Complaint Review: Prudential Georgia Realty

Thank you very much Mr. Rainwater. I did find my dream home, a long way from you. And I didn't have to have it painted or have new siding on it. In fact I didn't have to spend a dime on repairs.

I will allow that perhaps my real estate agent misled me somewhat, perhaps your exact words were not that "I'd be stupid to ask for the inspection of that home." Perhaps there was just a bit of discouragement on someone's part for me to get an inspection. Perhaps there were other parties who stood to gain by the sell of the home. Maybe words were rearranged somewhat as they tend to be when taken down the line three times. I am willing to give you that benefit of a doubt. I was told that you made inquires as to where I was getting my money. I'm not sure why you would have made such an inquiry. I sincerely hope you really did not.

I find it unfair of you to accuse me of any vandalizing of any property. I have no idea what you are referring to. I am an adult, sir, a professional in the community. I just buried my father and moved my elderly mother in with me to care for her. I don't have the time or inclination for vandalism. I do not vandalize.

You have posted my full name on the internet several times with accusations, then threatened ME with liable. As far as bravery goes for using only my first initial, that was not a lack of bravery, it was a desire to remain unknown to the public. Your name is readily posted around town with your face and phone number on it. Your name is already on the internet. Mine is not, so you have violated my privacy, and perhaps even my safety. If you are going to make threats, use my name several times over openly and falsely accuse me, please use caution that you are not on the brink of libelous acts, and violation of my privacy. Thanks ever so much for tossing my legal name out on the internet. I suppose I am lucky my Social Security number and photograph were not as readily released. I am curious as to how the State Board of Real Estate would react to this open accusation and attack on my person. I'm willing to let that go for the present, provided you cease attacking me.

The fact is that I consulted two contractors who did confirm that the siding fell under one of those that were defective, and their minimum price to replace all of the siding ran at a rate of approximately $10,000. Asking for $4,000.00 did not seem unreasonable according to the estimates and advice I received that the siding would eventually have to be replaced. A $1,600.00 paint job was a bandaid. The home was not going to be repaired by painting it. As you said, "The civil action lawsuit does not necessarily mean that the product is defective, only that it may have the chance to become defective if it is not installed or MAINTAINED PROPERLY." You state that the homeowner had estimates to replace damaged siding and repaint the exterior. I was never shown these estimates and no damage to the siding was disclosed on the statement I received. One would surmise that the seller was aware that the home had problems f there were indeed estimates for repairs. Perhaps had it been properly maintained it may have been covered under the civil action. In the condition it was at the time we looked at it, it had not been regularly maintained, which includes painting.

It broke our hearts when the home did not meet our expectations under inspection, but it was the best money we ever spent as it very well may have saved us thousands. There were signs as recent as one month ago related to the siding in that subdivision. As the home was reportedly on the market for many months after my initial interest in it, and the price was listed as reduced, it seems clear that the home may have needed more than paint. I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, sir, and believe that the homeowner perhaps did not disclose the siding issue with you as openly as I would have expected, and that my own real estate agent was also a little too eager. She won't be getting a referral either.

Please accept my most humble apologies for anything that you may have found unjust in my report. I congratulate you at long last on the sell of the home. I pray that you assisted someone in finding themselves a wonderful home that they will be happy in for years to come. I wish you great luck in the home selling business for such a reputable company as Prudential, and I pray that the future sellers you find along the road are as happy as I am with my new home. I also hope that you do, in fact, recommened they get an inspection, as many people wouldn't know to ask for one without the guidance of a seasoned real estate agent such as yourself.

May the Lord guide you and keep you in all that you do, and may you sleep peacefully tonight.

Thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight in this real estate deal gone south.

Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk (so bravely signed as "P" in the complaint) was represented by Victoria Holmes of ReMax. During the contract phase of the real estate purchase process in Georgia, the buyer has the option of having the home inspected and to request that the seller make any necessary repairs. At no time was Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk or her agent dissuaded from having the property inspected, nor was Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk called stupid for requesting one. I have always recommended a home inspection for a property no matter if I am the selling or listing REALTOR and no matter how long ago an inspection was performed.

Now I would like to address the following comment made by Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk:
"The neighborhood has received multiple mailings and had signs on multiple dates placed around the homes to inform the homeowners that the Masonite OmniBoard they have is defective and that the lawsuit is active."

Many homes built in early and mid 1990's were built with pressboard siding, such as Louisiana Pacific, Omniboard, etc., and fall under different class action lawsuits. This does not necessarily mean that the product is defective, only that it may have the chance to become defective if it is not installed or maintained properly. The signs and mailings referred to by Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk are from third party companies that offer assistance in recovering any funds from the suppliers of the product addressed in the class action lawsuit. The third party company is normally compensated out of whatever award the claimant is granted, usually about 35%.

At no time did I ever remove or replace anyone's signs other than my own. In fact, I believe Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk vandalized my directional sign at the entrance to the neighborhood.

I would also like to address the other fallacies mentioned in Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk's statement.

1.Pamela stated, "The homeowner signed a Disclosure Statement to the effect that she knew of no problems with her home, when in fact there was little way she could not have known."

THIS IS FALSE. Had Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk or her agent asked, I would have shared that the seller had annual tests performed by the manufacturer to determine if the siding was defective. Granted, there were some areas near the ground level and exposed chimney that showed signs of moisture damage, but the manufacturer would not grant a claim because the problem was isolated. During the Defect Resolution Period, Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk asked for a $4000 paint allowance to replace and repaint any defective siding. My seller had three estimates before I ever listed the home that were all under $2000 to replace damaged siding and repaint the entire exterior. There was no way the seller would have paid double the amount necessary to correct this issue.

2. Pamela also stated, "Because Mr. Rainwater felt that his commission would far outweigh any problems I would have with the home, he has basically assisted the homeowner in trying to defraud me."

THIS IS NOT ONLY FALSE, IT'S LAUGHABLE, AND IS ON THE BRINK OF BEING LIBELOUS. Beware of making any further false claims if you are not prepared to defend them in a court of law.

I feel bad for you, Pamela McAuliffe-Kirk, over the fact you lost $550. Had you allowed the seller to correct the issue rather than demand a $4000 allowance for a job the seller corrected for only $1600, you could have had your dream home, and all this could have been avoided. Good luck to you and I hope you were able to find a home that suits your needs.