Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

irr1449 t1_j04oodx wrote

I'm an attorney. I've read the whole thread and most of your comments. This isn't legal advice, just my 2 cents.

If what you say is true, the developer could potentially be on the hook to remedy multiple homes. The cost to do that would likely be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. This is assuming that they either have to go deeper on each well or alternatively develop some type of centralized solution like bringing town water to the development or creating a centralized pump/storage/distribution facility.

Unless the builder is some sort of huge multi-million dollar corporation, it's more likely that they file bankruptcy in an attempt to avoid liability. This is why it's important that you move fast. If it gets to the point where they are being sued by multiple parties, it's most likely too late.

Call around and try and get a consultation with an attorney that does litigation. You don't want a "real estate" attorney who deals with closing and things like that. You want an attorney who sues people and goes to court ("litigation"). Going to court is very expensive, but you would be surprised how far you can get with just a nasty letter. The mere fact that you're represented by counsel and exploring litigation will scare the shit out of the other side. Go on a website like https://www.avvo.com/ and send out a few feelers.

136

otiswrath t1_j04uz8e wrote

Seconding this. Lawyer here also (not yet barred in NH, also not legal advice) but the wells not functioning should have been in the disclosures.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2015/title-xlviii/chapter-477/section-477-4-c

The builder may be in deep shit here.

63

BostonPilot t1_j04ygou wrote

What about the town? I'm assuming the water never worked as opposed to stopped working after construction finished. Can the plumbing inspector really sign off on a house with no water?

11

otiswrath t1_j052rqc wrote

One would think but...there is a thing called the Public Duty Doctrine which essentially says since a municipality functions for the public good if they do something negligent then you can't sue them because you are suing the public for whom they are supposed to be working for. You have to show that you are owed a duty specifically not just that a duty to the public is breached.

Now there are exceptions, specifically where the state government has carved out things people can sue municipalities for or sometimes for lack of enforcement.

Here they could argue that the lack of enforcement was the issue but the government hates setting the precedent that they can be sued for things.

Take this on a smaller scale, builder builds a set of stairs, code says they must have a certain rise over run, the code enforcement officer misses it, someone misjudges the stairs and falls down them. Should the tax payers of the town, presumably where the plaintiff also pays taxes be liable? Should the inspector be personally liable for a mistake done in the course of his regular duties? Part of the logic is that municipalities might just not do inspections to avoid the potential liability therefore making everyone less safe.

I know...it is kinda fucked but...there is a sort of logic to it.

Here we have a number of people who if I am understanding the situation correctly may have a class action suit against the builder not necessarily for not providing water but for lying on the disclosures.

Now if it is found that the Inspector was doing something shady like helping the builder commit fraud then the inspector would be personally liable for something there as committing fraud is not a part of his regular duties. Basically if they were negligent then oh well but if it was intended then he is in trouble.

The thing here is that I find it crazy that they did inspections on all of these houses without turning on the water once or that if the inspector and builder were committing some sort of large scale fraud that they thought they could get away with it.

Gets popcorn

This is gonna be interesting.

18

Sirhc978 t1_j05fkrt wrote

>The thing here is that I find it crazy that they did inspections on all of these houses without turning on the water once

This was like the first thing I did when we went to the open house for the house we ended up buying (in the neighboring town).

7

hike_me t1_j051ar0 wrote

Right — how does a new build get a certificate of occupancy with no running water? Or is that not a thing in live free or die land?

11

Expert_Collar4636 t1_j06toel wrote

The real rub here is that the town board and the builders are probably in bed with one another... no I mean literally not figuratively. The builders family members are probably board members.. good ñuck...

5

Doug_Shoe t1_j063sim wrote

Well not functioning? Is that actually the case here? What was the gallons per minute listed in the water test? Has the homeowner been using a lot more water than that?

-because having your own well =/= infinite supply of water on tap.

1

otiswrath t1_j06kwfq wrote

If you read the post they said they "literally have no water".

I am taking that as meaning just what they said.

6

Dugen t1_j08ogf9 wrote

As someone who has lived with a low yield well that is getting lower every time someone puts a house in nearby, I doubt the well was always empty. It can be that as people moved in nearby and started using up the water, they lowered the water table enough so some of the wells started running dry. They may have drilled a well with a good flow rate to a water source that is now empty. The options are shitty. The best option might be to drill a very deep well. If the cost to put in a good well gets high enough, setting up a small water system might be a better option.

