[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]A few points are being missed here, I think…….

[/quote]

You were correct on this svelte. But not anymore. Prior to 2003, recoverable damages in CD litigation in California was governed by a 2000 state supreme court case called Aas, which significantly limited (and in some cases eliminated) recovery to resultant damages, unrelated to whether construction was either within code guidelines or standard of care. If you had roof tiles that werent nailed properly, but didn’t leak, you didn’t have damages.

But all that changed in 2002 (see my comment above for the specific code sections) for purchases after 2002. There are now very specific standards which builders must meet, in some cases, regardless of actual damages. If some parts weren’t built right, but still operate correctly, there may be recoverable damages. It added a right to repair for the builder, and also changed the statute of limitations from 10 years across the board to other periods, depending on the defective assembly.

[SK in CV]

Doctors whine about not being paid enough. All the time. For many of them, their favorite pastime is whining about taxes. Though having worked as a tax advisor to scores of them, very few had a clue what they were talking about.

They whined like crazy about medicare almost 50 years ago. But medicare began meteoric rise in physicians’ incomes. It created wednesday golf day. It helped do away with house calls.

In fairness, for most specialties, their incomes have remained stagnant or declined over the last 20 years, and they don’t play golf on wednesdays as often as they used to. They work harder and different than they did 20 years ago.

My prediction, they (along with other allied health care providers) will be the single largest beneficiary of this bill, behind the currently uninsured. A bigger beneficiary than insurance companies. A bigger beneficiary than pharmaceutical companies. And a bigger beneficiary than hospitals. They won’t get paid more for each service. But they will have lots more paying patients.

[SK in CV]

Doctors whine about not being paid enough. All the time. For many of them, their favorite pastime is whining about taxes. Though having worked as a tax advisor to scores of them, very few had a clue what they were talking about.

They whined like crazy about medicare almost 50 years ago. But medicare began meteoric rise in physicians’ incomes. It created wednesday golf day. It helped do away with house calls.

In fairness, for most specialties, their incomes have remained stagnant or declined over the last 20 years, and they don’t play golf on wednesdays as often as they used to. They work harder and different than they did 20 years ago.

My prediction, they (along with other allied health care providers) will be the single largest beneficiary of this bill, behind the currently uninsured. A bigger beneficiary than insurance companies. A bigger beneficiary than pharmaceutical companies. And a bigger beneficiary than hospitals. They won’t get paid more for each service. But they will have lots more paying patients.

[SK in CV]

Doctors whine about not being paid enough. All the time. For many of them, their favorite pastime is whining about taxes. Though having worked as a tax advisor to scores of them, very few had a clue what they were talking about.

They whined like crazy about medicare almost 50 years ago. But medicare began meteoric rise in physicians’ incomes. It created wednesday golf day. It helped do away with house calls.

In fairness, for most specialties, their incomes have remained stagnant or declined over the last 20 years, and they don’t play golf on wednesdays as often as they used to. They work harder and different than they did 20 years ago.

My prediction, they (along with other allied health care providers) will be the single largest beneficiary of this bill, behind the currently uninsured. A bigger beneficiary than insurance companies. A bigger beneficiary than pharmaceutical companies. And a bigger beneficiary than hospitals. They won’t get paid more for each service. But they will have lots more paying patients.

[SK in CV]

Doctors whine about not being paid enough. All the time. For many of them, their favorite pastime is whining about taxes. Though having worked as a tax advisor to scores of them, very few had a clue what they were talking about.

They whined like crazy about medicare almost 50 years ago. But medicare began meteoric rise in physicians’ incomes. It created wednesday golf day. It helped do away with house calls.

In fairness, for most specialties, their incomes have remained stagnant or declined over the last 20 years, and they don’t play golf on wednesdays as often as they used to. They work harder and different than they did 20 years ago.

My prediction, they (along with other allied health care providers) will be the single largest beneficiary of this bill, behind the currently uninsured. A bigger beneficiary than insurance companies. A bigger beneficiary than pharmaceutical companies. And a bigger beneficiary than hospitals. They won’t get paid more for each service. But they will have lots more paying patients.

[SK in CV]

Doctors whine about not being paid enough. All the time. For many of them, their favorite pastime is whining about taxes. Though having worked as a tax advisor to scores of them, very few had a clue what they were talking about.

