Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #881  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:32 PM
TreeNut TreeNut is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 80
It's going to be a real pain either way you go. After having heard nothing, we've decided that we are going to go ahead and remove and replant this spring, but not until after the major growth spurt, at our own expense. We'll continue with the private suit and hope we eventually get our money back. We don't like DuPont holding us hostage, so we won't allow that. Even if they offer 'care', it's way too late now. Our landscape is too important to us. Last fall, I replaced a small ornamental (Pink Japanese Snowbell) that had been in for 3 years, with a Red Jewel Crab Apple, after an arborist told me he had not seen any crabs affected by Imprelis. The attorney said it would be okay as long as we had photos of the dead tree. (I've saved all the remains.) Each season we wait, we lose time that we most likely will not be reimbursed for. So far, the crab is doing fine. We also don't believe that the remaining chemical in our lawn can cause (much) damage---we also planted 2 Norway Spruce right after we learned of Imprelis back in '11, and both have shown growth and no damage. (We didn't know at that time that we shouldn't have--but so far we're glad we did.) I guess if you can afford to wait for the money, you most likely will end up with a much better settlement. Remember the 'trebel' laws that class action or a CRA will not take into account. The attorneys also have even more evidence now of wrongdoing by DuPont. But if the money is important for you and you feel the settlement is fair, then go for it. Hope that helps. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 02-15-2013, 02:03 PM
rosewater rosewater is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SALINE
Posts: 63
Treenut- I hope things work out for you. I too, am tired of Dupont holding property owners hostage, however, for me it is not the money but fair compensation for the damage Imprelis has caused to our once private, nicely landscaped yard. Their figures and my actual cost figures did not add up. This fiasco started in May 2011: just recently I have noticed Imprelis damage on my neighbor"s Colorado Spruce that sits between our yards which was not apparent when my independent arborist visited our property in July 2012 and the Dupont team visited in late August 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 02-22-2013, 08:27 AM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Report of 203 trees damaged turns into report of 768 damaged the next year

"Owatonna's Brooktree Golf Course waits for another offer from Dupont" - Owatonna People's Press, Feb. 21, 2013 Link: http://www.southernminn.com/owatonna...83c12b5a7.html

According to the article, the golf course was sprayed with Imprelis the week of May 17, 2011, almost two years ago. DuPont's original offer was to compensate for damage to 203 trees with their figure at $640,000. City officials wisely waited until the next year in 2012 for an independent arborist's report which found an ADDITIONAL 565 trees damaged.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 02-22-2013, 03:31 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Report says predicting impact on living organisms over time drives uncertainty...

"DuPont Looks To Put Herbicide Lawsuits Behind It" - Trefis Team, Feb. 22, 2013 Link: http://www.trefis.com/stock/dd/artic...ind/2013-02-22

Excerpt:
"...the company notes that predicting the impact of Imprelis on living organisms and how those organisms may react over time are significant factors driving the uncertainty of future charges."
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 02-25-2013, 01:16 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Has anyone tried to sell or refinance their Imprelis contaminated property yet? Appraisers have a line they must checkmark yes or no on the forms I've seen. Here's one example: http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/forms/pdf/2070.pdf

FreddieMac Loan Prospector Condition and Marketability Report

Line 4 -Condition and Marketable Factors

No___ Yes___ Hazardous waste, toxic substances, or other environmental problems are suspected.

Is this greatly concerning for a property owners who's property has been laced with Imprelis? I would say yes, wouldn't you?

Furthermore, will property owners (personal and commercial) in the future be subject to environmental due diligence with REC (recognized environmental conditions)? Many banks require environmental due diligence be completed before they will issue loans. Even if a bank is not involved in a sale/purchase there is the question of future liability for existing contamination on the property in question.

So, you can see why many property owners have hired attorneys to help them with this very bad situation which can adversely affect property values. This goes beyond just replacing some trees and the money it takes to do just that, if trees will even grow normally in the future in those areas. Many unknowns still exist.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:24 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
An idea of what we are looking at

http://www.iaao.org/uploads/contaminationfstd.pdf

Standard on
the Valuation of Properties Affected by
Environmental Contamination

Quote:
4.4.2 Selling Contaminated Property
Buyer reluctance often focuses as much on the potential
for additional undisclosed problems as on contamination
already known and discounted. To facilitate a sale, the
seller may be required to include indemnity as a contingency
for future liability. This provision often reestablishes
a market—and a market value—where none
seemingly existed. However, in cases of severe contamination,
with ongoing cleanup anticipated, the seller
may not be able to obtain a bond or provide indemnification
for the full amount of the anticipated costs. In
these cases, a sale may not be possible or the sale price
may have to be reduced, although the property may
retain a value in use (see section 4.1 and 7.4). As the
Washington Board of Tax Appeals held in Salmon Bay
Terminals v. Noble (1996), the sale of a contaminated
property should be given great weight because it indicates
the risks associated with that property.
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:53 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Star, almost everything in my yard is dead, I couldn't sell like this anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:26 AM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindyb View Post
Star, almost everything in my yard is dead, I couldn't sell like this anyway.
I know we are stuck too, so hoping to refi to a better rate, but the first appraiser saw the dead trees right away since they're from the street all the way along my drive. Can't miss that ugly. Not a great way to start an appraisal. I'm taking a day at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 03-05-2013, 05:26 PM
michiman michiman is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 43
Received CRA today...

Today Dupont sent my CRA that did include replacement of all items rated "3" and above. In my case, the offer looks pretty reasonable. $21,000 plus removal costs paid by Dupont over and above. Based on the damage and the specific trees that were affected, my inclination is to accept what I feel is fair compensation.

I'm sure some of you have had more substantial damage and dying trees that are on landscape areas that severely affects your property value. This is not the case for us... we were lucky damage is limited to areas that allow me to remove worst affected trees, replace at a reasonable cost and not severely affect the property value.

Wishing all well, hoping everyone is progressing to a satisfactory conclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 03-05-2013, 06:23 PM
TreeNut TreeNut is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 80
congrats!

Thanks so much for reporting! Did you have any trees that were 1 or 2? How many are you replacing?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Page generated in 0.09961 seconds with 8 queries