They have no leg to stand on and they know it. There is no contract between the property owner and the demolition company and no contract with the fire department. They need to just settle.
The most likely real story: Guy buys house to flip; considers whether to demolish or renovate; gets demolition estimate; demolition dumbass thinks the estimate is a contract; demolition guy plans to begin, but first gets an extra $10,000 from the FD to allow them to use the house for training; demolition guy signs as "homeowner" because that's how he's done this in the past; demolition guy is the one on the scene as the "homeowner".
@@davidh9638 You should never underestimate what a municipality will "justify" paying when it's a favor from one friend to another. (I did give your comment a 👍 though.)
I had an electrical contractor do more damage to my house than the fire department did. I had a house fire and they misrepresented themselves to my insurance company telling them I had approved them to start work.I was not even in the same state at the time. This unscrupulous contractor misrepresented me to the insurance company and eventually was arrested by the sheriffs department for check fraud. It was one of the most frustrating times of my life.
Working theory of how this went down: Demo guy says "I got a house ya'll could practice on" thinking he would get free help with demo. Fire dept assumes he is the owner and says "Okay sign here". Demo guy was at the training and the Fire dept is saying the owner was there because they think the demo guy is the owner.
Yh I was thinking along similar lines, also sounds like the demo guy is trying to drum up business by forcing the homeowners hand by impersonating the homeowner
It sounded like the city and the FD have done this many times, where they worked with the demolition company instead of the owner. It probably never occurred to them to ensure that the demolition company was, in fact, legally empowered to sign the agreement. I suspect the owner of the demo company just made the assumption that he had won the job and was already given the go-ahead to start. I'd want to see the signed contract the owner had with the demo company that granted them that power.
I've had contractors pull permits for work and sign everything on my behalf... but in most of those situations the contractor had me sign something giving them that power... this situation sounds like a miscommunication on multiple levels, and this guy is (possibly) rightfully pissed because he had multiple balls in the air and hadn't decided which one to actually execute.
Miscommunication or possibly since demo guy had done work in the past for the owner, he may have just (mistakenly) thought "Oh, (homeowner) already put in permits, I'll go ahead and do it on his behalf, let FD do what they want to do (score points that way w/ city, FD, etc) and I'll finish the demo and (homeowner) will be happy with me." Demo guy took it upon himself to do something and it backfired spectacularly. But true, owner is rightfully pissed cause he didn't sign away his rights to demo guy.
@@zafarsyed6437 that still qualifies as a "miscommunication" I think. Demo guy isn't a mind reader, but he also should have closed the communication loop on what was happening to his house and when.
Permission to demolish a portion of a structure to renovate is one thing but to destroy the entire building would seem to take more than an understanding of past behavior. A dedicated document would seem to be in order for complete demolition. My guess is some individuals involved will not have the same type of working relationship as before.
@@zafarsyed6437 The problem with that guess is the house owner had not hired the demo guy. In my guess, everyone was working on a handshake and the owner saw an opportunity for a payday.
@@tonymouannes really doesn't sound like there was a verbal agreement. sounds like the demolition guy took it into his own hands based on previously working with the homes owner. also doesn't sound like the home owner was there. if he was he wouldn't have to be notified by family about his house being destroyed by the fire department.
As a FD training officer, our procedure was 2 pages of checklists for training. Including looking at county records for lien holders. A sad experience.
As a retired paramedic trust me, firefighters don't pass up a opportunity to film themselves working. How else can they convince the world they are heroes? Acting like you are not sure if they filmed the demolition, please it's not that hard to remember being the director of a home movie. He knows they filmed everything and he's thinking that playing stupid helps him somehow.
I'd wager dollars to donuts that the contractor gets a kick back from the city or fire department for letting them train in houses he would demolish. I would also wager that the contractor has never discussed this with a homeowner in the past. I hope the homeowner gets a ton of money out of this.
Yep, it looks that way per the city's counterclaim: " South Jordan alleged Greg “hired a demolition contractor” and that contractor, Mark Powell, gave the city “permission to conduct training activities in the home,” acting as Young’s agent. The city wrote “[Young] has in the past via verbal agreements utilized [Powell] for demolition work. Due to past history of working together, and the verbal conversations and emails Plaintiff’s Agent was confident he had actual authority…to facilitate demolition.”"
