Plaintiff Alleges That Defendants Concealed Location of His House

LTB default 777x437

This case was filed recently in San Mateo County, just south of San Francisco:

Stanley G Hilton v. San Francisco International Airport; San Francisco International Airport Authority; City and County of San Francisco; San Mateo County; Town of Hillsborough; United Airlines Inc.; UAL Inc.; American Airlines; Virgin Atlantic Airlines; Mexicana Airlines; Lufthansa German Airlines; [lots of other airlines]; General Electric Inc.; Michael Sparer; Kathleen Sparer; Cashin Real Estate Company; Coldwell Banker Inc.; Francis Hunter; Gina Haggerty; [more airlines]; Boeing Corporation; Airbus Industries; McDonnell Douglas; [and a couple more airlines]; Case No. CIV 489425 (San Mateo County Super. Ct., filed Nov. 10, 2009)

Noise and air pollution. The defendants failed to warn the plaintiff that the house they [sic] purchased was very close to the airport and therefore suffered from noise and air pollution. $10.5 billion.

Here's just one of the dilemmas Mr. Hilton — who is, not surprisingly, representing himself — will likely face: If you have ever actually visited a house you're buying (and I recommend you do that), you should know whether or not it is in fact near something as big as an airport.  (I have been to this particular airport and can testify that it is not well-concealed.)  If you have not actually visited said house, then it is hard to see how you could have suffered from noise or air pollution there.  It's a fairly simple case of non-presence.

I realize that technically, plaintiff appears to be alleging that the house suffered from noise and air pollution, which could be an argument that the property value was essentially misrepresented because defendants kept the location of the house secret until after plaintiff bought it.  But that may just be bad grammar.  Even if it isn't, it seems doubtful that the difference in value is $10.5 billion.

Houses are expensive here, but even with a pool they don't go for that much.