1. A couple purchased a new home in a Madison County subdivision from a builder/developer/realtor for approximately $109,000.00.

Less than one year after moving into the home, the washing machine leaked and flooded the utility room. After having the floor professionally dried and the flooring removed, the flooring continued to buckle.

Upon investigation, several cracks running the length of the home were discovered in under carpeting which contained mold and fungus. All of the first level flooring and carpeting had to be removed through the winter due to moisture levels in the slab foundation which exceeded 20% in some areas.

The builder/developer/realtor refused to acknowledge any problem with the construction and simply insisted that if the home passed inspection he and his wife were not liable. This left our Clients and their small children with no option but to live in a home with nothing but concrete for floors until the home became so cold they had to abandon it.

Evidence marshaled by this firm proved the builder/developer/realtor had never actually constructed a home from practical experience. In addition, it was proven that the home failed one of its initial county inspections and that the same county inspector was living in one of the Defendants' homes in the same subdivision. The same inspector's supervisor stated that the house should never have passed inspection.

Additional evidence showed the Defendants had built the three homes surrounding our Clients' home and that the fourth home had not been excavated to prevent an enormous amount of water from flowing to this particular home. Despite creating this condition, the Defendants failed to install any drainage system or landscaping to prevent the foundation from becoming saturated for weeks at a time.

In addition, the builder attempted to accuse our Clients of creating the entire situation by adding a small flower box which was built as a mother's day gift.

After extensive litigation and denials by the builder, the case was settled for well in excess of the purchase price of the home.

2. A Tennessee couple built a large home with Dryvit as its textured exterior surface.

This particular Dryvit was made with sand purchased in Florida containing phosphates. After several years, the phosphate gravitated to the surface and left hundreds of rust spots on the surface which left rusty streaks beneath the spots. The manufacturer was called and allegedly repaired the problem by picking out the phosphates and re-painting the entire home.

A couple of years later, hundreds more rust spots returned with long streaks running underneath.

Our Clients made claims against the manufacturer for manufacturing a defective product and then fraudulently covering up the defect with negligent repairs.

The claims were settled for a confidential amount after extensive negotiations with the manufacturer.

3. An elderly Madison County couple were preparing to sell their home which they had owned for over twenty years without incident. After seeing an advertisement offering a free structural inspection from Positive Pest Control for floor supports, the couple called and scheduled an inspection.

Don Jennings, on behalf of Positive, arrived at the home and concluded the home needed additional support by bouncing up and down on the living room floor until the china rattled in the display cabinet. Jennings duped our Clients into paying $1,800.00 for additional supports by saying it was the "senior citizens" discount.

After the supports were installed, cracks, . . . . very large cracks, appeared in every room of the house over the crawl space area. The kitchen cabinets dropped from the ceiling and the countertops pulled away from the walls.

Positive Pest Control and Jennings attempted to say the numerous cracks and kitchen defects pre-existed the floor supports being installed despite proof to the contrary.

This firm proved that Jennings did not even go under the home before determining that supports were necessary. Evidence also showed the supports were installed improperly causing the cracks and kitchen defects. Evidence also proved that no one at Positive Pest Control or Jennings has any education or training to install these types of supports. The cost to install the support was less than $250.00.

On the eve of trial, after extensive litigation, the case was settled for more than $100,000.00.

Jennings now owns and operates a business in Madison County called "Economy Floor Supports."

4. A Madison County couple purchased a home for approximately $50,000.00 which, when inspected by a local termite company indicated the presence of prior termite infestation in and around the chimney.

Our Clients' mortgage company required a general contractor to inspect the home and report on the existence of any defects or damage. The contractor certified the home to be free of structural problems and issued a report to our Clients' mortgage company.

A few weeks after our Clients occupied the home, a wind storm caused the chimney to visibly separate from the rear wall of the home. A few days later the chimney fell away from the home leaving a gap in the rear wall of the home.

Claims were bought against the realtor, the contractor and the sellers for fraud and negligent inspection.

This firm was able to prove that the house did suffer from visible structural damage at the time it was inspected. Evidence was further obtained that the sellers had previously added support to the chimney area because the floor had begun to sag. Finally, evidence demonstrated that a qualified inspector should have recognized the house posed a threat to the health and safety of our Clients when they moved in.