Homeowners sue Atherton alleging building department negligence, fraud

Couple spending millions of dollars to repair home that passed muster with building department

The town of Atherton has been hit with another lawsuit, this one by homeowners charging that the town and its building department's "gross negligence, fraud and breach of duties" have cost them millions of dollars and severe emotional distress. They are asking for at least $10 million in damages.

This story contains 359 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by R.Gordon
a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2010 at 12:21 pm

[Post removed. Stay on topic.]

Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Atherton: other
on Oct 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Perhaps the city merely promoted incompetants. No malace in that and saves money in the short go.

Like this comment
Posted by nice try
a resident of Atherton: other
on Oct 21, 2010 at 5:11 pm

Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

Like this comment
Posted by told the so
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Oct 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm

The sad truth about all of this is that they fired the one guy who tried to clean up both departments.

Maybe they'll bring him back to help clean up the mess.

Like this comment
Posted by R.Gordon
a resident of another community
on Oct 23, 2010 at 12:22 pm

My posts are blocked, but I could recommend a great attorney for you.
Or should I say, firm? They are currently working, I believe on a suit in San Mateo County.
Gibboney cannot say this is OFF TOPIC.

Like this comment
Posted by Deep Thinker
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Oct 23, 2010 at 8:01 pm

For those who were critical of this lawsuit in the August article, think about this:

Ms. Sweidy is suing the contractor. One of his defenses? Atherton approved the work he did, every step of the way.

What if these approvals came about through bribes or other chicanery?

Ms. Sweidy was forced to file this lawsuit. I hope she prevails.

Like this comment
Posted by John P Johns
a resident of another community
on Oct 23, 2010 at 8:14 pm

I for one was very troubled by Mike Cully's attitude when he took on the role as the interim building official. He gave me the impression that he was there to help cover problems up, rather than seek to discover and correct the many problems that exsited at the time.

He acted as though he was a self-appointed apologist in-chief.

I fully expect that we will learn more about Mr. Cully's conduct and his firm's relationship with the Town as this lawsuit progresses. As the facts emerge I would fully expect Ms. Sweidy's case to get beter and better.

This case has legs.

Like this comment
Posted by Thomas
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Oct 23, 2010 at 9:19 pm

Deep Thinker: Sweidy is being sued by her building contractor, Fulwiler James for breach of contract after they walked off the job. (Almanac issue August 3rd, 2010). According to the article, problems arose because the property owners never did a qualified soils report as was suggested and I am assuming they breached the contract because they felt the blame rested with Fulwiler James. When problems started to surface about the credentials of Atherton's building inspector, who is not qualified to assess soil conditions, the property owners felt they had a lawsuit against the city that quite possibly could mitigate their breach of contract damages with Fulwiler James.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Dogs and Kids
By Cheryl Bac | 14 comments | 1,398 views

Say Yes or No?
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,375 views

Caesar Pleaser
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 784 views

Regulation 14, Transparency and Me (or, What’s Under the Hood in Those Cameras?)
By Stuart Soffer | 0 comments | 581 views