the during the time o the case of many unusual things happened one one of the council i don't remember who who yes attorney mino of was attorney for the defendants passed away i personally had to really should run out but not because i just lay this out for you because my clients were very patient with case the first one is the court having used an incorrect measure of damages of requirement of damages to be produced by the plaintiff i've seen no cases on this absolutely one where the other whether liability for all damages under the act which gives me  under the act occurred because of a failure to complete the entire disclosure statement this is a circumstance where the defendant did not answer oh three or four of the questions were supposed to answer all and one of them that he didn't answer  statement and and it shall be given and so on and there's no room for anything but doing the whole statement and  the perspective buyer if anyone who does not produce this statement has a timely fashion and completed shall be responsible for the actual damages suffered by them by the buyers so as far as the need defects in the plumbing system which is the second area of defects that we experience in this case if the plumbing  even be of the case is otherwise made a correct statement about the plumbing defects whether there is a settlement over problems with the property of the court found out that he was he did not comply with the air however the court found that the evidence of what the damage of the damages of didn't satisfy what the court felt would be the proper of the evidence of or substantial evidence of damage it seems that the trial court made of determination that there was no  evidence as to what the cost of repairs would have been a nine hundred ninety eight as opposed to two thousand staff and that was the basis for rejecting a claim for damages because they were in two thousand and ten dollars or more accurately the two thousand and ten estimate was based on the condition of the property in two thousand and ten sat after yes or actually  the evidence presented was the opinion of what it would cost to repair two thousand and ten yes but of this is a case  there had been a and ten you'd get teary aeration or continuing settlement of the foundation from nine hundred ninety eight to two thousand and ten the we started actually with a condition in one thousand nine hundred one when the defendant approached his insurance company up out of the condition the damage to the property and made a mind subsidence application of that particular individual said no there's no mine subsidence but there is movement in the prop and you see a substantial change and he said mr costello in his report he said as in his opinion expressed on just a very left page of his report please remember that much of the damage preexisted the most or least ownership given the nature of the indigenous soil limitations these damages if not properly repaired would only worsen this is that it in my opinion the damages at the site of the result of indigenous soil limitations in concert with the construction practices employed council did structural damage they that they did nothing but that they did change anything and so whatever happened whatever the condition of the property was fifty thousand dollars to repair in two thousand and ten and the what the gentleman in two thousand  be done and he put estimates for each step of the work that had to be done but as i understand your question and we know it didn't get any better oh the question is did it get worse that's i believe yes i personally believe it got worse my client i believe there is there was testimony about and and some other cracks developing and yes it did get worse owner licensed plumber review the house and the report and found that the same code sections were being violated in the same w the is the question is answer that they claim which correct even though it turns out that there are serious the facts with the property and once again i don't think that's day or two after the closing in ninety eight the buyer wife called up the sour and said we've got a leak in the downstairs shower you know only about that he said oh yeah that you take a the only evidence of damage related to settlement was that there were some cracks in the wall by the way my client did disclose those cracks in answer to paragraph four he chose to say that's where you to testify first let me say the only evidence of anything wrong at all with this house related to settlement was there were some cracks in the wall m to give an opinion as to what damage would have been and nine hundred ninety eight when asked and he stand said something even more important he said just cracks in the wall is not evidence of cracks just not responses seventeen but most importantly is there were two experts to testify on behalf of the first one who was the guy you asked him why was it damage caused by something that was immaterial defect his response was good done that this showing a piece of concrete and i'll  client was told in this report was it is not condition or conditions was how it aggressing in its estimate of oss how tech was addressing what it would cost to repair the nature of the damages in two thousand and ten it was satellite is it was it was settlement it was structural defects it was a huge amount of damage it did to the extent that the damage was going to cost more to fix of necessarily a health care was providing an estimate to address conditions that existed and it's the conditions that i'm trying to of ask you to pinpoint or identify because then i'm going to ask you of what evidence of the existence of those conditions appears in the record but first what were the conditions that existed in two thousand and ten that i was there was addressing in its estimate of cause structural repairs based on the settlement of the walls that occurred needed treatment for lots of areas jacking the house up so it's all in that area but the second half of your question shows you the correctness of the trial court's ruling is that there was nobody who testified that those conditions existed as to debt as to damage and as with john what was  i don't think the disclosure report requires that when you disclose you disclose anything that you know there's no evidence necessarily that my client said and these cracks are from salmond and that they will they will it looks similar to ninety one when he's doing this in two thousand looks similar but the porch is then angle i see some additional damage to some brick wall and ninety eight what the damage was and that's what the trial court said is the actionable time here is the time of the sale and because there was not evidence of what damage existed in  but the trial court saying in trial courts absolute correct is that you get to do this progressive nature damage if you can show that there was this damage and nine hundred ninety eight castello saying in year two thousand not dressed what it cost but he didn't testify as to what things were cost by and that then he could if he did that well say this is same thing that they had back in ninety eight that would have been sufficient pla answer my quite lucky answer is clearly in two thousand what they saw he predicted would get worse and then there was evidence that in two thousand and ten it was worse but i think the most important thing about that is but there's no evidence as to what was there in ninety eight i don't say that i think the trial court was correct that the evidence presentation here as to the cracks and what they where they were from and what they were going to cause in ninety eight was missing from the record and therefore the honors the trial court specified that to accept these is damages is conjecture and speculation and that wasn't given to  was talking about the letter of october thirty first ninety ninety one so you are aware of settling from that time at bedtime you were settling yes were you present when mr murder of conducting thing inspection of connecting nine hundred ninety eight which is a real squeeze the the i don't remember the exact date but the closing occurred in the fall of one nine hundred ninety eight my clients saw the problem started with the subsidence people they did a study for four months most of the conditions really was out of work and they were just trying to figure out you know among other things they're waiting for of this report and then they all the sudden they don't have mine subsidence and you know where does one go from there yes if it probably would have been helpful to have to have that but you do have the condition of the property you have twenty six some live pictures of all the square that were in existence in two thousand all over the property and you have when they were there that's barely a year after the close it's practically one nine hundred ninety eight for as far as structures are concerned and i think that that you have enough and i think the court the trial court had enough on the basis of this being continuing damage because of of of settlement that the good in two thousand and ten is an accurate damage to repair a problem that