couple moves into former meth house

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by glocke12, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. BanjoBanker macrumors 6502

    BanjoBanker

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    Mt Brook, AL
    #2
    That really sucks! There should be some recourse for this couple, that sort of thing really should be disclosed by the seller.:eek:
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    Yeah, that really sucks. If it was me, and I couldn't afford the clean up or a lawyer to sue, I would just walk away from the house and let the bank foreclose.
     
  3. Bonch macrumors 6502

    Bonch

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Lithuania
    #4
    Just turn it into another meth lab. Problem solved.
     
  4. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #5
    Their solution seems to be working well:

    Bitch about it on the internet, get lots of coverage and offers of support, and with some hard work, get it sorted out.

    (Note: I would also bitch loudly about it if the same thing happened to me)
     
  5. R94N macrumors 68020

    R94N

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    I suppose with things like this you've got nowhere to go once you've moved in. Obviously no one else will want to buy the house once everyone finds out it's true past. It sounds awful.
     
  6. pukifloyd macrumors 6502a

    pukifloyd

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    Scottsdale
    #7
    This is the first time I've heard of such a thing...this is horrible
    I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but can't they just demolish this house and rebuild a new one on the same plot? I know it'll be expensive...I am just asking :eek:
     
  7. mojohanna macrumors 6502a

    mojohanna

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Location:
    Cleveland
    #8
    YEs, they could, but they can't afford the $61,000 clean up fee. They certainly won't be able to afford demolition and reconstruction. That would be at least twice the clean up fee, not to mention put the new mortgage way out of their price range.
    If I were them, I would go after the relator and his/her company and previous owner. There should be a way to split up the cost of the clean up that is fair for everyone involved without the need to walk away from the house.
     
  8. velocityg4 macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #9
    The article said the house was 108 years old. It is probably protected by some historical society (or would become so once they applied for demolition). Then they would have to spend a lot more than $61,000 fighting those people in court.
     
  9. mags631 Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #10
    They are in the northeast, not the west coast, so I don't think 108 years qualifies as necessarily historic. This issue has nothing to do with historical preservation societies.

    The original owners should have disclosed this fact and should be sued. I don't care if there is a law on the book requiring the specific disclosure of whether the house was used as a drug lab -- the house is hazardous to their health and that alone seems like a material fact that should be disclosed during the buying process.

    Wouldn't a lawyer take this case for the good PR alone?
     
  10. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #11
    This is why there are laws. People don't always do what is in the best interest of others.
     

Share This Page