ARE CHATBOTS REPLACING LAWYERS?

You have a legal question.  What can you do?  You can go to a lawyer and pay for the correct advice in context.  You can go to AVVO and get a general answer, or you can ask a chat bot.  Or can you?  Do chat bots know the  law?

          I posed a question for which I knew the answer.  In Pa if you want to make a warranty claim against the builder of your home, must you first provide notice of the claim and an opportunity to honor the warranty. This seems rather obvious.

          Consider the results of asking ChatGPT:

QUESTION In PA, if you bar a contractor from returning to complete the work or honor warranties, are you barred from suing for damages

ANSWER If you bar a contractor from returning to complete the work or honor warranties in Pennsylvania, you may still be able to sue for damages, but it will depend on the circumstances surrounding the situation.

Generally, if you hired a contractor to perform work on your property and they breached the contract by failing to complete the work or honor warranties, you may be able to sue them for damages. However, if you prevented the contractor from completing the work or honoring warranties by, for example, refusing to allow them back onto your property, it may be more difficult to prove that the contractor breached the contract.

If the contractor has not breached the contract, but you still bar them from completing the work or honoring warranties, you may be considered to be in breach of the contract yourself. In this case, the contractor may be entitled to damages for the work they did perform, as well as any expenses they incurred as a result of your breach of the contract.

It’s important to note that the specific terms of the contract, as well as the circumstances surrounding the situation, will play a significant role in determining whether you can sue the contractor for damages. It’s always best to consult with an attorney who is familiar with Pennsylvania contract law to understand your legal options and potential remedies.

Let’s ask about cases supporting these generalizations.

Let’s ask for some more authority.

The Chat Bot provides more cases. This seems to be too easy.

Let’s go deeper into the question. We ask “what if the Property owner has a warranty claim and just fixes thing herself?” “Can she still sue the builder?”

BUT the Bell and Ruzicka cases do not exist.

The Bot is caught and plays the misunderstood card.

I press the issue

The result? We are not ready to get rid of all the lawyers as Shakespeare suggested. But can we now apply the legal maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (If the witness lied about one thing, you as the jurors may assume they lied about everything) to the Bots. Seems to me they are currently not acquainted with the truth.

Starting a Real Estate Brokerage

Nationally syndicated author, Emile L’Eplattenier is currently featuring Attorney, James Tupitza in his ARTICLE which explains how to start a real estate brokerage company. Emile points out that before you start your business, you need to fully understand WHY you want to be in business. He follows with important practical advice.

Are the changes really unprecedented?

Many people say the real estate brokerage business is going through rapid unprecedented changes. The business has always been changing. Fifty years ago, real estate was sold by men (almost no women) wearing black suits, white shirts and black ties, working Monday to Friday 9-5. That brought on the change to women agents, weekend and evening hours. That followed the Re-Max revolution, then KW and then 20 other ideas. In the end one thing has never changed. People who are willing to: a) put in long hours, b) focus of serving others first, and c) be educated to the highest level in the law, marketing, and technology, always make a good living while enjoying themselves.

Brokerage risks

One thing Emile did not say. By far the highest risk in the real estate brokerage business is property management. Popular consensus is the big risk of property management is found with employees “borrowing” money held in trust. Managing that risk is easy, compared to the big risk. Employee fidelity may be managed by background checks, audit controls, and multiple people checking one another. However, there is a real Big Risk.

The Fair Housing Act

The big risk is the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA has good intentions. Clearly, no one should be denied a housing opportunity because of the race, sex, national origin, age or mental capacity. The problem is there are always a few people seeking to take advantage of a law not really intended to apply to them. When you mix that type of person with a lawyer of marginal ethics, you can imagine the result.

The FHA allows a Plaintiff who even recovers $1 in damages to be awarded attorneys’ fees. While this may aid in preventing discrimination under FHA, it has also been abused. When it is abused, the broker is almost always in the center of the target.

Common Mistake Leads to Quashing of Partition Appeal

Feb 10, 2017

The Superior Court just quashed a Partition case, based on a common misunderstanding of the appellate rules.  In Zablocki v. Beining, 2017 Pa. Super 32,  an appeal was taken after the Court adopted the Report of a Master and Ordered the sale of the property. Both parties assumed that an appellate rule (Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(7)), which permits appeals from orders directing partition, applied. Both parties were wrong. (See  http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A33032-16o%20-%2010298815116012089.pdf?cb=1 )

WHAT IS PARTITION

In a partition action  two or more property owners ask a Court to either divide up the property, or force a sale.  Courts don’t usually divide up property because subdivision is expensive and it takes a lot of time.  These cases are usually time sensitive. Often one owner is tired of paying all the taxes and the mortgage.  Family properties are often the subject.  Parents die and leave the old family farm to their children.  The children have no good reason for being partners in a property that they must share.  Often a child dies and his or her children become the owners.  You can imagine the mess.  In order to speed these cases, the Court will often appoint a Master to take testimony and make recommendations. A Master is a lawyer appointed by the Court.