Career firefighter. I’ve never heard of contractors getting kickbacks from FD’s. Most departments scrimp through their budgets. It is almost always a favor and goodwill towards the department, and it doesn’t cost the contractor a dime. More likely, the owner and the contractor are trying to scam the city.
@@petebailey2551 Could just be a steak dinner I don't expect it to be much if there is one. Though I'd be surprised not to find one in there. Taking the extra time to give the home to firefighters before demolishing it costs time and time is money.
@@petebailey2551 I live in an area where fire/ems are all volunteer. I make sure to give a donation to both every year when they are fundraising - I know their budgets suck, there is no room for kickbacks.
This actually happened to the Fire Department I used to work for. Except we burned it down for training because the “new owner” wanted to build on the site. Except he didn’t actually own the house.
I remember that in my area, a few years ago someone who had a small fire in part of their house was suing the fire department because they did “extensive and unnecessary damage” to parts of the home that weren’t on fire or even in jeopardy from the fire. The homeowner compared the damage to a deliberate act of vandalism, saying they broke TVs, walls, windows, appliances, plumbing fixtures, and furniture.
No signed agreement, no permission to practice on the house. Seems clear cut to me, no matter what the owners plans and intentions leading up to it were.... Per se
There are three parties, though, not two, and the two that are speaking about it are saying different things. The city should have done more verification, but the contractor might be the one mostly at fault.
I once gave permission for our local police and fire to practice in a large commercial structure we were planning to demolish. Our agreement was short but we did have an mou with both departments. It actually worked out really well because they got some much needed training on a large abandoned commercial facility, and they helped with the numerous break ins that were tying up some of my resources.
My experience with allowing a Fire Department burn down a home (before email etc). First there was a title search by the city and then paperwork, a walk through with me, Fire, Police, Power and Gas People present. The house was spray painted with warnings and caution tape on cones to the street three days before. The day before the power lines were removed. There was no active gas lines. Every neighbor was handed a notice (no parking on the street etc for the date) three days before. One nearby house had wooden roof shakes so was tarped and watered by the fire department that morning. By the way it was considered a donation and I received a tax form from the fire department. Would be hard to make a mistake . . . .
That matches with my experience removing an old house from a lot prior to constructing a commercial building. The FD marked the house with red warnings, etc. days in advance They prepared the house and even installed drywall in a couple rooms. On burn day the house was ignited and extinguished several times so the firefighters could practice different scenarios.
@@davidh9638 Except for the neighbors roof the steps should be the same. Hacking a wall with gas lines and electrical wiring is not safe. Parking and neighbors is just plain considerate and the paperwork should be the same.......
@@dathat555 same here. The first fire was a kitchen, after they got that out they did an upstairs bedroom and then lit the center and let it roar for 30 mins then went after it with everything. Taught be that time was everything. No way they could save the structure after 30 mins just control the spread!
Thank you for pointing out "Per Se"... that one always annoys me when people misuse it. People just tack it on to the end of a sentence to "sound smart", when it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the sentence. It's infuriating, lol. For those who don't know, "Per Se" is Latin for "by itself". In a legal context, it's meaning is usually more specific "By itself, without regard to other factors", making it a little more exclusionary than in common speech. When reviewing a restaurant, for example, you could say: "The meal wasn't bad per se, but the service was lacking" This implies that the food and drinks were, on their own merits, decent, but not the only factor considered in your appraisal. So a 2/5 star review overall doesn't represent all factors equally, the food could have been 4 star, but the rating was lowered by other factors like poor service. If there's only one pertinent factor being discussed, there is no need to divorce it from other factors. So the people who misuse this term are not idiots per se, they just don't know words so good, lol.
Yes. Eons ago my 1st husband glommed onto Per Se and smugly tossed it into every sentence he could…dozens of time a day. Drove me crazy with his Per Se this and Per Se-ing that. He thought it made him sound well educated. Made me cringe, still do every time I hear it. 😅
That wouldn't happen, they'd likely only be on the hook for the cost of putting the house back the way that it was. So, at most. you'd be benefiting by the amount of demolition.
