Steven Hockstein Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 New Jersey has a law against wasting the court's time with frivolous lawsuits. It's rarely enforced but recently it was - in a case where a seller, upset that his house didn't sell, tried to sue a home inspector for negligence. A N.J. court determined that because the seller wasn't the inspector's client he didn't have any standing to sue the inspector and found in favor of the inspector. To read more, Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Lozier Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 that's refreshing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Hi Jerry, You might be interested to know that the Department of Licensing takes this line with every complaint from sellers, realtors and anyone else who complains about an inspector - even other inspectors - if the person making the complaint isn't the inspector's actual client. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Hi Jerry, You might be interested to know that the Department of Licensing takes this line with every complaint from sellers, realtors and anyone else who complains about an inspector - even other inspectors - if the person making the complaint isn't the inspector's actual client. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Is this a law or regulation you're talking about? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baird Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 The lawyer who worked up the action knew very well it was frivolous I'm sure, but it pays no matter how frivolous, and the "client" was able to vent to somebody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Sorrells Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Wounder if the seller's lawyer who filed the suite, knowing it was frivolous would be able to retain any money from the seller. Also, if the seller's lawyer knowing it was frivolous and not informing the seller would make the lawyer responsible for the other parties costs from the suite? " New Jersey Rule of Court 1:4-8 allows a court to impose sanctions, including attorney?s fees"[:-crazy] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baird Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Is not what is frivolous and what is not also a point of discussion? I think anyone in law with some ability would be able to find enough dirt from which to swing a bat on either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Hi Jerry, You might be interested to know that the Department of Licensing takes this line with every complaint from sellers, realtors and anyone else who complains about an inspector - even other inspectors - if the person making the complaint isn't the inspector's actual client. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Is this a law or regulation you're talking about? Marc That was the SAG's opinion when he reviewed and tweaked the stuff that the board had written. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Hockstein Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Unfortunately too many litigation matters proceed with lots of legal costs before someone is released from the case because the legal system is slanted towards the plaintiff's ability to sue even with questionable merit to the claim. When the system is changed (probably never) so that the losing party is responsible for the cost of the winner we will see a reduction in these cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Won't ever happen. Legislative branch is very heavily populated with attorneys. No one's going to cut their gravy train. I've got a couple law professor friends; they teach at Northwestern. They've got all kinds of self serving reasons why *loser pays* is a bad idea. I regularly disabuse them of this notion. Self serving behavior is built into the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Unfortunately too many litigation matters proceed with lots of legal costs before someone is released from the case because the legal system is slanted towards the plaintiff's ability to sue even with questionable merit to the claim. When the system is changed (probably never) so that the losing party is responsible for the cost of the winner we will see a reduction in these cases. In most jurisdictions it is common and regular for fees to be paid by a losing party. Many states have consumer protection laws that are little known or used, that can award a multiple of the actual costs. I recover my costs three or four times per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Hockstein Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Les- Your experience is very different than it is here. Lots of lawyers in NJ. Our state is more like Kurt's. Les- How many times do you have to go to court in a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Yeah. What are these consumer protection laws? I recall tort reform being one of those Federal issues argued about during elections. Loser pays always gets voted down. Do I have this wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baird Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Isn't any restriction on the intent of any suit itself a restriction on free speech. Just who decides the definition of frivolity? The court jester?...just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Les- Your experience is very different than it is here. Lots of lawyers in NJ. Our state is more like Kurt's. Les- How many times do you have to go to court in a year? Average 10-12times. There are more attys in my area than anywhere outside of Washington, D.C. We have the best law school, the largest law school and the richest law school within a 75mile radius. Sometimes several times for one file. I am in this bidness for three decades + and never had to testify on my own behalf. Only one deposition for me, but dozens and dozens for others. I was raised in the legal profession and there are lots of attys in my family. My favorite brother in law teaches Contract law at Cooley Law School. Consumer protection is very complex when viewed for home inspection. It is always a crap shoot, but the first thing to do is retain an atty that actually knows something about what we do. Most don't have a clue and subsequently come after us for the "wrong" reasons or cause. The op piece was good, but really does nothing to educate public, or us, about law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 We have the best law school, the largest law school and the richest law school within a 75mile radius. Which is which? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.