Verdict: $125,000 in mold lawsuit
A Berkeley County jury has returned a verdict of $50,000 in actual damages and $75,000 in punitive damages against Prudential Carolina Real Estate because an agent allegedly sold residential property without disclosing that it had a toxic mold problem, plaintiff's attorney Daniel Martin said Monday.
Prudential Carolina attorney Michael Scarafile said post-trial motions have yet to be heard by trial Judge Roger Young, so the verdict is not finalized. "This matter is not concluded at the trial court level," Scarafile said.
At issue in the trial was whether Prudential Carolina should have provided two mold reports on the property to the buyers, Scarafile said. He said an offer was made to remedy the mold problem but it was rejected.
Dana E. Winters and Daniella C. Winters filed suit against Prudential Carolina Real Estate and agent Barbara Daniels in Berkeley County. The verdict was returned last Wednesday, Martin said. The suit sought $1.5 million in damages. Daniels did not return a call seeking comment.
Previous stories
Family recounts mold ordeal; Couple suing builder say they faced hefty repair bill, illness, published 07/09/08
Mold contamination drives 2nd family from home, published 07/10/08
Homeowners file suit; mold tests planned, published 07/11/08
Mold caused health issues, family says, published 08/14/08
The Winters bought property at 2105 Live Oak Drive in Moncks Corner in 2005 for $110,000. It included a house and a store. The store is now a bike shop. They intended to renovate the home and offer it for rent but the Winters discovered it had a black mold problem. The suit alleged that the defendants knew or should have known about the mold problem and failed to disclose the information before the sale.
"She (Daniels) knew about the mold problem and she didn't tell us," Daniella Winters said. Scarafile said the property was sold under an "as is" contract with buyer acknowledgement of the presence of mold in the house.
"They had to abandon the house. They're still paying the mortgage on it," Martin said.
Daniella Winters said that a woman who had an earlier contract to buy the property told them that the house had a problem with toxic black mold. The woman told the Winters about the mold issue after they bought the property, Daniella Winters said.
Another Berkeley County court case involving household mold is pending. A Daniel Island family who fled their home after receiving mold test results has sued builder D.R. Horton Inc., alleging negligence resulting in permanent and life-threatening physical injuries. An attorney for Benjamin and Joy Allen filed the lawsuit alleging that substandard construction led to water intrusion and mold that seriously affected their health and that of their 3-year-old daughter.
The Winters' lawsuit does not allege detrimental health effects because of an undisclosed mold problem at the house on the property they purchased.
Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 21 comment(s)
Posted by carolinadude on August 19, 2008 at 4:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The attorney said "the house was sold under and "as is contract" and the buyer signed an acknoledgement of the presence of mold in the house".
That being the case, i don't understand the guilty verdict.
Posted by Tulane75 on August 19, 2008 at 5:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently, the jury saw it differently.
Posted by moonpie on August 19, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently that wasn't the case. As serious as mold is why would a property be allowed to be sold if it had mold?
Posted by justjerry on August 19, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am curious as to why the offer to fix the problem was turned down? Mold is a pain but not impossible to remediate.
Posted by DoaMM on August 19, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"As Is" allows the agent to get away with crap if the buyer doesn't hire an inspector. All the agent has to do is not mention there's hidden crap. Without an inspection (buyers fault) the couple wouldn't know there's mold.
"As Is" is "As Is"...it's up to the buyer to choose. I don't understand the guilty verdict in this either.
Posted by Tulane75 on August 19, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think DoaMM is suggesting that "As Is" means that the buyer must uncover intentionally hidden flaws. While I agree that the buyer should have the property inspected, I do not think fraud is cured by the language in the contract.
Posted by summerville_guy on August 19, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before I bought my house, I paid several hundred dollars for a home inspection. Is this not something that the buyers should have done before making the biggest purchase of their lives?
Posted by blaze on August 19, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not a "guilty" verdict. It's a "damages" verdict.
No wonder you don't understand.
Posted by mkris on August 19, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Intentionally hiding a problem is different than not knowing about the problem. Real Estate 'professionals' will sell thier grandmother for a commission.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on August 19, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who's worst--the real estate agent or the plaintiff's attorney? Both take a contingency fee and can't get paid without a sale or judgment. They will both do whatever it takes to get paid. They probably deserve each other in my opinion. Oh, so many real estate agents sucked off the bubble until it popped and now they are all scrambling for fees.
And how do any of you know whether they got the home inspected or not? Inspectors do not perform any destruction so if the mold was hidden beyond plain view, the inspector could never find it. There are disclosure requirements even for "as is" homes. I don't think it is bad for all agents to take notice of this case and provide complete disclosure of known problems or risk a verdict so that they will not put their fee above an informed decision to buy.
