Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Tucson
 [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 10-07-2008, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Tucson
42,831 posts, read 88,134,698 times
Reputation: 22814

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael krotchie View Post
Home_Kid have you tried going the Notice to Cure route?
So, Michael, if this prop passes (which it probably will because nobody reads; heck, it sounded good to me at first, too), will it only apply to purchases made after it takes effect?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2008, 06:51 PM
 
Location: GoJoe
713 posts, read 1,460,753 times
Reputation: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael krotchie View Post
2008 Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review



Home_Kid have you tried going the Notice to Cure route?
maybe i didnt get my point across. the HB contracts read "you the home buyer agree to binding arbitration, where we the HB {put HB name here} chooses the arbitrator, and if you lose in arbitration you the home buyer will be required to pay the HB lawyer costs". which part of this is in best interest of the home buyer? or better yet, how is this fair ??

if you sign such contract with this verbiage you sign away your rights. if you dont agree to this verbiage the HB will simply cancel the contract.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
529 posts, read 2,393,361 times
Reputation: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Home_Kid View Post
maybe i didnt get my point across. the HB contracts read "you the home buyer agree to binding arbitration, where we the HB {put HB name here} chooses the arbitrator, and if you lose in arbitration you the home buyer will be required to pay the HB lawyer costs". which part of this is in best interest of the home buyer? or better yet, how is this fair ??

if you sign such contract with this verbiage you sign away your rights. if you dont agree to this verbiage the HB will simply cancel the contract.
Home_Kid I'm trying to track down details on the application of the Notice to Cure Law before I continue.

But did you actually read the big print you received in the mail? It actually had the entire proposition printed with each relevant section highlighted and explained. You have to admit there are some gaps in clarity and good judgment with the current revision of the bill. If not, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said previously, I support the thought behind the effort but not the way it is currently written.

Sierra, I'd imagine if it was passed Prop 201 would apply to all subsequent matters. The only way the Prop could be any worse is if it was applied retroactively!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 10:20 AM
 
Location: GoJoe
713 posts, read 1,460,753 times
Reputation: 322
you can have all the state law you want. if you agree to a binding arbitration as demanded in most HB contracts the state laws dont mean squat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael krotchie View Post
Home_Kid I'm trying to track down details on the application of the Notice to Cure Law before I continue.

But did you actually read the big print you received in the mail? It actually had the entire proposition printed with each relevant section highlighted and explained. You have to admit there are some gaps in clarity and good judgment with the current revision of the bill. If not, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said previously, I support the thought behind the effort but not the way it is currently written.

Sierra, I'd imagine if it was passed Prop 201 would apply to all subsequent matters. The only way the Prop could be any worse is if it was applied retroactively!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Tucson
42,831 posts, read 88,134,698 times
Reputation: 22814
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael krotchie View Post
The only way the Prop could be any worse is if it was applied retroactively!
Yeah, obviously that's my main selfish concern. Charity begins at home after all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 02:06 PM
 
Location: GoJoe
713 posts, read 1,460,753 times
Reputation: 322
"worse" for HB is if 201 passes. so be it, we new home buyers deserve the rights offered in az-201.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 01:28 AM
 
Location: GoJoe
713 posts, read 1,460,753 times
Reputation: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Home_Kid View Post
"worse" for HB is if 201 passes. so be it, we new home buyers deserve the rights offered in az-201.
agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Tucson
42,831 posts, read 88,134,698 times
Reputation: 22814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Home_Kid View Post
agreed.
Is one of your voices agreeing with the other?!

Man, it's the 18th and I haven't even looked at the props...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 04:42 PM
 
Location: GoJoe
713 posts, read 1,460,753 times
Reputation: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by sierraAZ View Post
Is one of your voices agreeing with the other?!

Man, it's the 18th and I haven't even looked at the props...

AZ-201 is a very important prop this election year. new home buyers deserve what 201 has to offer irregardless of what the no sayers are spewing.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 11:29 AM
 
5 posts, read 11,585 times
Reputation: 10
Sorry Home_Kid, I'm a no.

The reasons are many:

1) It actually defines and extends litigation rights "prospective buyers," which makes no sense to me. I believe as a basic matter of legal justice that someone needs to be harmed by another party in order to be eligible for recovery. By letting prospective buyers sue, I can see people filing lawsuits who were never really harmed and payouts being made on frivolous claims.

2) I believe in our current "loser pays" system for attorney fees. Creating a process as mandated by 201 where only plaintiffs can recover attorney's fees is dangerous and will lead to additional frivoulous litigation. For the record, I don't buy the argument that people can't sue (you have a constitutional right to sue in Arizona) and I believe that if you have a good case against a builder that there are plenty of attorneys willing to litigate (here is one if your looking to sue your builder California Homeowners & Community Association Attorneys, Construction Defect Lawyers).

3) The ten year warranty mandated under 201 covers EVERYTHING and states that a seller may not "void, alter or impair any warranty." That means every appliance, every light bulb, every nut and bolt must be warrantied for a decade. Even worse, consumer neglect would be covered as well. If a homeowner doesn't change the filter on the air conditioner and the AC unit blows out as a result, the builder would be required to replace the unit.

4) Because of voter protection, any initiative passed at the ballot cannot be changed by the legislature. When voting for a proposition, you better be darn certain that the law is perfect and won't require any future changes. I don't believe Prop. 201 meets that threshold.

These are just a couple of reasons I'm voting no. I'm sure if I had more time to think about it I could come up with some more.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Arizona > Tucson
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top