SOURCE OF CASES

Family properties are often the subject of partition actions.  Parents die and leave the old family farm to their children.  The children have no good reason for being partners in a property that they must share.  Often a child dies, and his or her children become the minority owners.  You can imagine the mess.  ANother common source of these cases is where unmarried persons buy property together and then break up.  In order to speed these cases, the Court will often appoint a Master to take testimony and make recommendations. A Master is a lawyer appointed by the Court.

Early in this type of case, the Court usually enters an Order granting partition.  This is BEFORE appointing a master. It is this Order that may be appealed.  The Order adopting the Master’s report is not final and therefore, not appealable.

This case is a good example of why partition actions require special expertise.

CFPB issues $3.5M Kickback Fine

February 2, 2017

The CFPB, (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)  this week ordered Prospect Mortgage to pay a $3.5 million fine for improper mortgage referrals. The CFPB called it a kickback scheme.

There are three reasons why the mortgage company and two real estate brokers were fined:

  1. Prospect maintained various agreements with over 100 real estate brokers, including RE/MAX and Keller Williams franchisees, to deliver payments for referrals of mortgage business. The payments were based on the number of referrals and were disguised as co-marketing agreements.
  2. Prospect obtained additional referrals by having real estate brokers engage in a practice of including the company in their real estate listings. This practice required anyone seeking to purchase the property to obtain a pre-qualification with Prospect, even where consumers had already pre-qualified for a mortgage with a different lender.
  3. Prospect and Planet Home Lending had an agreement by which planet was compensated for referrals by taking a split of the proceeds on the sale of the loan.

RE/MAX Gold Coast was fined $50,000 in civil penalties and Keller Williams MID-Willamette was ordered to pay $145,000 in disgorgement, and $35,000 in penalties. Planet Home Lending will pay $265,000 in redress to consumers.

Court Gives Property Owners a Win in Oil/Gas

WIN FOR PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENTS – PA SUPREME COURT LANDMARK DECISION OPENS THE DOOR FOR CHALLENGES AGAINST THE OIL/GAS INDUSTRYBy M. Bobbie Kalia, Esq., September 29, 2016

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday struck down portions of the State’s oil and gas law known as Act 13 in a landmark 4-2 ruling.  This key decision comes pursuant to review of the Commonwealth Court’s 2012 decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, which it largely affirmed.  Three key areas were addressed by the PA Supreme Court yesterday, marking the first significant ruling favoring environmentalists and landowners in a series of Court rulings that have primarily favored the oil and gas industry thus far.

The Supreme Court addressed three areas of the revised state law, Act 13, passed by the legislature in 2012 and signed into law by former Governor Tom Corbett.

  1. Most importantly, the State’s Supreme Court landmark ruling yesterday struck down as unconstitutional the oil and gas industries’ right to uniform zoning restrictions across the state. A lawsuit was initially filed in 2012 challenging the law.  In 2014 by the lower court blocked the provision that granted the State’s utility commission power to review the zoning restrictions and impose penalties against municipalities that attempted to enforce harsher restrictions than those of the State.  In its ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court addressed the power of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to interfere with right of local government to place harsher zoning restrictions on oil and gas companies.  For the first time, the Court used the Environment Rights Amendment, Article I, Section 27 of the Constitution to support its decision, recognizing the importance of each Pennsylvania resident’s “environmental rights” and their need for protection of these important rights to resources such as clean air and clean water.  The court further concluded that such a role includes the ability to limit oil and gas development as needed to protect these important public natural resources and that it is the obligation of the government to “refrain from unduly infringing upon or violating the right.”  The PUC will no longer have a right to decide whether Act 13 violates local ordinances.  This determination will be left to individual municipalities, which the Court referred to as “trustees of an environmental public trust.”  A major hit to the oil and gas industry, because, until now, the oil and gas industry has used the PUC as blanket authority granting the industry its rights to shield itself from public scrutiny of the industries’ actions.  Again, a long awaited victory for environmentalists and landowners whose properties are impacted by the pipeline, as it marks the first time a Pennsylvania State Court has addressed the PUC’s role or right to interfere with local communities.
  1. The second major impact from the decision, denied the use of eminent domain by oil and gas companies for gas storage facilities, primarily set up underground, stating that although there may be some minimal benefit to the public by these facilities, the benefit is primarily to the oil and gas company. This ruling is significant because it paves the way for Courts to finally address the issue of the validity of the industries right to use eminent domain for oil and gas purposes based upon the idea that it benefits the public.  A hotly debated issue that has been argued by environmentalists and landowners not only since the oil and gas industry came to Pennsylvania, but throughout the country.
  1. Finally, the Court examined the industries’ incomplete disclosure procedures with regards to what is known as the use of the “medical gag rule”. The Court ruled that now oil and gas companies must provide complete disclosure of all chemicals used to produce oil or gas to health care providers; a complete list which could previously only be obtained after the requesting medical provider signed a nondisclosure agreement.  Act 13 requires an oil or gas company release a list of chemicals it uses in the process of producing oil or gas on a website that can be accessed only by medical providers and physicians.  This enables the medical professional to properly treat against exposure or take precautions as needed.  Until the Court’s ruling, oil and gas companies’ disclosure of the chemicals it uses has been grossly incomplete, stating that a full list could only be disclosed to medical providers or physicians if they would sign a nondisclosure agreement for protection of company trade secrets.  The Court ruled that to allow this restriction only used by the oil and gas industry would be unconstitutional and full disclosure is now required.

