Complaint Review: Bryton Development LLC./G. Kevin Bryar - Chicago Illinois

My complaints regarding Kevin Bryar and Bryton Development have bee resolved and all litigation between us has been dismissed with prejudice. Attorneys for Kevin Bryar and Bryton Development have produced evidence that final inspections did in fact take place prior to the purchase of my unit. They have alos produced a Certificate of Occupancy, issued by the City of Chicago, for the 4525 N. Western Avenue building. Thomas E. Doyle

Just a quick update to my complaint. As a result of my blog, Bryton Development, LLC. and G. Kevin Bryar have decided to sue me for defamation. I guess the fact that I was sold a condominium without an Occupancy Permit, and the fact that Bryton Development, LLC. arbitrarily changed the architects plans during construction, using different trusses, insualtion and leaving out an acoustical component, are things I should just accept without complaint. And the second garage, presented on the plans as approximately 17' in length, but actually constructed near 22' in length, prohibiting access to my exterior spot, is that really something you can defend? Read about the nightmare I've encountered in dealing with Kevin Bryar, Bryton Development, LLC. and it's few employees, including the moron who told me, "You don't get Trump quality in this price range."

Wonderfully written retort, but let me point out a few facts that you have missed: The "sound-deadening" was a PROMISED benefit of the condominium building constructed at 4525 N. Western Avenue. In fact, a key component of sound-deadening technology, which was designed in the blueprints, was LEFT OUT of the construction. Your insinuation that if you want a quiet residence, do not live in a condo, is simplistic, erroneous and the conclusion a person with a 5th grade education would draw, which is why I think you must be a Bryton employee; My parking spot, which is deeded, is unusable and worthless due to the construction of a second garage on the adjoining spot. With this loss, my condo probably can't be sold, regardless of my "obnoxious" yet truthful, blog; I can't sell my condo without lying on the Illinois Residential Disclosure Document, which requires an answer to the question, "Are you aware of any structural problems in the building?" Apparently, you would have have no problem lying, which furthers my belief that you are either a Bryton Development LLC. employee, or perhaps one of my idiotic neighbors, including employees of Bryton, who refuse to acknowledge the insufficient construction in an effor to slavage your "investment." Nice try, but next time read before making an a*s of yourself, "anonymous."

My husband and I purchased a condo from Bryton Development in 2003. Our experience with this company was excellent. We had a few issues that came up in our first year of living in our condo but Bryton was very receptive and attended to our issues promptly. Every homeowner of a new construction property has to expect that nothing is perfect and there may be issues that come up. You just have to make sure that the builder is responsible and easy to work with. Kevin Bryar and Bryton Development is that. When we were looking to buy we noticed that the quality of construction surpassed anything else that was out there.(Friends of ours that had been in our condo agree). I would also like to add that when we sold our condo in 2006 it sold in 5 days when other condos in the neighborhood had been on the market for months. This includes new construction condos. Furthermore, I'd like to add that if the consumer wanted "sound deadening" than he should not have purchased a condo and also not one on Western Avenue! The consumer must be a "rocket scientist" if he thinks he will be able to sell his condo after starting his obnoxious blogspot.

Is the intent of mentioning the supposed profit made by a seller a means of "correcting" the fraud perpetrated by the builder? The former owner (the seller) of the unit across the hall referred to her condominium as a "piece of s**t" and threatened legal action against Kevin Bryar and Bryton Development. Of course, you know this Mr. Smith as you are Bryton's attorney. I would also have to assume that the seller was less than truthful in completing the Residential Disclosure Document, which asks if the seller is aware of any structural defects in the building. As far as the buyer paying an exorbitant amount for a "piece of sh*?" Sounds like a rocket scientist to me.