That's not likely to happen. This is bound to cost the owner a lot of time and money regardless of how this is resolved. For example, it doesn't sound like the FD completely demolished it. They just did a lot of damage. Somebody still has to complete the demolition, haul off the debris, and then clean the lot. Since the property is inside city limits, a countdown clock to finish the demolition probably started as soon as the FD left due to the state of the house. You can bet the fines will start the day that deadline is breached. You might want to say that the city can waive those fines because of the situation, but if there's no law in place giving them that power then they may not have a choice but to fine him. He'd have to go through the legal process to get the fines dismissed, or the city leadership would have to pass an exception for him, or any of a number of other things that are going to cost the owner time and money.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade "The way it was". Soyou think they are going to use decades old material? What about the new requirements for building homes? you think they are just going to build itexactly the way they did decades ago? Do you think before you speak. A new home is still new, even if its build similarly. Rebuilding a home is still refurbishing it, even if you use the same plans. You do not even need to demolish a home to "refurbish it"
I can see getting the permit paperwork done while still in the process of decision making. If you decide to repair the house the permit is not needed, if you decide to demolish, you don’t need to wait. In my area that can save a couple of weeks.
You might also need a demolition permit for thing involved in gutting the house for a complete/partial rebuild of the interior, especially if there's other potential issues such as lead paint or asbestos. A cousin who does major remodeling had commented that a lot of the time, you get the full permit and start the gut, if it's worse than you thought, you just finish the demo, or if the bones are good/salvageable you stop when you're at the part you want to start from
Perhaps the repair of the home could be used as a " training " exercise for a high school shop class and or trades school. I bought a rather worn home in the 1980's and slowly restored with my husband most everything. Took several years and it came out BEAUTYFUL. So my point is the house the fire department trained on may have been unsightly but with a bit of work could be a real gem. Thanks Steve best second take ever !
I know of someone who almost had this happen. He arrived home at the last minute, just as the fire department was about to set what they thought was an abandoned house afire.
I was a Firefighter/Paramedic for 23 years. We did use donated homes for training but the dept lawyers were always involved to make sure everything was done correctly regarding who owned the property and the liabilities involved. On an actual call a homeowner overloaded an electrical circuit and caused a fire in the wall and attic. A neighbor called 911 to report flames coming out of the roof, the homeowner tried to sue the Fire Department because we pulled the ceiling to get to the fire and they wanted the Department to pay their deductible because they did not call 911 and did not “give permission” to damage the ceiling. Case was immediately dismissed, but the homeowner complained for years.
If someone called him to notify him about what was going on because he really was not there, wouldn't it be a very simple matter to prove where his phone was when he answered that call? And wouldn't it be very difficult for the city to argue that he and his phone were in two different locations when that call was answered? You don't need to have him on video, or not, to determine his whereabouts at the time this training exercise was taking place. Just saying.
It is very easy to track your location through your smartphone they even know where you are in your home your exact location in your home even if the phone is turned off it's still tracking your location
Most of our little town came out to watch the local FD burn a house some months ago. The local grass seed warehouse owned the house, wanted to build a new office. Probably the biggest event in our little community (approximately 100 folks and one grouch) this year, other than lambing season.
I had an ADT contract and had to close the business for which I entered into the agreement. They didn't want to cancel the contract and were trying to FORCE me to transfer it to my residence or another business. I refused and they sent the remainder of the contract value to collections. When collections called to get "their money," I told him that there was no valid contract. There was a line that said the contract was not valid unless it was signed. That line was blank. There was no contract because of that. They never tried to contact me again once I faxed a copy to them and proved my position. Hmm. Maybe I should have sent ADT to collections since I paid them for a contract that wasn't valid. Oh, well. Missed opportunities. 😂
@@MoonbeameSmith If you are kidding, then read no further (I'm sometimes dense when it comes to comment jokes), 😅if you were sincere, please read my reply as originally written: "Not actually. An incomplete contract is not enforceable. It's like when I entered into a contract with two men for an investment house. One of them never signed it, but moved in and claimed the right to renovate the house which was in my name and without getting my permission. When I took him to court, he was asked why he didn't sign it, and he said he was too busy. I won because of no contractual agreement being in place due to the incomplete state of the contract. ADT also did not sign where it was required by their own contract. Therefore the contract was null and void and unenforceable. An incomplete contract is NO contract at all. Otherwise, any scammer who wanted to could make a contract, sign it, and claim it was valid because it was partially finished and signed by at least one of the parties." I hope you have a great day!