So what does this decision mean to a homeowner being approached by a pipeline company or facing eminent domain?  The Supreme Court’s decision sets forth a much needed and long awaited victory in the battle against the oil and gas industry in what is known as the “Marcellus Shale Gas Rush.”  It certainly opens a doorway to fight the company threatening to take a landowner’s property for those that are willing to spend the time, money and face the potential risks, for the benefit of a win against the oil and gas industry in the Courts.  However, it is important for a landowner to take into consideration that it is a long, costly fight and the Court’s decision, although unprecedented in its nature, does not ensure a guaranteed win.  Prior to vesting in the decision, a landowner must consider his or her individual resources, whether their family or business will survive such a commitment, what is the ultimate outcome the landowner is looking for and whether the fight is for principal or personal reasons.  Each individual’s case against an oil or gas company is usually different in one way or another and these individual circumstances may plan an important role in the possibility of a successful argument against the company.

If you stand on principal, then fight is the only answer.  There are many organizations working to stop the oil and gas industry from turning Pennsylvania into as a State filled with what the pipeline refers to as “spaghetti cities” due to the multitude of pipelines running through one area; sometimes 4 pipelines deep in an easement space.  Working with an organization can aid a landowner in getting fully informed on pending cases, discussions with State Senators and Representatives and other helpful information when taking on the industry.

If principal is not your main, then it is highly advised that the landowner determine those protections and issues that are of individual concern and consider working with an attorney to ensure those protections and issues are addressed in their individual Permanent Easements.  Many times, an attorney will be able to negotiate all the landowner’s concerns into the easement agreement and increase the compensation guaranteed to the landowner without immediate out of pocket costs incurred to the landowner.   It is important to note that once the compensation has been spent, the protections within the easement agreement will ensure the landowner’s rights are protected in situations such as environmental spills.

Regardless of how Pennsylvania residents choose to approach their issues with the oil and gas industry, one thing is for certain, the Supreme Court’s decision creates an important opening in the law those fighting the oil and gas industry have been long waiting for, making it clear that the war between parties has only just begun.

Title Insurance Licensing Exam Training

Everyone in the title insurance industry recognizes that title insurance licensing exam training will be a hot topic this year. The PA Title Insurance Licensing Exam will be required of many in the industry.  This is driven by lenders and by the American Land Title Association’s Best Practices (http://www.alta.org/bestpractices/index.cfm )       James S. Tupitza announces that a new text book, designed to assist individuals preparing to take the PA Title Insurance Licensing Exam.  The new ALTA Best Practices create a new emphasis on licensing.

Go to this page for a brief sample:   https://tupitzalaw.com/title-ins-exam-study-guide    This sample is of the very difficult regulatory portion of the study guide.   This sample:  Sample Pages Real Estate   gives you a brief idea of the areas dealing with real estate law.

The new guide will provide a comprehensive, up to date, guide to the PA Title Insurance Exam.  It will also be a valuable desk guide to real estate and the title insurance industry.  It will include numerous forms and a copy of the Rate manual developed by the Title Insurance Rating Bureau of PA (TIRBOP). In addition to substantive material, it will include sample exams to assist individuals in preparation fro the PA Title Insurance Licensing Exam.  The book will be available separately or in connections with registration for a two day study program.

 

Cover Page

NBC Investigative report on Toll Brothers quotes Tupitza

NBC 4 in Washington, DC just published an investigative report on Toll Brothers. (If only we could have trained the on-air reporter to pronounce Tupitza as “2 Pits Ah”  instead of  2 pizzas!!!)  Their focus was on buyers who lost their down money when they could not get a mortgage.  Here is a snippet from the article:

“Pennsylvania-based real estate lawyer Jim Tupitza told the News4 I-Team he sees cases like this “all the time” — customers who think a Toll Brothers contract will allow them to recover their down payments if they can’t get a mortgage or close on their home, when that’s not actually the case.

Tupitza said it all boils down to the “Mortgage Application” paragraph of the Toll Brothers contract, which he said is one of the most confusing contracts in the business.

“If you read it,” said Tupitza, “you will think it says one thing. But if you diagram the sentence like you learned in high school English, you’ll realize it doesn’t say that at all.”

See full text of NBC News Article