In Finke’s “Memorandum of Defendants in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to File Response Out of Time and in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration”, Finke’s attorney articulates the following:

“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the addendum modifies the contract with respect to two separate and distinct matters – radon and arbitration of disputes. The arbitration clause is an entirely separate paragraph which does not mention radon and which does not limit disputes only to disputes involving radon. Rather, the separate arbitration clause provides:

Arbitration of Disputes. Any controversy, claim or matter arising out of or relating to this agreement, or breech therefore, other than a claim by builder for specific performance and related damages, shall be determines in accordance with the Construction Industry Rule of American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.”

This Addendum is a five paragraph document relating to radon. I will agree with Finke’s attorney on the issue that second paragraph does not mention the word Radon in it. However, in plain concise English language the fifth and last concluding paragraph just before the signature block reads:

"Builder makes no warranty or representation of any kind, express or implied, with regards to the presence of radon gas within the homes, which is the subject of this contract."

Therefore, the notion that this addendum was not pertaining to radon gas that the statement “Any controversy, claim or matter arising out of or relating to this agreement” is specifically addressing the “subject of the contract” which is radon gas.

Now, you take the written document words and associate the written word with the verbal statements from Finke’s representative that in the past Finke has had some issues with Radon gas and they have this addendum that they require from all customers. Finke’s representative states “if you have any issues with radon gas in the future, then you agree to arbitrate instead of going to court.”

I have the written document that is linked for you to view in its entirety and I was a personal witness to Finke’s representative statements regarding the nature of the addendum. Furthermore, we have other homeowners that bought from this same Finke representative that will or would have testified to exactly the same statements that were made to Ms. Keiper. Therefore, I contend contrary to Finke Homes and their attorney’s misleading statement that the addendum called for “two separate and distinct matters.” The agreement was entirely related to radon gas the Arbitration of any claim pertain to the arbitration of any claim related to radon gas.

Furthermore, I would like to add that the “Arbitration clause” states:

“All such controversial, claims or other matters regarding construction shall be resolved in accordance with the Industry Standards Manual published by the Home Builders Association of Greater Cincinnati which establishes the standard by which the builder’s performance in connection with contraction matters shall be governed.”

However, not one time during the arbitration proceeding or any issue arising regarded to the construction of the home did Finke Homes, their representatives, or their attorney ever invoke, mention or refer to this manual or the so-called “industry standards.” Therefore, it would appear again that they have selectively used a couple words or a line, or in this case a paragraph to make one slated point while disregarding the rest of the information to take the meaning out of context. If Finke or their attorney were so adamant to relying on this clause to govern the contractual obligation, then why would they not demand the compliance to the “Industry Standards Manual” as it relates to the construction related issues in this case. What a bunch of morons!

Up until this point, I have used niceties and euphemisms such as the word misrepresentations. But remember, misrepresentation is just a word for bold face, outright lie. And anyone that misrepresents an issue or statement is a bold face outright liar.

And my favorite point to hammer is calling a liar a liar and a fraud a fraud is not defamatory.