@@rgnestle if both sides act to the contract then theres proof of the existence. The details however are another thing.. eg I never said you could use That colour..
@@MoonbeameSmith When a contract says NOT VALID UNLESS THIS LINE IS SIGED, then the contract is null and void. No matter what each side does in ignorance, the contract is MUTE when the REQUIREMENTS are NOT met. That is the law. That is the expectation.
This reminds me of time 30 years ago when I was discussing putting a new transmission in my car (I had the transmission) and he told me that he and his BIL could do it for $XXX. I said I wasn't ready yet, and would let him know when I had the cash. Jackass and his BIL just DID THE WORK (the vehicle was parked in a covered spot) while I was at work and then demanded to be paid (cash). To top it off, they also managed to crush a cable between the engine and the transmission which caused a short. Didn't find that problem until after I moved.
Years ago, we took our car into the dealer for maintenance prior to a road trip. We expected to pay $XX. At the time, we paid for most things in cash. So I made sure to have the requisite cash on me when I went to pick up the car. But the invoice was much higher! And we were in a hurry to leave on vacation! Service manager explained they found more work that needed doing. But they went ahead and did it without clearing it with us! We explained we didn't have the cash on us, and would have to drive to the bank to get enough cash. They let us have the car so we could drive to the bank. My husband and I consulted with each other, and decided to just leave on vacation. While on vacation, I wrote a letter to the service manager explaining that if they would prepare a DETAILED invoice describing the work they did, and the associated costs, then I would pay them the full amount. I never heard from them after that. I think I did pay them at the time for the work that I had authorized them to do. I believe our state had laws back then, and certainly do now, governing how auto repair shops do business with customers.
@@exrobowidow1617 I remember when Montana changed the laws on that behavior to drive one particular tow truck/garage out of business in the mid 70s. They had an arrangement with a particular hwy patrol officer (nicknamed Humpty Dumpty) where he'd have any and all vehicles parked near the hwy towed off as "abandoned" and/or "disabled" and then they would do extensive "repairs" to make the vehicle "safe to drive" - it was all quite legal at the time to do that sort of crap. If you didn't cough up the cash they would put a mechanic's lean on your vehicle and sell it off at auction. The cop got a percentage as a kickback. Once they legally had to get authorization for the repairs in writing AND provide the replaced parts back to the owner the whole scam fell apart in a couple weeks. Otto's Towing itself was out of business entirely not too long after as the scam was pretty much their entire revenue stream. Most of the vehicles were just parked at a turnout while someone did some fishing for a couple hours, not the three days required for it to be legally abandoned. I knew a number of tow truck operators that refused to respond to Humpty Dumpty's calls unless he remained on site while they hooked up the vehicle. They'd all had guns pointed at them when said fisherman suddenly arrived back at their vehicle to find it being hooked up to the tow truck. Never did find out what happened to the cop once he had to go back to relying on his cop salary.
I’ve been watching you videos for a few years now. Thanks for being a good guy Steve! I enjoy the anecdotes, your enunciation, and the random legal topics.
i like how they say that the demolition guy was "confident" that he had permission to demolish the house, notice how they are not saying that he actually had permission in their counter suit
Word mean things.... over a decade ago I clerked for the IRS. the new rule that year was we could accept any mark constituted a "signature". A document rolled across my desk with a Latin phrase some lawyers I knew said means "AS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE". I asked my manager if legal phrases were signatures, she did not know, either. She called another department that dealt with legal issues. They were not willing to answer over the phone, so they came down and said that was not a signature and took it over to their people. That got enforcement going, and they uncovered a multi year tax fraud scheme. it was a shock that a mere clerk found and helped uncover a large criminal enterprise. Yes, Steve, words are powerful.
