1.3 million payout,
>>>>> resolving the lawsuit. [INSIDE BAY AREA: APARTMENT MOLD]
Posts on this thread, including this one