Time line of Events
1) In February 1997 my husband and I started house hunting. In May of the same year we found a
house that we liked. On the first walk through we detected an oily odor. (see exhibit #1 photo #1)
2) After being reassured by Christine Banks, the broker for Middleton real estate, about the oil smell,
she told us “that it was ok, it’s normal.” We started the process of purchasing the home. The first step
was a home inspection.
3) Christine Banks told us that Black Paw Inspection, was “the best”. Relying on that and Black Paws
representation of insurance, we hired them to do the inspection. (see exhibit #9 Black Paw brochure,
“fully insured”)
4) After the inspection was completed on 6/6/97 Jay Bowie, who works for Black Paw Inspection
assured us that there were no major problems with the house. (see exhibit #2 Black Paw report)
5) From that day forward we had an extremely difficult time gaining access to the house. (see exhibit
#3 P&S agreement and ACCESS clause) In denying us access to the property, Middleton Real Estate
violated the purchase and sales agreement. They denied us access to property. (reasons such as,
“alarm is on, no key available”) But Martha, herself, states she visited the property with the appraiser
and a fireman. (see exhibit #19 depo Martha Hazeltine pg. 66, & 68) Access would have directly
affected our decision to purchase the house if we had discovered the charred wood or dirty insulation.
This act alone was not only unfair but also deceptive.
6) During the month of July 1997 we were not allowed in the house, (see exhibit #4 depo Christine
Banks pg. 23-27) to take measurements for windows, furniture, plumbing needs. (see exhibit #3 access
clause )(see exhibit # 24 attorney O’Neil’s letter pg. 4)
7) The first week August, soon after the purchase of the home, we brought the plumber in to see what
the cost would be for a new hot water tank. While the plumbers were installing the hot water tank they
noticed that there was charring of wood in the rafters and also soot and smoke damage in the
basement. They asked us if we have had a fire in the house. (see exhibit #5 depo Henry Wells pg.13,28-
29) The master plumber also noticed a smell of what he called “TREK”. (see exhibit #5 depo Henry
Wells pg.60-61, see also exhibit #12 EST report)
The plumber noticed that there were children in and out of the basement and recommended that we
find out what had taken place in the home.
8) That same day we called our insurance company and told them that we had just purchased the
house and it appears to have soot and smoke damage. The next day we called the phone number that
was left on a tag stuck to the top of boiler. We talked to a man named Bruce Rose. It is a fact that Bruce
Rose was called to that residence on a Sunday in mid May. Asked of Rose, “did you make the comment
to anyone that this was one of the worst plugbacks you’d ever seen? He said, “ probably” (see exhibit
#6 depo Bruce Rose pg.78-79) He also suggested to Janice Scibelli that she call her insurance
company. (see exhibit #6 depo Bruce Rose pg.32 lines 3-6 & pg.78)
Janice Scibelli indeed called her insurance company (Horace Mann) but not until September of 1998.
According to Horace Mann, this claim is for in incident that occured in June of 1997. We have never
received a copy of this claim despite our many requests. (see exhibit #29 letter to Horace
Mann/attorney Flanagan)
9) Our next call was to the Topsfield Fire Department. (see exhibit #7 Topsfield Fire Dept report.) On
or about that time it was suggested that we “have this mess cleaned up.”
10) Fire Restorations was called. Within a day a man called Chris Romano arrived at our home. He
smelt a fire odor along with a heavy oil smell. (see exhibit #8 depo Cris Romano pg.65-66 & pg. 112) He
observed soot and smoke damage throughout the entire home, especially the basement. (see exhibit
#13 letters from Fire Restoration Company) pg.112)
11) We called our closing attorney the next day. He recommended that we contact the previous owner
Janice Scibelli and ask her what had happened. We did just that. She said to us “you’re on your own,
nothing ever happened.”