They whined like crazy about medicare almost 50 years ago. But medicare began meteoric rise in physicians’ incomes. It created wednesday golf day. It helped do away with house calls.

In fairness, for most specialties, their incomes have remained stagnant or declined over the last 20 years, and they don’t play golf on wednesdays as often as they used to. They work harder and different than they did 20 years ago.

My prediction, they (along with other allied health care providers) will be the single largest beneficiary of this bill, behind the currently uninsured. A bigger beneficiary than insurance companies. A bigger beneficiary than pharmaceutical companies. And a bigger beneficiary than hospitals. They won’t get paid more for each service. But they will have lots more paying patients.

[SK in CV]

Here’s what you can expect.

At least one, maybe more, of your neighbors have identified some defects which are actionable under the California Code Title 7, Chapter 2, sections 896 and 897. (Assuming your home’s original sale date was after 2002.)

Those defects may or may not occur at your home. The law firm will (or probably already has) hired experts in a number of disciplines, including but not limited to architecture, plumbing, HVAC, roofing, windows, stucco, concrete, geotechnical and structural engineering. Those experts will inspect your home, and approximately 1 out of every 3 or 4 homes will also undergo invasive testing, where they tear pieces of your house appart to either find or verify evidence of defects. The defense will, more likely than not, follow up with their own similar inspections.

The experts will find problems with the grading, the windows, probably the roofs and windows. Many of these problems will show no symptoms in your particular home, though some may be apparent.

The experts will prepare a list of building standards violations, a repair plan and a cost of repair. Both sides will participate in a number of settlement conferences. They case may go to depositions, in which case you will be deposed, along with the experts in the case. The likelihood that the case will go to trial is almost nil.

This process will take 2 to 4 years. Your communication with your attorneys will be very limited. Unless you specifically request it, they will not tell you what conclusions the experts reached with regards to your home. (asking may be problematic with regards to future disclosure issues, should you want to sell your home.)

The case will settle, probably before depositions, for somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000 per house in the case. Lawyers fees and costs will take approximately 1/3. The expert consultant fees will take another 1/3. You will end up with a check for somewhere between $7,500 and $12,500, 2 to 4 years down the line.

It’s possible that your case may be different. Maybe there are severe drainage problems or soils problems which may double the settlement value. Or maybe they are even smaller than typical cases, and you could end up with nothing. (Less significant defects may not decrease expert fees. They do the same work to find nothing there.)

If it’s worth $7,500 to $12,500 to you to go through the hassle of as many as 4 (maybe even more) inspections and days of testing, the stress of being involved in a lawsuit, the added stress of possibly being deposed, the downside risk of possibly having to disclose the litigation to future buyers, and realizing that under almost no cirucumstances will you end up with enough money to fix any of the defects they find, then go for it. Otherwise, skip it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. Occasionally there are exceptions.

(If you’re wondering how i know what will happen, i’ve been professionally involved in hundreds of CD cases over the last 12 years.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s what you can expect.

At least one, maybe more, of your neighbors have identified some defects which are actionable under the California Code Title 7, Chapter 2, sections 896 and 897. (Assuming your home’s original sale date was after 2002.)

Those defects may or may not occur at your home. The law firm will (or probably already has) hired experts in a number of disciplines, including but not limited to architecture, plumbing, HVAC, roofing, windows, stucco, concrete, geotechnical and structural engineering. Those experts will inspect your home, and approximately 1 out of every 3 or 4 homes will also undergo invasive testing, where they tear pieces of your house appart to either find or verify evidence of defects. The defense will, more likely than not, follow up with their own similar inspections.

The experts will find problems with the grading, the windows, probably the roofs and windows. Many of these problems will show no symptoms in your particular home, though some may be apparent.

The experts will prepare a list of building standards violations, a repair plan and a cost of repair. Both sides will participate in a number of settlement conferences. They case may go to depositions, in which case you will be deposed, along with the experts in the case. The likelihood that the case will go to trial is almost nil.

This process will take 2 to 4 years. Your communication with your attorneys will be very limited. Unless you specifically request it, they will not tell you what conclusions the experts reached with regards to your home. (asking may be problematic with regards to future disclosure issues, should you want to sell your home.)