Readers, Note that the rebuttal has been written by Thomas A. Smith, an attorney representing Bryton Development, LLC. This is virtually the same rebuttal he submitted to the Better Business Bureau. First, the truth. I was forced into arbitrating the dispute; I would have preferred my day in court, but that was solely the judge's position. The arbitrator WAS THE BUILDING ARCHITECT, WHO MAINTAINS A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH BRYTON DEVELOPMENT! Was I surprised at the outcome? No. However, the arbitrator stated that the building was "substantially constructed to plan." SUBSTANTIALLY? Meaning it was constructed WITHOUT resilient channels in the ceiling, the same channels that were on the permitted plans? The same channels that are a KEY component in "sound-deadening" rechnology? Isn't that obtaining a permit under false pretenses? Isn't that a structural and/or functional building defect? Contrary to what Mr. Smith claims, the pursuit of a fraud complaint against Bryton Development and Kevin Bryar will continue. As far as fraud being "unactionable under Illinois Law," I am stating the TRUTH in my complaint and blog, http://bewarethebuilder.blogspot.com/ Mr. Smith has continually threatened me with a defamation suit for speaking the TRUTH. I welcome such suit, as it will allow a court to decide the veracity of my claims. Don't be duped by this disingenuous response-NOWHERE does Mr. Smith state that his client did NOT defraud me. The RipOff Report provides a forum to combat fraudulent enterprises, as well as double-speaking attorneys. Moral? Don't screw the consumer, and you have no reason to worry.

I was looking into buy one of the properties on Southport. But, after reading all these complaints on here and other sites, I will not be buying for this company. Telling buyers that there is sound proofing and there isn't is huge issue for me. I have pets and don't need neighbors getting upset by them running around. Also, I enjoy having friends and family over to watch sports or just sit around and enjoy life. We're not loud, but it can happen. I will look other places since I need parking and I want quality for the money I will spend. Thank god in this city there are thousands of places and companies to look from. Thank you Ripoff Report and to the poster who brought this issue to light!

We begin by stating that Bryton Development supports the role of Ripoff Report in promoting good business and in resolving consumer disputes. Nonetheless, responding to this particular complaint is not easy the writer's use of a pseudonym (Truth in advertising) suggests that he is not comfortable with disclosing his identity. We will attempt to respond while respecting his obvious wish for privacy. The complainant and Bryton Development entered into a contract on or about February 15, 2006, for the purchase of a condominium unit in a building that was developed by Bryton. The contract provided a limited warranty on certain items and provided that all disputed allegations of defect were to be resolved through binding arbitration, held by the project architect. The purchase of the unit closed on or about March 15, 2006. On or about November 11, 2006, Bryton received a letter from the complainant's attorney concerning the alleged defects that are the subject of his report on this site. This was Bryton's first notice of the alleged defects. Bryton responded promptly, by return letter dated November 20, 2006, and endeavored to evaluate and resolve the alleged defects. A follow-up letter was sent to the complainant on December 28, 2007, reviewing what work had been done and stating Bryton's position on defects that were disputed or outside of the limited warranty. Unbeknownst to Bryton, the complainant filed a lawsuit on or about December 22, 2007, seeking rescission and monetary relief under theories of breach of contract and fraud. Bryton promptly filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, since all allegations of defect were disputed and the complainant lacked standing as to the others. (Neither Illinois law nor the parties' contract allow an individual unit owner to assert claims for defect in common elements of a condominium; those claims must be asserted by the association.) As to the fraud allegations, Bryton contended that they were not actionable under Illinois law. As to the issues on which he lacks standing, the complainant voluntarily dismissed those allegations (in apparent agreement with the law). On June 8, 2007, the Court granted Bryton's motion to compel arbitration and deferred consideration on the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the complainant and Bryton both participated in voluntary arbitration proceedings and nearly all issues were resolved in Bryton's favor. (As to the minor issues resolved in complainant's favor, Bryton has asked for the opportunity to address them; he has not responded.) In the court proceedings, Bryton then moved for an order confirming the arbitration and for dismissal and judgment on the remainder of the case. That motion was granted, in its entirety, on January 11, 2008. Although the complainant may be unhappy with the result of his lawsuit, the Court has spoken, and his allegations of defect have been resolved by judgment in favor of Bryton Development, LLC. His allegations of fraud have been dismissed as not actionable under Illinois law. None of this, of course, is mentioned in the complainant's Ripoff Report. Bryton Development enjoys a terrific business reputation as a builder of quality homes. We have scores of satisfied homeowners. We are disappointed that this individual regrets his purchase and note that a condominium unit across the hall from the one bought by the complainant was resold at a $32,000 profit, just over a year after it was purchased from Bryton.