In a ruling expected to take about 10 days to deliver but which actually took nearly a full month, Clark County District Court Judge Timothy Williams ruled broadly against Del Webb/Pulte Homes March 14 in the Evidentiary Fairness Hearing involving Pulte's plan for addressing the Kitec plumbing problem in Sun City Anthem. The hearing was sought by the attorneys pursuing the class-action case involving Kitec.
These were among the findings of fact the Court made:
Pulte's October 20, 2006, notice to residents of Sun City Anthem whose homes contained Kitec, set and performed inspections, and offered to settle Class Member Claims, was unauthorized by the Court.
On January 8, 2007, Pulte sent letters to affected homeowners offering them $7,800 to settle Kitec claims. Although Pulte frames the offers simply as proposals for monetary compensation, the Court says, "Pulte's claim is illusory and contrary to its own actions."
The Pulte offer was not a "simple or pure" offer of monetary compensation resulting from repair-cost estimates submitted by Anthem homeowners. "Instead, Pulte secured the repair bids and based the $7,800 proposal on its own repair estimate."
The offers of money made by Pulte, coupled with repair estimates, the securing of bids and arrangement of repairs by contractors, etc., is "much more than a simple proposal of monetary compensation. Because of the way Pulte is controlling the repair and replumbing of the Anthem homes, the Court said, "the Pulte offer is not merely monetary compensation but the exercise of the right to repair."
The Court said the general release demanded as a condition of receiving payment from Pulte "is in violation of NRS 40.648.4."
The 35-day deadline for homeowners to respond to the Pulte offer was not valid because the statute was not complied with in terms of the offer containing a "clear and understandable statement notifying the claimant of the consequences of his failure to respond or otherwise accept or reject the offer of settlement." The Court added that a number of material issues were never disclosed to homeowners in the offer. The Court added: "Because of Pulte's failure to inform Anthem homeowners of these material issues, it was improbable for Anthem homeowners to make an informed decision. Thus, any non-acceptance of the offer within 35 days will not be considered a rejection."
These were among the Conclusions of Law made by the Court:
The Court has jurisdiction over Pulte's Offer and Release.
Pulte's offer in the amount of $7,800 coupled with soliciting bids, arranging repairs by the contractor, etc., constitutes an election to repair under Chapter 40.
Pulte's Release is in violation of statute and is an attempt to circumvent the oversight of the Class claims by the Court.
Pulte's offer did not adequately and fairly address and inform Anthem homeowners of the consequences of acceptance, assignment and/or rejection.
The Court made these orders:
Pulte has voluntarily appeared and injected itself under the general jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of offers and settlements with Anthem Class members.
Pulte's release document is in violation of Nevada law.
Pulte's offer constitutes an offer to repair under Chapter 40.
Homeowners' failure to accept Pulte's offer within 35 days shall not be considered a rejection as contemplated by law.
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Class counsel, upon motion and hearing, shall consider the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs for all motions related to ex-parte communications with Class counsel and reasonable attorney's fees and any costs regarding communication with Class members related to this matter."
What does all this mean? Well, the Court ruling says Pulte acted illegally in making its offer and allowing a 35-day period to accept it based on a letter that was found to be legally inadequate. The Court found, in effect, that Pulte was interfering with the prosecution of the class action, and its finding seems to suggest that responsibility for the repairs rested with Pulte.
This obviously leaves many unanswered questions, such as: How does the class action proceed from here? What should affected homeowners who haven't yet had their repairs do now?
My friend Ken, who sent me a copy of the Court decision on Thursday, raises the following questions, which have been put to the class-action attorneys, hopefully to produce answers that will benefit our homeowners:
If the Pulte release is a violation of statute, what is the status of the releases that were executed and sent in?
For those who sent in releases but have not yet had the work done, is the release now voidable by homeowners?
Can the homeowners expect Pulte, who the Court deemed as "causing the repair," to allow the replumbing contractors to perform their work and reimburse them accordingly?
This will obviously raise many more questions than it answers. We now need to see what Pulte's response is and how the class-Acton attorneys interpret and react to the ruling.
My personal feeling is that this ruling may be an important step in the process of having Pulte do what I've previously stated it should have done in the first place: Confirm the existence of the problem in a home and then get it fixed, withoiut requiring homeowners to arrange their own repairs.
Ron Johnson has produced his usual thorough analysis on his SCA View-Journal site, including a link to the actual Court ruling, which I recommend you read if you are affected by the Kitec problem.
Recent Comments