26 Responses to “Boston Broker Sued Over Secondhand Smoke” »»

1. Funny
   Comment by Funny | 02/09/10 at 5:08 am

   What’s the problem?

   She asked, she was lied to to get a sale through, and now she deserves some form of compensation. She would have never bought the unit if she wasn’t lied to, or would have offered a price that was justified for the issues she had with the unit below her.

   They should have either said we can’t give that information out, or told her the truth. They lied to get a sale instead.

   This really isn’t about smoking, but selling practices.

   Shady business practices comes back to bite you. I have no sympathy for them.

2. Boston Broker
   Comment by Boston Broker | 02/09/10 at 5:26 am

   Funny, upon reading the Boston Globe story, isn’t this a case of “he said, she said.”

3. Ford Realty
   Comment by Ford Realty | 02/09/10 at 5:36 am

   For the sake of argument, lets say she wasn’t told the truth by the broker (though that hasn’t been established yet). She’d have a good argument if that’s the case. So we agree on that point. But why did she take legal action against the residents below? Why did she take legal action against the condo association? Is she asserting that they also lied to her? Was it really their responsibility to tell her before her purchase that they smoked?

   The issue is clearly bigger than merely her relationship with her broker. A lot of other people are getting dragged into a legal mess who had nothing to do with her condo purchase.

4. Mike
   Comment by Mike | 02/09/10 at 6:07 am

   And here’s the part that sucks:

   “Nonetheless, Schofield agreed to pay Burrage a settlement yesterday because it was less expensive to do that than to pay for his defense at trial, Goodman said.”

   So, someone acting legally, in their own residence, has to pay what amounts to extortion to settle a suit that likely has no merit, but would be costly to defend. That sucks, and she sucks for bringing this frivolous, nuisance lawsuit against this guy.

   The broker, if they acted as she says they did, is a different story.

   Mike

5. Paul C
   Comment by Paul C | 02/09/10 at 6:27 am

   Mike and JF, not that I want to defend Burrage but how do you know that the condo docs don’t state a “no smoking” policy. Don’t jump to conclusions until you have all the facts.

6. Jon
   Comment by Jon | 02/09/10 at 6:41 am

   I hope she moves out of the south end. She is part of the terrible NIMBY, suburban wave of owners that are making an edgy, trendy, urban and fun neighborhood worse off and frankyl, boring. Good riddance. I suggest properties in Back Bay, Beacon Hill, the Waterfront, or Higham.

7. Ford Realty
   Comment by Ford Realty | 02/09/10 at 6:51 am

   Mike – You’re right. Don’t jump to conclusions. If there was a prior written condo rule against smoking, she has an even better case. But the way the article is written, it looks like she’s retroactively blaming others for her and/or her broker’s lack of due diligence. By suing others, she’s making it clear she doesn’t think this was a purely “he said/she said” dispute between she and her broker. She’s taking action against others — and that’s where this case gets a little scary.

8. megan
   Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 6:52 am

   Yeah, great Jon. I don’t know the details of the lawsuit against the association and neighbors but I don’t think wanting to live in a smoke free apt means you’re a NIMBY. Do you have asthma? Do you know what it’s like to have your passageways constrict (I do)? And she should continue living in this place with that level of discomfort.

   The broker should have looked into this. Would it have been so difficult to take a note and maybe ask? What do brokers do now? Shuffle paperwork and open locks for people?

   Actually, Jon, it’s fools like you who think you can do what you want, without responsibility, that make my neighborhood so crappy.

9. Funny
   Comment by Funny | 02/09/10 at 6:54 am

   “But why did she take legal action against the residents below? Why did she take legal action against the condo association? Is she asserting that they also lied to her? Was it really their responsibility to tell her before her purchase that they smoked?”

   Not necessarily, but again the problem isn’t that they smoke.

   The problem is that their second hand smoke is seeping into her condo and both the residents and the association are unwilling to find a remedy to it.