The case will settle, probably before depositions, for somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000 per house in the case. Lawyers fees and costs will take approximately 1/3. The expert consultant fees will take another 1/3. You will end up with a check for somewhere between $7,500 and $12,500, 2 to 4 years down the line.

It’s possible that your case may be different. Maybe there are severe drainage problems or soils problems which may double the settlement value. Or maybe they are even smaller than typical cases, and you could end up with nothing. (Less significant defects may not decrease expert fees. They do the same work to find nothing there.)

If it’s worth $7,500 to $12,500 to you to go through the hassle of as many as 4 (maybe even more) inspections and days of testing, the stress of being involved in a lawsuit, the added stress of possibly being deposed, the downside risk of possibly having to disclose the litigation to future buyers, and realizing that under almost no cirucumstances will you end up with enough money to fix any of the defects they find, then go for it. Otherwise, skip it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. Occasionally there are exceptions.

(If you’re wondering how i know what will happen, i’ve been professionally involved in hundreds of CD cases over the last 12 years.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s what you can expect.

At least one, maybe more, of your neighbors have identified some defects which are actionable under the California Code Title 7, Chapter 2, sections 896 and 897. (Assuming your home’s original sale date was after 2002.)

Those defects may or may not occur at your home. The law firm will (or probably already has) hired experts in a number of disciplines, including but not limited to architecture, plumbing, HVAC, roofing, windows, stucco, concrete, geotechnical and structural engineering. Those experts will inspect your home, and approximately 1 out of every 3 or 4 homes will also undergo invasive testing, where they tear pieces of your house appart to either find or verify evidence of defects. The defense will, more likely than not, follow up with their own similar inspections.

The experts will find problems with the grading, the windows, probably the roofs and windows. Many of these problems will show no symptoms in your particular home, though some may be apparent.

The experts will prepare a list of building standards violations, a repair plan and a cost of repair. Both sides will participate in a number of settlement conferences. They case may go to depositions, in which case you will be deposed, along with the experts in the case. The likelihood that the case will go to trial is almost nil.

This process will take 2 to 4 years. Your communication with your attorneys will be very limited. Unless you specifically request it, they will not tell you what conclusions the experts reached with regards to your home. (asking may be problematic with regards to future disclosure issues, should you want to sell your home.)

The case will settle, probably before depositions, for somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000 per house in the case. Lawyers fees and costs will take approximately 1/3. The expert consultant fees will take another 1/3. You will end up with a check for somewhere between $7,500 and $12,500, 2 to 4 years down the line.

It’s possible that your case may be different. Maybe there are severe drainage problems or soils problems which may double the settlement value. Or maybe they are even smaller than typical cases, and you could end up with nothing. (Less significant defects may not decrease expert fees. They do the same work to find nothing there.)

If it’s worth $7,500 to $12,500 to you to go through the hassle of as many as 4 (maybe even more) inspections and days of testing, the stress of being involved in a lawsuit, the added stress of possibly being deposed, the downside risk of possibly having to disclose the litigation to future buyers, and realizing that under almost no cirucumstances will you end up with enough money to fix any of the defects they find, then go for it. Otherwise, skip it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. Occasionally there are exceptions.

(If you’re wondering how i know what will happen, i’ve been professionally involved in hundreds of CD cases over the last 12 years.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s what you can expect.

At least one, maybe more, of your neighbors have identified some defects which are actionable under the California Code Title 7, Chapter 2, sections 896 and 897. (Assuming your home’s original sale date was after 2002.)

Those defects may or may not occur at your home. The law firm will (or probably already has) hired experts in a number of disciplines, including but not limited to architecture, plumbing, HVAC, roofing, windows, stucco, concrete, geotechnical and structural engineering. Those experts will inspect your home, and approximately 1 out of every 3 or 4 homes will also undergo invasive testing, where they tear pieces of your house appart to either find or verify evidence of defects. The defense will, more likely than not, follow up with their own similar inspections.

The experts will find problems with the grading, the windows, probably the roofs and windows. Many of these problems will show no symptoms in your particular home, though some may be apparent.

The experts will prepare a list of building standards violations, a repair plan and a cost of repair. Both sides will participate in a number of settlement conferences. They case may go to depositions, in which case you will be deposed, along with the experts in the case. The likelihood that the case will go to trial is almost nil.

