Meadows Group Inc Realtors

We have already outlined that the *** knew all of the facts they now complain of prior to closing. The *** were aware prior to closing that the foundation was made of sand and gravel with much of the cement gone; that it was in a weakened condition; that it was quite loose and crumbly; and that it was leaking. Yet, the *** decided to proceed with closing. Those facts are not subject to dispute and are well documented
***_____*** ** ***ATTORNEY IN OREGON & WASHINGTONT *** *** F *** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response.Reason:To Whom It May Concern:This is in response to the message provided by counsel for Dutin F* refuting the allegations from our initial complaint to the Revdex.com MrF*’s counsel completely misses the mark in explaining why we have filed a claim through the Revdex.com Our complaint against MrF* has to do with his complete failure to alert us to the condition of the basement foundation and his client’s silence of these conditions in seller’s disclosure statement, despite knowledge to the contrary Both MrF* and his client received an inspection report from the previous owner of the home which stated that the”Concrete is damaged…Concrete is an Old Portland Cement and is very soft and crumblingRecommend repairing or replacing, contact a licensed contractor for further evaluation.” Not only did MrF*’s client not repair the concrete, but he covered it with drywall MrF* then allowed his client to remain silent on the disclosures for the house on the issue of the concrete.Pursuant to ORS 696.805, F* has a legal duty to deal honestly and in good faith and to disclose facts known to them and not apparent or readily ascertainable to a buyer of a home F* failed to do this, which is the basis for the claims we have filed against him and are attaching here.Sincerely,
*** ***

I am counsel for Dustin F* and Meadow Group in litigation filed by *** *** *** ***. The *** have a dispute with a contractor they hired, ***. They have sued *** for defective workUnsatisfied with ***’s response, the *** have directed
misplaced blame with MrF*. It is clear from the attached email, the *** are using Revdex.com as a pawn to try and force MrF* to pay money to settle the ***’ unfounded lawsuit. MrF* was not the ***’ real estate broker. Instead, he represented the seller. Prior to closing, the seller completed a property disclosure and then supplemented it. As part of the attached supplemental disclosure, the seller alerted the *** that the basement had not been a dry basement when the seller purchased the property. Instead, the seller represented he did certain work to the basement and it had not leaked since doing so. The *** had the home inspected. The ***’ home inspector advised the ***, “the foundation skim coat is coming loose in several areas with pockets of air between skim coat and concrete. When lightly tapped one of these areas easily crumbled and the concrete was basically sand and gravel with much of the cement gone. It is likely that much of the foundation is in this weakened condition and should be further evaluated by a company specializing on foundations.” (p.4). The inspector also writes, “as seen from the crawlspace some of the foundation walls have been patched but much of the exposed foundation is still quite loose and crumbly needing further evaluation by a foundation specialist.” (p8). It is not clear what the *** did with this information, if anything. Again, MrF* was not their realtor and was not privy to this report. Prior to closing the seller noticed moisture in the basement. The *** were notified about it prior to closing. The *** hired *** to come and look at the issue. The *** created a diary of their pre-closing site meeting with ***. The *** write, “*** *** from ** came onsite and inspected foundation-***’s feedback was that the foundation was good and that a sump pump is all that would be needed to remedy this issue. *** promised that the house wouldn’t flood with a sump pump solution and drain around the basement. We pressed *** on the foundation ensuring he realized all factors including slab depth, we told *** we needed the most comprehensive solution now so that we could build any associated costs into our financing and ensure beyond doubt there would be no further issues. Again, he promised the sump pump would fix the issue (5-witnesses).” It is not clear if the *** share their inspection report with ***. While the *** could have walked away from the deal or delayed closing, they instead decided to proceed with hiring *** to add a sump pump and close the transaction. The seller agreed to pay for it. Since closing, the *** have had an unfortunate serious of events with the contractor they hired and they are pursuing claims against that contractor. But it is abundantly clear MrF* did not defraud the ***. The *** were aware of potential issues with the foundation prior to closing and they choose to rely upon the advice of their contractor in deciding to proceed with closing. ***_____***t*** ** ***ATTORNEY IN OREGON & WASHINGTON*attachments*

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:This is a statement, we did not know about these conditions.? It is undisputed that F* did.Again, pursuant to ORS 696.805, F* had a legal duty to deal honestly and in good faith and to disclose facts known to them.? F* failed to do this.? Not only did MrF* client not repair the concrete he covered it with drywall.Please see previously attached statement of claim for full description
Sincerely,
*** ***