12) After learning what had taken place on that Sunday in May, (see exhibit #6 depo Bruce Rose
pg.17-28, pg. 31 lines 18-24) and observing Fire Restorations removal of thick oily soot with sponges
throughout the home, we needed to find out what had happened. We tried to have all of the parties
involved, the homeowner, the broker, and the inspection company, to meet at the home to view these
conditions. We were ordered, “not to clean up any of the mess.”(see exhibit #29 letter from attorney
Conroy) So we had to live with it for the next two months. After two months they returned to view the
home. The homeowner denied, while standing in front of the boiler, and the basement full of soot and
chlorinated solvents, “that she ever had a problem with the house or the boiler”
13) Mrs. Scibelli's assertion that the charred wood was caused by a plumber when the furnace was
put in, (see exhibit #22 depo Janice Scibelli pg. 42 lines 22-24, pg. 43-48 lines) disproved by Kenneth
Crowell of Crowell Mechanical Contractors. (See exhibit #30 depo Ken Crowell pg. 47 line 15, pg. 48
lines 1-25, pg. 49 lines 1-22) He also disputes the fact that this was a prearranged matter between
himself and Mr. Scibelli, (see exhibit #30 depo Ken Crowell , pg. 20 lines 7-11) now deceased. (see
exhibit #22 depo Janice Scibelli pg. 17 lines 5-6,) Further more, Janice contends that she did not know
why the furnace was replaced. Mr. Crowell states (see exhibit #30 depo Crowell pg. 23 lines 22-24, pg.
27 lines 12-17, pg. 24 lines 1-3) “it was obvious, there was water leaking.”
Janice Scibelli was the original and only owner until 7/31/97.
14) The holidays were soon approaching and we needed to clean up this mess. Our homeowners
insurance company was too slow in the process. We paid thousands of dollars to have the mess
partially cleaned up.
15) After the New Year, we started renovations to a first floor bath. During this renovation, again more
hidden black soot and smoke damage. (see exhibit #1 pictures 4&5). Again, calling the homeowners
insurance company and Fire Restoration. (see exhibit #13 Fire Restoration letters). Hanover Insurance
Company (see exhibit #10 letters from Hannover Insurance Co.) denies any
coverage “due to a pre-existing condition”
16) Now being concerned with the amount of soot and the air quality in home we did some research.
After determining that soot causes cancer, (see exhibit #11 American Lung Association) we called
Environmental Sampling & Testing. This company came to my home and set up a SUMA canister test.
The testing involved was a ‘twenty four-hour’ test of the air quality in the house. It wasn’t until the end of
March that we received the results. (see exhibit #12 EST report) At that time EST recommended that a
risk analysis be done. In doing so, The Massachusetts DEP were more concerned with the methylene
chloride levels in the home which were at 280 ppb for an eight hour exposure. (see exhibit #14, DEP
revised memorandum levels for this toxic compound)
17) In speaking with different agencies of the government, there are no standards for air quality in the
home, only the workplace. The methylene chloride threshold limit is .24 ppb (parts per billion) for a
business, in our home the methylene chloride was at 280 ppb.
18) We received conflicting reports from both state and federal agencies. The contaminates in our
home are the same contaminates that killed the kids in the Woburn case. We would be continually
breathing these contaminates for as long as we remained in the home.
19) Soon after learning that we were exposed to these chemicals, soot and chlorinated solvents, (see
exhibit #15 MSDS sheets) the children’s doctor wanted the kids tested. Our oldest daughter has
developed asthma. During the exam of our youngest son, it was noticed that he had developed
hematuria (blood in urine), suspect solvents that cause long term effects ??? He was brought to
Children’s Hospitals toxicology unit and is being treated every few months for this condition.
20) With the condition of the home, and the “not knowing” what had taken place, we decided not to
live in this toxic situation. We felt that it would pose more of a health risk to our children by staying in the
home.
In June, while walking in the back yard, I noticed some insulation that was partially buried it was burnt
and also covered with oil. (see exhibit #1 photo #6) There was also cement fragments with brick. I again
called Leo Cormier from the Topsfield Board of Health to observe this condition. (see exhibit #28 -
Topsfield Board of Health notes) This debris was found in the same area as the Scibelli’s discarded
items i.e.: Christmas trees, brush, etc. (see exhibit #23, pg. 16 depo Strahan)
21) With the serious re-construction needed to solve the air quality issues in the home, (see exhibit #10
Hanover Insurance Company letters) we needed a place to live while those issues were being resolved.
We decided to stay in the neighborhood, for the kid’s sake, school etc., and had a temporary trailer
placed in the front yard.
