House was built in 1926.j_crazy;1098870 wrote:If its stucco when was the house built? You should call a lawyer because there is something about stucco that is older than 1990 that is fucked up. My company won't help at all on relocation where people buy houses with old stucco. I've never asked why but always see that in the agreement they make you sign.
If you're either writing a poem or composing a rap, it does help, indeed. Rent rhymes with vent.dlazz;1098984 wrote:I rent.
Hope this helps.
Asbestos.j_crazy;1098870 wrote:If its stucco when was the house built? You should call a lawyer because there is something about stucco that is older than 1990 that is fucked up. My company won't help at all on relocation where people buy houses with old stucco. I've never asked why but always see that in the agreement they make you sign.
dlazz;1098984 wrote:I rent.
Hope this helps.
We have MC OCdlazzernest_t_bass;1098987 wrote:If you're either writing a poem or composing a rap, it does help, indeed. Rent rhymes with vent.
LJ;1098990 wrote:Asbestos.
Use was stopped in late 1989
Asbestos is only a threat to those who live/work around it for multiple years and are repeatedly exposed to it.LJ;1098990 wrote:Asbestos.
Use was stopped in late 1989
Oh, I would think you would have quoted that post then. :rolleyes:Sonofanump;1098764 wrote:I am serious, you had the correct answer early on. I just posted you win instead of +1, or yes, or I concur.
I'd contact an attorney before doing any work. Get their advice on how to proceed. Also, I wouldn't think a waterproofing company would have the ability to fix the actuall problem, they can only waterproof your basement, not do structural work.sherm03;1098860 wrote:I've struck out with five waterproofing companies so far, and all said they can't do anything about the porch...and they won't even touch the sill plate. That's why I figured a general contractor would be best, since it seems as though we're going to have to completely rip the porch out and build a new one after the sill plate is replaced.
You're kidding right? Please tell me you didn't pay much for your college education........dlazz;1099258 wrote:Asbestos is only a threat to those who live/work around it for multiple years and are repeatedly exposed to it.
Asbestos removal is a gimmick business
/rant
This is true. Your body attacks asbestos like any other foreign body, the problem being it cannot remove it/digest it. So it just sticks around in your lungs causing inflammation and can lead to tissue disease and cancer.dwccrew;1099593 wrote:You're kidding right? Please tell me you didn't pay much for your college education........
Like 4RINGZ said, asbestos in a dormant state is harmless, when it is moved around and breathed into the lungs, the microscopic fibers attach to the lining in your lungs and it can't be removed.
We had to learn about this because I work at a refinery and there is a ton of lines that are insulated with insulation that we believe has asbestos.
According to Dlazz asbestos removal businesses are a scam. LOLchicago510;1099600 wrote:This is true. Your body attacks asbestos like any other foreign body, the problem being it cannot remove it/digest it. So it just sticks around in your lungs causing inflammation and can lead to tissue disease and cancer.
Obviously long-term is worse, but no exposure is best.
People react to it like its a huge poison, but you need a SHIT TON OF IT in your lungs for it to be harmful. It's only going to be deadly if you come into contact with it often (HVAC Technicians, construction workers, etc).dwccrew;1099607 wrote:According to Dlazz asbestos removal businesses are a scam. LOL
.jpg)
september63;1099729 wrote:I fucked up and trusted an inspector that I should not have. Yet, its NOT my fault!! I am going to get a lawyer and SUE!! This is whats dragging our country down!! Congrats for your screw up and contribution to the litigation mess that has become the United States!!
If fraud was committed by the previous owner (such as concealing a major issue with a house in order to get it to pass inspection), and a law was broken (such as not providing the buyer with a Residential Property Disclosure Form), and that is not a reason to sue...then I have no idea what WOULD BE a reason to sue someone.september63;1099729 wrote:I fucked up and trusted an inspector that I should not have. Yet, its NOT my fault!! I am going to get a lawyer and SUE!! This is whats dragging our country down!! Congrats for your screw up and contribution to the litigation mess that has become the United States!!
Disclosure is a funny thing when brought up in court.september63;1099729 wrote:I ****ed up and trusted an inspector that I should not have. Yet, its NOT my fault!! I am going to get a lawyer and SUE!! This is whats dragging our country down!! Congrats for your screw up and contribution to the litigation mess that has become the United States!!
That's what I thought as well. Considering that we used our own inspector and the house passed inspection, I figured we would be fucked. But according to a lawyer friend (who admittedly does not deal in real estate) thinks that the key is that we didn't get the Disclosure form. The stuff he did prior to selling the house shows that he knew it was an issue, and since he didn't disclose it he could be on the hook.september63;1099754 wrote:I just like to give you shit. If suing anyone, sue your Father in law for recommending this inspector.
If you have been there 3 yrs I doubt you could get anything in a lawsuit. For every inspection that backs your claim, there in an inspector that will back the previous owners claim. I am guessing when you bought the house, and it was signed off on, essentially you bought it as is.
I agree. The time it took for the problem to show is going to be the biggest sticking point for us. Had we seen this during the first year, we would be in much better shape.september63;1099860 wrote:Honestly, I am wishing you luck. if you were duped, you deserve to be compensated. I just see the timeline as the issue.