   If the apartment above her had a sewer line that was leaking, would they not have to fix the problem from effecting her condo? To me, it seems like a similar issue.

   And yes, this is assuming she was lied to. No sympathy for her if she’s just trying to get out of a contract or extort money.

10. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 6:55 am

    Would she have been able to contact the owner about the smoke smell? Who’s responsibility was that? How would one check into that?

11. Ford Realty
    Comment by Ford Realty | 02/09/10 at 7:09 am

    The last comment was meant for Paul C, not Mike. Sorry.

12. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 7:09 am

    From the article:

    “But she was concerned about the unmistakable stench of smoke, she said, and noticed that DeAngelo burned scented candles at an open house. DeAngelo assured her that with the renovations and painting Burrage had in mind, she alleges, the smell would disappear.

    Burrage and her parents asked DeAngelo whether they could contact the seller of the condo or that woman’s broker, who also worked for Gibson Sotheby’s, to confirm that she was a smoker, Burrage said.

    “He said he wouldn’t let us,’’ Burrage said. “He said that was his job.’’

    The broker was an associate of the seller’s broker and couldn’t look into this? I think they were trying to hide the fact that smoke was a problem in the unit so that they could get the sale. If this is true, the broker, not the other tenants, should be held responsible.

13. Boston Broker
    Comment by Boston Broker | 02/09/10 at 7:14 am

    Megan, please, she and her lawyer should have reviewed the condo docs. If there was no mention of a smoke free bldg. I don’t see how she can argue that this is the brokers fault.

    Megan, let me ask you a question. If I know the family above the condo I have for sale are from India and cook food from that area (which some find offensive) do you think I’m required to inform the potential buyers of the ethic coooking that occurs on the floor above. I hope your ans is no, people have freedoms, I as a broker can’t go asking people if they smoke because I have a listing below them.

14. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 7:17 am

    Boston Broker, I’m sensitive to this issue because I have asthma. I may not like the smell of Indian Food but it does not present a health problem. I’m sorry, but there’s no comparison.

    Again, from the article:
    “The Environmental Health Office of the Boston Public Health Commission tested the air in Burrage’s apartment the month after she moved in. It detected nicotine in her condo and “a very high concentration’’ inside a laundry closet, according to a report in the court file.”

15. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 7:21 am

    Someone made a good point in the Globe forum about why it really is her responsibility — she trusted a realtor. Haha.

16. Boston Broker
    Comment by Boston Broker | 02/09/10 at 7:27 am

    Megan, How would you like it if I knocked on your door as a Realtor and asked you what you are doing in YOUR own condo because I have a listing below you. The last I heard it’s still legal to smoke in your own condo unless the condo docs say otherwise.

17. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 7:34 am

    Boston Broker, the point is that the smoke effected the unit she bought. The presence of scented candles leads me to believe that broker KNEW it was a problem. She asked the realtor about it and it appears that he misled her. The broker either didn’t ask OR knowingly lied to her to get the sale.

18. Jon
    Comment by Jon | 02/09/10 at 7:39 am

    Megan – I make “your neighborhood” worse off? I have lived in the South End for 14 years, in 4 different locations and currently reside on Dwight Street – one block away from the condo in question. My comment is referring to the fact that she is suing both her neighbors and association (something I think many people here would find un-neighborly) over a behavioral issue. I’d be interested to hear the neighbors who are being sued explain what conversations they actually had with her.

    Let me guess, you bought your condo in 2006 because Boston magazine said the south end was the new “it” neighborhood and (oh my gosh) Barbara Lynch has two new restaurants!

19. Funny
    Comment by Funny | 02/09/10 at 7:54 am

    Boston Broker,

    Why are you trying to steer this convo to the issue of the people below her and their smoking? It’s what caused the issue, but it isn’t the thing being litigated against.