2

Doug_Shoe t1_j06lxio wrote

if you run a well dry then you "literally have no water" until the well refills from ground water seeping into it. It's how wells work.

I believe the person also said they opened a tap before buying the house and had water at the sink (or whatever). So that means it's not that the well is bone dry all of the time.

-------------------------------

I don't know the answers to my own questions (above). I suspect that they were given the results of a well test and that the gallons per minute is in actuality what the results specify. I am NOT a lawyer. So I don't know how that would affect a law suit. I'm guessing it would not help.

0

otiswrath t1_j06mopx wrote

Please don't be condescending. I am well aware of how wells work.

They said they ran them at the inspection but there could be a few things going on here like the builder used a tanker to dump a few hundred gallons down the well or the water table in the area is not suitable at that depth to support the number of houses they built in the development.

5

Doug_Shoe t1_j06nu4t wrote

I highly doubt that the builder used a tanker to dump water in the well. I would think that would be fraud rising to the level of a crime. But maybe I'm naive. Maybe that sort of thing does happen.

Yeah the water table might not be suitable. But "suitable" is subjective. Early settlers to the area would likely be fine with that amount of water (gallons per minute). A person with a well can't expect to use infinite amounts of water. You have to learn to live with what you have. If you dig another well, or improve the one you have etc there will still be limits. These are the realities.

I don't know (but suspect) that the buyer was given a reasonably accurate water test listing the gallons per minute from the well. If not, and if the test was faked, (and as you said tanker water dumped into the well to deceive etc) then I would want people to go to jail. Such things should not be allowed under penalty of law. But you would know more about that than me. -as far as what realistically could happen in a case like that.

---------------------------

General contractors, etc need licenses. If there was fraud like we're talking about here then those should be taken away. IMHO

−1

otiswrath t1_j06orok wrote

First off, you don't need a license in NH to be a contractor.

Second, it seems like multiple people in the development are running into the same issue which points to it being a bigger issue than "these folks use too much water".

These people came here asking for some help and you see oddly intent on blaming them.

7

Doug_Shoe t1_j07xtvz wrote

I've said multiple times that I don't know what is going on here.

Nope not blaming anyone.

I am suggesting someone check out the situation before jumping to conclusions. Looking at the claimed gallons per minute in that well test might be a start.

Also, personally, I wouldn't accuse contractors of fraud, crimes, and various felonies sans evidence. But that's just me.

But yes, you're right. Seems to be a whole development. The more info that comes out in the comments, the more it seems to me there is a problem with the house itself. Now the person has said his well is 1000 feet deep. If I had known that from the beginning, my comments here would have been different. Didn't I say "not enough info" from the first? Oh yeah. I did.

0

Doug_Shoe t1_j086k6l wrote

>First off, you don't need a license in NH to be a contractor.

Half true. You are a lawyer. You should know these things.

That is what you claimed, right?

0

otiswrath t1_j08a5jn wrote

Lol. Ok...are we still doing a thing?

No license needed to be a contractor in NH, that is correct.

Literally anyone can claim to be a builder. Not sure what you mean by half true.

And yes, I have a law degree.

1

Doug_Shoe t1_j08v8yb wrote

Oh so no licenses needed for any of the building trades, and no licenses or state permissions of any kind to run a business? Good to know.

1

otiswrath t1_j0902i4 wrote

You need licenses for plumbing and electric but carpenters/contractors are no license required. What a lot of guys do is take on jobs and then sub out the technical stuff to licensed and insured plumbers and electricians.

If you run a business as a sole proprietorship then you don't need an EIN or to register with the secretary of state unless you want to set up an LLC.

To be clear, this is not any sort of legal advice and you should always do your own research or hire an attorney if you have actual questions. Don't just take the word of random people on the Internet.

1

Doug_Shoe t1_j090ieu wrote

I'm not. Trust me on that one.

That's part of it. Keep going.

My point was that if a claimed business is a scam that the state can shut it down. I wasn't buying your conspiracy theory. But if what you said were true, then the business should be shut down IMO.

0