Posted by missudpat on August 19, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a home inspector for fifteen years. There are patent and latent defects, those which can be seen or are hidden respectively. No inspector has x-ray vision and therefore relies in part on disclosures. Where there was a roof leak, unmaintained windows, inadequate ventilation, high water table, sewage back up, plumbing repair,.... there may have been mold. Finding this mold, might require subsequently calling a mold testing company which, once found and scheduled, can take an additional week to report. By then the buyer's contingency window has long expired. All known materially pertinent facts and conditions must by law be disclosed. Those two pre-existing mold reports had to be handed over. Since they weren't, those damages, liability and punitives were assessed.
Posted by saturndude on August 19, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well, if the family wasn't aware of a toxic infection, 'as is' shouldn't be enough to cover the agent that sold the house. If you are going to sell something that you know is hazardous, you darn well better warn them about it!
I am curious though.. $125,000 in damages, yet the family "asked for $1.5 million in damages"
what?!
Posted by GreenvilleGirl on August 19, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The seller and the agent were in possession of a report which disclosed the presence of the toxic mold. Agents(and sellers) are required to disclose any known "defects" in the house, or any personal knowledge of anything that could affect the value or marketability of the property(as an example, if a mass murder had been committed in a house). "As is" means the selling price did not include any allowances or agreements to repair anything on the property.
From the article, it appears the agent failed to disclose the report and its contents. The seller was not required to remove the mold; he was required to disclose it. The agent/seller became liable for damages when she failed to disclose the mold. She intentionally failed to disclose in order to consummate the sale.
I think this may have applied even if there was no agent involved. I'm not sure, but I think there is something in the federal housing laws that requires the seller to disclose the same thing an agent would be required to disclose. It goes back to having knowledge about the property. Feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong.
Regardless, I don't think Miss Real Estate will be listing or selling anything anytime soon.
Posted by STREETLAW on August 19, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can't blame the agent for this one. The mold should have known better :-)
Mold is a way of life in the low country. Hundreds, if not thousands, of homes are sold each year that either have excessive moisture or will have when the first real heavy rains hit and the water starts running under the houses as the streets and yards flood. Sometime this only happens every three or four years for some houses, but the owners generally know.
Owners and agents are suppose to disclose facts pertinent to the property and even closing attorneys should be aware of areas prone to flooding. I believe CPW publishes a list by subdivision. This should automatically be flagged by the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) computers.
If the market falls through on more of the flood and mold prone houses, it would help the property value of those of us who are not in flood zones.
And yes, sue, sue, sue if you do have a moldy one. I too am curious as to why the judgment was so small.
Posted by ashleyatwork on August 19, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Could this just be proof of the flat real estate market?
So bad you have to mislead to make a sale.
Why are they still building new houses all over town?
Why are they still clearing land for new sub divisions?
Posted by JohnS on August 19, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You bought something as is where is. If you had any doubts why didn't the buyer have it inspected?
Posted by ChrisPia on August 19, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any Product Defect In The State Of SC You Have Up To eight years to make a claim.You Must givethem the opportunity to fix the problem though.
Posted by BerkeleyCo_Mom_of_3 on August 19, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The agent mgiht have made a poor choice, but the buyers obviously didn't ask the right questions and were not smart enough to get an inspection...just goes to show how ignorant some people can be... I work with in sight of this place...it's a crap hole, was a crap hole before they bought it, and regardless of any mold...it would still be a craphole!
No offense..
Posted by ptmama73 on August 19, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Simmer down Bevis!
If there was a previous test for mold then wouldn't signs of that test be present? (I don't know and readily admit it.) It is my understanding that they actually have to "tap" into a wall/floor.
Either way, asking for 1.5 million in damages is more than excessive since they apparently don't live in the house (the article states they were preparing it to be a rental) and have suffered no ill health effects. I am lead to believe that this is nothing more than grubbing for unearned money.
Posted by reogirl on August 20, 2008 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They bought a HOUSE AND A STORE for $110,000? And they didn't think it had problems? Whatever! Any agent that can get me a house and store for that price is hired! Mold? Mold is everywhere. And that house has been sitting there forever. They must not have wanted to rent it too bad since it is still run down. Can mold be so toxic that you can't fix it? I suppose someone must have health problems from the mold since since they sued for $1.5 million.
Posted by BerkeleyCo_Mom_of_3 on August 20, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The land alone would be worth more than the land and buildings...like I said craphole!!