    The issue is smoke from their smoking is leeching into her condo, and she was apparently lied to. The article makes it clear that the litigation against the people below her and the association was due to everyone’s refusal to fix the issue(s) that are allowing smoke to billow into other units. Not some vendetta to drive them out or to force them to stop smoking.

20. megan
    Comment by megan | 02/09/10 at 8:08 am

    Actually, Jon, I’ve lived here for 11 years. And I’m about the farthest thing from what you would call a new south ender. But I thought your comment was a off base, that this person was a NIMBY because she has health concerns. If you read the story you can see that she inquired about the problem and was not told the truth by the broker.

21. confused
    Comment by confused | 02/09/10 at 8:38 am

    Boston Broker you once said would pay a fine in order to rent an apartment to an inappropriate number of tenants. Now you’re saying that it isn’t your responsibility to determine the living conditions your clients are potentially moving into? Why are you needed if you don’t help with things like this?

22. Smokers stink
    Comment by Smokers stink | 02/09/10 at 4:38 pm

    we live above smokers too and it comes into our unit despite taking all preventions that we can in sealing, purifiers, etc.

    while we’re not suing anyone and nobody lied to us, I do believe it is the right of the condo owner to be able to not be exposed to a health hazard in your own home that literally kills you. And you should take whatever measures you need to to stop it.

    We’ve found that even if you aren’t in a non smoking building there are clauses in the HOA contract that impact areas that will affect others negatively…

    It’s an unfortunate situation to be in…

23. mass broker
    Comment by mass broker | 02/11/10 at 10:39 am

    I have a thought. Why would she buy a condo and not a single family? You CANNOT ask another condo owner in the building if they smoke or not. It is LEGAL and there right to smoke in there own house. What if they so no and they lied? Who is responsible for that?

    If the condo docs do not say NO SMOKING than she does not have a case. She is the one who should be sued here for her efn stupidity.

24. Bobby
    Comment by Bobby | 02/13/10 at 1:30 am

    So much about this issue makes my skin crawl. From reading the article, I do not see any proof that she was lied to. At the very most it is hearsay at this point. If Burrage did not get a satisfactory answer to her question about smoke, which it appears to me she did not, and she purchased the property anyway, the responsibility for it should be on her. So many people seem eager to throw brokers under the bus. The previous tenants could very well have been smokers. If the broker went to the neighbors and asked them if they smoke, something I see as quite the intrusion for her neighbors, they could very well just deny that they do. In this case should the broker be responsible for this? There are some issues that cannot be known about a unit unless someone were actually to live there because they are not immediately evident. On top of that, why should the condo association and the neighbors be responsible for this?!? Short of anything in the condo docs, as some people have already pointed out, she really should have nothing to stand on. If the condo association is made to pay for this it is a sign that the system is broken. I have no love for cigarettes and this is unfortunate but Burrage appears to be passing the responsibility for the smoke onto everyone she can. I do not have asthma, but if I did I would take extra measures to make sure my living area was clear of smoke beyond any doubt before hand.

    Also, I think the “ethnic food” example is very appropriate. The smell is so noxious and can just about seep into the bricks of the wall and the enamel of the appliances.

    I would put this question forth, is it her responsibility to keep the smoke from getting in or her neighbors responsibility to keep the smoke from getting out?

    Lets say a neighbor of mine is loud and keeps me up at night, effecting the quality of my sleep and, it would stand to reason, my health.

    Can I sue them now? If I ask the broker if the neighbors party, and he asks them and they deny it can I sue them along with the broker as well? If the condo association does not put extra insulation in the walls can I then sue them as well? If I was a particularly light sleeper I would pay attention special attention to that.

    If things were that bad, and there was no possible solution, I would cut my losses and move. I would not scour the block for every possible person I might be able to blame for the issue.

25. URL
    Comment by URL | 12/08/11 at 10:06 pm

    Appreciate it for helping out, superb data. 679683

Leave a Reply »»