His plan could have been to demolish the home because in a lot of cases you open up a mess and find out it is worse than expected. But he had not got that far to see if it was at that point
Miscommunication or possibly since demo guy had done work in the past for the owner, he may have just (mistakenly) thought "Oh, (homeowner) already put in permits, I'll go ahead and do it on his behalf, let FD do what they want to do (score points that way w/ city, FD, etc) and I'll finish the demo and (homeowner) will be happy with me." Demo guy took it upon himself to do something and it backfired spectacularly. Owner is rightfully pissed cause he didn't sign away his rights to demo guy.
I have a friend who purchased a farm that had a long abandoned home on it. He called the twp fire chief and got a verbal that he could burn the house down. He and his farmhands set it on fire. Passersby on the road called it in and the fire dept was scrambled. As it happened the chief was out of town. The dept arrived and stopped the fire. The owner pushed back saying he had permission but the assistant chief said he did not anything in writing. The farmer was out luck and got charged fees for putting out the fire
The agent part reminds me of a couple r/entitledpeople stories where the neighbour claimed to be an agent either to try and force the neighborhood to be to their standing, or to get work done on his property for free. A good contractor will call the owner up and ask why you aren't his point of contact.
Steve check out the 1929 Laurel & Hardy short "Big Business.' The boys tear up a house filming this comedy. What's funny a studio worker gave them permission to trash his home, but the crew went to the wrong address. Imagine the shock to come home as they did to find comics wrecking the place. I'd like to have seen them film the owners faces.
Stuff happens,I remember a case of an airport fire officer asking a pilot if they could use his aircraft for a practice turn out. Pilot said OK and left. Fire officer proceeded to set the practice up by placing a half barrel of Avgas under the nose of the aircraft, he lit the gas and called the boys out. Result fire extinguished and the nose of the aircraft melted off. Ass kicking followed.
We don’t typically record our trainings aside from possibly a few pictures and or short one off clips. As far as training in privately owned structures my department is very strict on what we’re allowed to do. No holes, broken glass, cutting, etc. We leave the structure intact regardless if it’s slated to demo or not. We also get written permission from the owner.
But you’re the city and your defense is “the guy said he had an oral contract to act as your agent?” “But the guy said it was cool” isn’t a sufficient defense for the city, they need to perform responsible due diligence before these actions.
There was a news story some years ago about a house in San Antonio that was demolished one day. The owner had gone to work that morning and come back to a pile of rubble. Not only was the house destroyed, but so was everything inside of it. You would think that a demolition company would think that perhaps something wasn't right if the house looked fine, the utilities were all on, and the house was well stocked with furniture and other personal items. Someone had allegedly called the demolition company and ordered the demolition, but it wasn't the owner.
And the profession with the lowest average college GPA? Education majors aka Teachers and School Administrators. As the saying goes, "Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach, write textbooks."
I imagine if the owner does this sort of thing a lot, he probably has found it saves a lot of time to get permits for all his options simultaneously during the period of time he’s making his evaluation.
Awhile back, a house one the street I lived on, was set on fire by the local fire department. It was impressive as they set it on fire 2 or 3 time and by the end the house had almost been burnt to the ground.
"Oops lol. Well my cousin's uncle's college roommate said I could so too bad" -The City. Yeah, even with as scummy as judges are these days I'm pretty sure this won't fly.
If the house burned to the ground, I wouldn't call that successful training. Sadly, like some small-town police departments don't have proper training, some small-town fire departmentsd don't know their s**t either. In my area, there some departments known for being very professional and skilled, while others are known as "cellar savers" as that is all that will be left of your house.
As a local I find this unacceptable. My experience with Utah is that if the document says home owner the owner is the one who needs to sign it. No legal documents I've dealt with let someone unlisted sign on behalf.
Shouldn’t there have been a power of attorney for the contractor to sign on behalf of the home owner? When a loan officer I knew would put his financial institution as lien holder on the title, he needed a POA. You can make POAs out that terminate after specific times or actions and they are notarized so there are records of them. That should be easy to figure out-was a POA notarized and was this notarized document presented when the documents authorizing the building’s demolition and use as a fire training site were signed on behalf of the home owner. If there wasn’t, then there should have not been anyone signing papers for the home owner or ripping the house apart.
