U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 01:49 PM
 
11,826 posts, read 4,438,212 times
Reputation: 5180

Advertisements

This is an old Republican versus Democrat battle. It is actually the Builders versus the Lawyers. AB125 passed in 2015 tilted toward the builders. Changed the definitions of construction defect and made it more difficult to collect your attorney fees. Limited the length of time to bring an action. It is not impossible under the present law to collect fees. But there are ways the builders can protect themselves against big fees.

AB421 presently in the house would move that back toward the lawyer position. Likely to pass. So come October we will likely have a more consumer friendly construction defect law.

The RE industry is going with the builders and lobbying for minimal changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Henderson
1,061 posts, read 1,358,591 times
Reputation: 682
I would start by shaving those doors to fit now and see if the problem gets worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
45 posts, read 12,836 times
Reputation: 105
This is a very intelligent, informed response.

Thank you for your ongoing contributions to this forum!!

-von

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
This is an old Republican versus Democrat battle. It is actually the Builders versus the Lawyers. AB125 passed in 2015 tilted toward the builders. Changed the definitions of construction defect and made it more difficult to collect your attorney fees. Limited the length of time to bring an action. It is not impossible under the present law to collect fees. But there are ways the builders can protect themselves against big fees.

AB421 presently in the house would move that back toward the lawyer position. Likely to pass. So come October we will likely have a more consumer friendly construction defect law.

The RE industry is going with the builders and lobbying for minimal changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:15 PM
 
709 posts, read 254,857 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by VonZimmer View Post
That's not what he wrote. The attorney told him that he, as the Plaintiff, would be responsible for HIS Attorney fees, win or lose.

Certainly not unusual.

Assuming his case is as described here, I would not hesitate to retain an Attorney.

As is, he can never sell since it won't pass inspection.

-von
"attorney fee's involving structural defect suits are not recoverable by the plaintiff" sure sounds like damages to me. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term "paraphrasing?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
45 posts, read 12,836 times
Reputation: 105
Wow, you are one argumentative yet confused person.

Your silly reply was "Did the lawyer give you the nrs for the statute in question prohibiting you from suing for damages?"

I corrected you, which I will do again.

NOBODY (besides you) stated or even inferred that the OP "can't sue for damages". What was stated is that he must PAY his Attorney out of pocket, win or lose, should he decide to sue.

Not being able to bring a suit for damages versus not having your legal fees covered are NOT THE SAME.

They are not even related.

I recently won a lawsuit against GM, yep, that GM. David vs Goliath. I won ('natch). My legal fees were NOT COVERED in the damages award. Had I lost, I would have paid my Attorney the exact same amount.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the phrase GET A FRIGGIN CLUE?

-von



Quote:
Originally Posted by equid0x View Post
"attorney fee's involving structural defect suits are not recoverable by the plaintiff" sure sounds like damages to me. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term "paraphrasing?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:09 PM
 
709 posts, read 254,857 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by VonZimmer View Post
Wow, you are one argumentative yet confused person.

Your silly reply was "Did the lawyer give you the nrs for the statute in question prohibiting you from suing for damages?"

I corrected you, which I will do again.

NOBODY (besides you) stated or even inferred that the OP "can't sue for damages". What was stated is that he must PAY his Attorney out of pocket, win or lose, should he decide to sue.

Not being able to bring a suit for damages versus not having your legal fees covered are NOT THE SAME.

They are not even related.

I recently won a lawsuit against GM, yep, that GM. David vs Goliath. I won ('natch). My legal fees were NOT COVERED in the damages award. Had I lost, I would have paid my Attorney the exact same amount.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the phrase GET A FRIGGIN CLUE?

-von
Citation please? Just because a judge grants "compensation for all of the lawyer's fees" doesn't mean they don't classify as "damages" under law. There is no legal distinction between the two. The compensation is "all the lawyer's fees" which typically means "whatever the lawyer charged on the bills he presented to the judge to prove his case". This literally gets granted by a judge multiple times a day, ever day of the week, 365 days a year.

Do yourself a favor, and as a responsible, informed citizen - take a day or two off and go sit in the audience of a county or district courthouse and just watch and listen and LEARN what is going on.

Literally anyone can go and sit there and listen and watch the cases anytime they want. No permission needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:11 PM
 
709 posts, read 254,857 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by VonZimmer View Post
Wow, you are one argumentative yet confused person.

Your silly reply was "Did the lawyer give you the nrs for the statute in question prohibiting you from suing for damages?"

I corrected you, which I will do again.

NOBODY (besides you) stated or even inferred that the OP "can't sue for damages". What was stated is that he must PAY his Attorney out of pocket, win or lose, should he decide to sue.

Not being able to bring a suit for damages versus not having your legal fees covered are NOT THE SAME.

They are not even related.

I recently won a lawsuit against GM, yep, that GM. David vs Goliath. I won ('natch). My legal fees were NOT COVERED in the damages award. Had I lost, I would have paid my Attorney the exact same amount.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the phrase GET A FRIGGIN CLUE?

-von
BTW if your legal fees weren't covered in that judgement, then you needed to hire a better lawyer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:45 PM
 
27,854 posts, read 39,299,235 times
Reputation: 36138
Quote:
Originally Posted by VonZimmer View Post
Wow, you are one argumentative yet confused person.

Your silly reply was "Did the lawyer give you the nrs for the statute in question prohibiting you from suing for damages?"

I corrected you, which I will do again.

NOBODY (besides you) stated or even inferred that the OP "can't sue for damages". What was stated is that he must PAY his Attorney out of pocket, win or lose, should he decide to sue.

Not being able to bring a suit for damages versus not having your legal fees covered are NOT THE SAME.

They are not even related.

I recently won a lawsuit against GM, yep, that GM. David vs Goliath. I won ('natch). My legal fees were NOT COVERED in the damages award. Had I lost, I would have paid my Attorney the exact same amount.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the phrase GET A FRIGGIN CLUE?

-von
Yes, they are. This poster is on a lot of ignore lists because of the argumentative attitude, incorrect information, and ballooning of non-facts in their posts. Among other reasons.

I put them on ignore quite a while ago. You are wasting good keyboard time responding to this one.

Don't bother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top