22) The house was contaminated throughout with toxic soot and volatile organic compounds. (see
exhibit #12 E.S.T reports) The wooden structure, and also the concrete absorbed these chemicals,
wood & concrete are porous. (see exhibit #12 E.S.T report, chlorinated solvents used in the attempted
clean up were off gassing)
23) We knew that whatever re-construction was done with the home, there was no way to remove all
of the contaminates. (see exhibit #1 pictures 7,8 & 9)
24) This was indeed “The House From Hell”. This house that we purchased had a pre-existing
condition. (see exhibit # 10 Hanover Insurance Co. letters) The homeowner Janice Scibelli knew about it
and should have disclosed it on the seller’s disclosure form (see exhibit # 17 seller’s disclosure form),
(also see exhibit #19 depo Martha Hazeltine pg. 34-38 & 87-88) which was filled out by herself and her
friend Martha Hazeltine, the listing broker. The home inspector saw the burnt rafters. Never told us
about them, but had the same reasoning for the burn marks as Martha Hazleton. (see exhibit # 19 depo
Martha Hazeltine pgs.59-61),(see exhibit # 2 home inspection report) The real-estate people knew of
the damages and just looked the other way, (see exhibit #19 depo of Martha Hazeltine pg. 62& 69, “soot
on floor”), (see exhibit #4 depo of Cristine Banks pgs.10,11,34,35) “eyes burning, lips burning” etc) and
offered bogus information about the situations. It has been established that at least one of the brokers,
Martha Hazeltine had an ongoing friendship for several years. (see exhibit #19 pg. 9,10,12,13,14)
25) We relied on Black Paw Home Inspection and they failed us. (see exhibit #27 inspection report
from ABC Home Inspection)
We relied on the seller’s description of property and again she lied about fire/smoke damages. (see
exhibit #17 sellers disclosure form)
We also relied on the truthfulness of the real-estate brokers. (see exhibit # 20 consumer protection
law)(see exhibit #19 depo Martha Hazeltine pg. 89-91)
26) The Topsfield Board of Health would not issue the home safe. (see exhibit #28 Board of Health
notes) After all of the lies, deceit and the fear of not knowing of how these carcinogens entered our
home, we felt our children’s health issues were much more important than the house. We made the
decision to raze the house.
27) To date we have not collected any monies from any insurance company, for the “serious
reconstruction need to fix home”.(see exhibit # 10 Hanover letters) We had to pay for the entire cost of
the re-construction process ourselves. This has caused us serious financial problems. Also, we are still
paying some of the medical costs that are ongoing.
28) Steps were taken to preserve the house, which entailed moving the structure approximately 125
feet to the front. The company was Metropolitan Building Movers. The town of Topsfield denied us from
having two structures on the same property. (see exhibit # 21 demolition permits) However many items
have been tested and preserved for the trial, including pictures and videotapes. All parties involved
were informed of the demolition, and had ample time to inspect property. (see exhibit # 29 Lawyers
letters) The defendant claims that they did not have ample time to examine home. This is false. (see
exhibit #29 lawyers letters) Black Paw declined to examine home. (Bolick & Welch dated Sept.30, 1997,
June 3, 1998, June 8, 1998, June 24, 1998) see letters from (Cogavin & Waystack Oct. 21, 1997, Nov.
19,1997,July 2, 1998), see letters from (Clark,Hunt & Embry dated Sept. 10 1997, July 2, 1998)
29) Last but not least “the phone”. During two separate depositions Scibelli and her daughter, under
oath, denied ever seeing the phone, owning the phone, or ever having one like that. (see exhibit #22 pg.
56 depo Janice Scibelli) & (see exhibit #23 depo Susan Strahann pg. 6, & 17) The phone in fact was in
the basement of the home still connected to the service. The phone has been tested (see exhibit # 25
PLM testing report) for contaminates. The phone number behind the round plastic cover was checked,
and the phone company records indicate that it was issued to Scibelli 29 years ago when they lived in
Wakefield. (see exhibit #26 Phone Company records) Also a hand writing expert has taken the hand
written number off the phone, and is ready to do an analysis at this time.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury
______________________________________
