Only Lawyers Win Here

We were really inflamed by Robert J. Bruss’ response to the home sellers who wrote to him for advice after the buyer of their house threatened to sue if they did not pay for half of a new roof (“Real Estate Q&A;,” June 7).

Bruss suggested that the buyer is using the threat of a lawsuit to pressure the sellers into paying up and that the sellers should defend the lawsuit. Then, “after you win it, sue the buyer for malicious prosecution.”

Anyone who buys that bill of goods from an attorney deserves all the trauma a lawsuit will bring.

Having been stuck on the flypaper of litigation in a similar suit for more than four years and about $40,000 in legal fees, we can tell you with certainty only the lawyers involved came out of the mess smelling of roses.

We don’t have a great deal of faith in the legal system for obtaining justice in a civil procedure. What happened to the old-fashioned idea of solving one’s problems by sitting down with the other party and trying to find a compromise? Because a lawsuit will be very costly for both parties, suing should be the last, not first, resort to problem-solving.

If compromise isn’t possible and the buyer still insists he will sue, we would suggest that the sellers “pay the blackmail” and get a release from the buyer that he will make no further claims for potential defects or repairs. It’s a great deal cheaper than defending a lawsuit.

There’s no such thing as an open-and-shut case. The procedure of discovery can take months and sometimes years to sort out the claims and the facts, and lawyers can find ways to stretch this out ad infinitum, billing all the way.

Of course there’s the chance that the sellers will win both lawsuits and recover their legal fees and damages (assuming the buyer has the means for paying), but is the grief really worth it? We say no.

RON MERK

CHRIS HOLTER

Woodland Hills