I’ve done some real estate dealings and always explored ALL of my options. In one case I bought a property with an old singlewide mobile home. I investigated removing it as junk, selling it to someone, even tried to give it away. Ended up having it demolished on site as it was the cheapest option. But there were all kinds of queries prior to the final decision. Insanely, it would have cost thousands to remove it and GIVE it to a woman in a singlewide that was in much worse condition. Thousands for the “permits and hauling” as wel as thousands for the recipient to swap the free mobile for hers that was literally falling apart.
I read that story PERSAY HA HA HA. The contractor, fire chief, and the town hall workers who did the paperwork and the city attorney should be responsible not taxpayers.
I will say this as a volunteer FF way back from the 1980s. Had a huge clear out Zone by the major Airport. Some of the homes were going to be jacked up and moved, the others we got to drill on house burns for practice. Now today I'm older and retired but am still an Advisor for a Cadets program that does REHAB at training burns. The Cadets do Air bottle refills. Check vitals on FF doing training. So after saying all this with many many houses burned for training. Have never had this happen or come across this. There were many houses in that clear zone for the airport. We NEVER burn the Wrong ones.
I watched the KSL TV story and the document to release South Jordan for damages due to Fire Department training was signed. The Demolition contractor signed the paper stating He was the homeowner. He didn't forge the signature, he used his own name. Fraud? The owner and reporters want to know why the city didn't verify ownership before proceeding. The city says they will from here on!?
When I started my construction company 30 years ago I was told that if it's not in writing it never happened, I fallow that till this day no matter what it is..
I was a fire chief of a volunteer department for 12 years. Many times we would have a practice training drill while burning a house. We would inspect the home to determine if hazardous material is present. We qould get permission in writting then go to county to assure the permission is from the legal owner. The house must be intact so it would be beneficial training and not just burning a pile of junk.
We have had the local tactical response team train at a couple properties. One house was going to be demolished and was half loaded with furnishing. Those guys appreciate having crap in their way because it makes it easier to simulate a situation.
Each jurisdiction NEEDS TO HAVE A SOLID, PLAIN, AND CLEARLY UNDERSTANDABLE POLICY FOR EVERY SITUATION. But having such would require the council, etc. to actually do some work, and we all know THAT will never happen.
In my day job I have consultants file paperwork on the company's behalf, but in those cases we have a power of attorney form that I sign giving them the authority / permission to do so. The power of attorney form also limits just what they can sign for to a very specific task.
I’m the mayor of a small town. We had obtained a derelict house and were actually taking bids to tear it down. A contractor hired to tear down a nearby house mistakenly started tearing down ours. We were left with a collapsing structure that we were forced to take immediate action on. The contractor refused to finish the demolition ( we offered to provide dumpsters ) so it wound up costing us about 50% more to clean up than it would have otherwise. Now we are forced to sue the contractor and the person who hired him to recoup our loss. Neither were properly insured ( shocking right?)
I get suing the contractor, but I don't see any angle for pursuing that contractor's customer here.... Given the mess they made, the contractor should have just finished the demo and accepted your offer of the dumpsters. It was by far lower cost than what it will cost them fighting this.....
@@houseman2414 the customer told him to tear down the wrong house. Like drove him to the location and pointed to our house and said tear that one down. He had bought a package of properties apparently sight unseen. So when it came time for demolition he pulled up to our derelict house he assumed it was his rather than checking further down the street. While tearing down the correct house the same contractor managed to catch a power line in his equipment….wasn’t injured but I understand it got very intense for a couple of seconds.
@@streetcop157 I get it now. The contractor was actually hired to tear down the wrong house. They tore down the one they were hired to take down (does not match the earlier post). They just didn't do due diligence to confirm the "owner" was actually the owner.... and he was not.
@@houseman2414 yeah. Both houses had clear addresses on them. I actually here a little sympathy for the contractor and had he just cleaned up the mess I would have been satisfied. I felt offering the dumpsters was a fair compromise. Their argument is that since we were tearing it down anyway we suffered no loss but there is a difference between a planned demolition and being forced to do it with no notice on a building that is now collapsing. Not sure why they are even fighting it as we are only asking for labor and equipment as the disposal costs didn’t change. Less than $8000 total as we are just asking for costs.