This process will take 2 to 4 years. Your communication with your attorneys will be very limited. Unless you specifically request it, they will not tell you what conclusions the experts reached with regards to your home. (asking may be problematic with regards to future disclosure issues, should you want to sell your home.)

The case will settle, probably before depositions, for somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000 per house in the case. Lawyers fees and costs will take approximately 1/3. The expert consultant fees will take another 1/3. You will end up with a check for somewhere between $7,500 and $12,500, 2 to 4 years down the line.

It’s possible that your case may be different. Maybe there are severe drainage problems or soils problems which may double the settlement value. Or maybe they are even smaller than typical cases, and you could end up with nothing. (Less significant defects may not decrease expert fees. They do the same work to find nothing there.)

If it’s worth $7,500 to $12,500 to you to go through the hassle of as many as 4 (maybe even more) inspections and days of testing, the stress of being involved in a lawsuit, the added stress of possibly being deposed, the downside risk of possibly having to disclose the litigation to future buyers, and realizing that under almost no cirucumstances will you end up with enough money to fix any of the defects they find, then go for it. Otherwise, skip it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. Occasionally there are exceptions.

(If you’re wondering how i know what will happen, i’ve been professionally involved in hundreds of CD cases over the last 12 years.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s what you can expect.

At least one, maybe more, of your neighbors have identified some defects which are actionable under the California Code Title 7, Chapter 2, sections 896 and 897. (Assuming your home’s original sale date was after 2002.)

Those defects may or may not occur at your home. The law firm will (or probably already has) hired experts in a number of disciplines, including but not limited to architecture, plumbing, HVAC, roofing, windows, stucco, concrete, geotechnical and structural engineering. Those experts will inspect your home, and approximately 1 out of every 3 or 4 homes will also undergo invasive testing, where they tear pieces of your house appart to either find or verify evidence of defects. The defense will, more likely than not, follow up with their own similar inspections.

The experts will find problems with the grading, the windows, probably the roofs and windows. Many of these problems will show no symptoms in your particular home, though some may be apparent.

The experts will prepare a list of building standards violations, a repair plan and a cost of repair. Both sides will participate in a number of settlement conferences. They case may go to depositions, in which case you will be deposed, along with the experts in the case. The likelihood that the case will go to trial is almost nil.

This process will take 2 to 4 years. Your communication with your attorneys will be very limited. Unless you specifically request it, they will not tell you what conclusions the experts reached with regards to your home. (asking may be problematic with regards to future disclosure issues, should you want to sell your home.)

The case will settle, probably before depositions, for somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000 per house in the case. Lawyers fees and costs will take approximately 1/3. The expert consultant fees will take another 1/3. You will end up with a check for somewhere between $7,500 and $12,500, 2 to 4 years down the line.

It’s possible that your case may be different. Maybe there are severe drainage problems or soils problems which may double the settlement value. Or maybe they are even smaller than typical cases, and you could end up with nothing. (Less significant defects may not decrease expert fees. They do the same work to find nothing there.)

If it’s worth $7,500 to $12,500 to you to go through the hassle of as many as 4 (maybe even more) inspections and days of testing, the stress of being involved in a lawsuit, the added stress of possibly being deposed, the downside risk of possibly having to disclose the litigation to future buyers, and realizing that under almost no cirucumstances will you end up with enough money to fix any of the defects they find, then go for it. Otherwise, skip it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. Occasionally there are exceptions.

(If you’re wondering how i know what will happen, i’ve been professionally involved in hundreds of CD cases over the last 12 years.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=itsj0nathan]I think you are confused, i was single at the time of purchase and she was single at the time of my purchase, we still live seperately and will do so for three years. Therefore, why would we have to pay either of the credits back as we were both single at the time and we currently still live in the houses we bought. The only change is we are married by law.

Thanks[/quote]

I’m going to retract part of what i said before. Though the instructions are a little bit murky, because they don’t address your situation exactly, it appears that if you actually do live apart for 3 years after the purchases, you might be able to keep both credits. I say this because it seems that even though the purchases were both in 2009, by filing the 2008 amended returns, it becomes a 2008 credit, as opposed to an early payment of a 2009 credit. So your tax status, for both of you, and for both the time you made the purchases and for your 2008 filings, were accurate as single taxpayers.

Providing that you continue to live apart AND can prove that you live apart, might be the only hurdle. Filing separate returns with different addresses might help that.

[Author]

Posts