Generally, a cause of action against a builder accrues when the act causes actual damage to the property. If the damage did not become apparent until after you bought the house the right to sue is yours, provided the statute of limitations has not run.

However, under the “Aas” rule there is no right to sue a builder for negligent or defective work unless there was actual damage. The mere fact that the defective work is worth less under an “economic loss” theory is not enough. I would have to know more about the defects themselves to form an opinion about whether you have actual damages.

However, since the builder was also the seller it could be argued that any defects should have been disclosed during the sale. On the other hand, it can be anticipated that the seller will argue it could not disclose what it did not know about. The seller will cite the fact that the bulding department passed the work as evidence that it had no way to know it was defective.

Suing and winning against the building department is even more difficult. Public employees are generally immune from suit for their discretionary acts. This includes the negligent approval of construction work. You would have to have additional facts beyone mere negligent inspection.

I would not say all hope is lost. However, your case requires some careful thought before filing a lawsuit. I would first want to map out a viable legal theory. You should consult with an attorney in person. There are statutes of limitations on all legal rights. After the deadline runs you may no longer enforce those rights.

In my due diligence before purchase, the inspection records and the inspector showed that all of the work had “passed” inspection.
It was only later that all of the construction defects were discovered.
In reality all of the plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems were in violation of Code, defective and had to be completely re-done (such as toilets with no vents to the roof that wouldn’t flush.) It appears that this work was done with unskilled and unlicensed labor.

The State License Board says they have no jurisdiction over unlicensed owner-builders unless they sold more than 4 houses a year. What liability does the County building department have for passing work that doesn’t meet Code? Could the State License Board have jurisdiction over the Nicaragua guy? Civil action may be possible, but the Board might have more weight in resolution of this matter.

RE: unlawful detainer filing

If a tenant “goes on record” in order to fight a u/d complaint, what are the credit implications?

When a Notice to Quit or U/D is filed/served it may be addressed as “(Name of owner of record) and all occupants, tenants and Does 1-10″ or something to that effect.

At that point, the tenant is anonymous and unknown. Once they file a Prejud claim of right of possession or any type of answer, they effectively “surface”, are updated in the evicting attorney’s paperwork, and are now known.

Even if the tenant prevails, the case is settled without an adverse judgment against the tenant,etc will the tenant’s answer and defense become public record and therefore scrap-able by the credit bureau data parasites?

Could an eviction end up on a tenant’s credit report even if the do not “lose” the u/d case?

Thanks.

When does the new “90 days notice to vacate to tenants in possession of the property at the time of the foreclosure” federal law actually cover?

“At the time of foreclosure” refers to what? The filing of the NOD, the NOT, or the actual date of reversion to the (lender) beneficiary on the deed of trust or sale to a 3rd party at the courthouse?

In other words, if someone is in possession BEFORE the sale date but AFTER the filing of the NOD and NOT what then?

What if the NOD was filed (so the effective date of the start of the foreclosure process) BEFORE the May 20, 2009 date of the federal legislation but AFTER the CA 1161b date?

Would a tenant be only protected by 1161 or would they have the federal protection?

This comes up quite a bit because even though it is technically a 111 day clock from NOD to sale date, many of the lenders have LAGGED big time on the foreclosure process. If they even file an NOD, they may wait months and months before filing the NOT, and then may postpone the sale repeatedly.

Bottom line – it can be a very drawn out process where it is quite possible for a unit to be rented out even though it may be well into the foreclosure process.