yet as apparently concluded by the dates homes here you showed no connection no causal connection between the breach between violation of the act the reason that you brought the lawsuit i believe that this hostess incredibly find that there was no coffee connection i think that when you talk about these this fact pattern residential real property disclosure where personalize upon disclosure in the house and you prove what the had moved all the way up to the house and proceeded past the house entirely surrounded the house in those pictures which are in the record a show this house was flooded defended the minute it was flooded and yet when he came to the lab that residential real property disclosure people when they fill out these forms in deciding these cases the statutory language as to these forms is this prescribed by legislation the general assembly went through  house you put down visqueen which would prevent future water for milk infiltrating the house i think that as an actual damage the something that the court absolutely should have all worked very simply that house as it was represented to him was a house that had not flooded  and should have been a worthless by the prop up the other major damage that he thought was mold remediation that seems to be what trucks were focused on and saying wait a second minute we're not comfortable with this i don't know that i want to give a year after the flood i did a crawl space and i'm putting up wires relating to my t v or work and yeah it's like any crawl space but there's no hum water there's no mold there's no rotten floor joists that i can be aware of i'm down there crawling around doing this work now understanding your client may say well that's beyond belief but the t already conceded that he could have concluded or apparently did conclude there's no way to make a connection between the mole i mean you disagreed and you think your witnesses probably were strong enough your expert was strong enough to do that but it was there was evidence on the other side so you do that and then you consider well yeah there was a fly in it dried out and i went down in my crawl space and i was there doing going down this this house had a problem it had a defect that defect was that it flooded prior to this event it flooded at the time in two thousand and two which was shown by the pictures and if flooded when my client had the house itself continues to be subject to this condition this condition this defective condition of being subject to water infiltration being subject to a condition of water filtration which is  if i answer the court's question what i'd like to say is i think the court got confused as to whether it's the you know it's not whether to believe my client or the other client it's very simply the evidence was that there was a defect in this home there was a a false disclosure and knowing false disclosure in terms of if if the court was to say ok we're going to believe them that there was no recurrently protect the crop work out i don't know that's the case i think the prop work for the third theory that this was always subject to no vapor barrier announced possible but what's the record was yes but but in terms of that determination that's really not the issue the issue is whether there was a knowing face of the slope which is what is in the statute and that was in fact true in so terms of my client's damage he again went in and tried to fix the specific condition which was incorrectly described on the disclosure and i don't know that's an issue of the other witnesses credibility or not i don't think that's the case moves in to the major issue here or the second you know another major issue attorney where you have a partial disclosure or you have a check the box yes an explanation this case in this case involves someone who knew the home flooded and they checked the box no this particular fact pattern i think and look through the case law look at the facts and make a determination to settle the case result the case short of trying this case in terms of money value was a five thousand dollar case how does it come up all this you know to this level the sack very simply if you check the box know that there's not a problem with plumbing and you as the plaintiff come in and prove that there was a problem with the plumbing that you bought a house based on the reliance the that that system was fine if you've been damaged a really pretty simple in terms of how they're sassed it's cost of repair that's all that my client is asking for very simply he's just asking that you be awarded the cost of repairing this cross case and those expert to come in so what exactly is the problem in this particular case apply purchase the home in august immediately they noticed an odor of of mold when they got into the house they had an expert out there within a matter of weeks trying to get spring before a lot of the remedies in terms of what was done were done so in terms of precision it's difficult for homeowners just paid a lot of money i was suggesting just a lot of money for a home to search to try to figure out what exactly is wrong just to start out with there was an ordinance route where the federation these are insurance policies very simply these are not insurance policies if you have a very short period of time in which you have to pony diagnose it case involves someone who very simply lied very simply made a decision that they were going to work no not disclose the condition because they wanted to sell the house and i think that terms of resolving these ca