Joe Farsetta's Arbitration Service

Nathan,

anyone is perfectly free to investigate arbitration to their heart’s content, and publish those findings on this message board.

I will gladly provide the name of the Deputy Attorney General of the State of Indiana tomorrow. Folks may contact him directly, and post his replies here.

It would not be enough for me to make a claim which is self-serving. Unlike you, I welcome research on the subject.

I am beng as professional and as respectful as possible. Remember, it was not I who hatched the idea of an arbitration service for NACHI members; that was suggested by Joe Ferry long ago. It was Nick who requested I create such a service. After an accusation that the service was too closely tied to NACHI and the deck would be stacked unfairly in favor of NACHI members, did we decide to remove our exclusive affiliation with this organization.

Although the following is specific to mediation, both mediation and arbitration are collectively referred to as Alternate Dispute Resolution.

I hope this helps:

State Mediator Rosters and Qualifications

This report was produced by the Institute of Government, College of Professional Studies at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock as part of a contract with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

This study examines the purpose and scope of mediator qualifications, lists, and certification procedures established by the judicial branch or other branches of state governments. The study focuses on lists and qualifications that are applicable statewide within each state (district-wide in the District of Columbia.)

Although many states recommend qualifications for mediators, no state has requirements for the practice of mediation.

The Kansas Supreme Court, in Court Rule 902 (2001) describing mediator qualifications for court referrals and approved programs, stated: “No standards or qualifications should be imposed upon any person chosen and agreed to by the parties. These qualifications should not prevent parties having free choice of process, program and the individual neutral.” This statement, emphasizing the importance attached to free choice, is typical of language in a number of state statutes and court rules regarding mediator qualifications.

In all states, parties can seek mediation and choose any mediator before a case is filed in court. In most states, parties retain this freedom of choice after filing. Two jurisdictions, the State of Georgia and the District of Columbia, require mediators to be listed or a part of a program in order to practice in the courts. Only in the District of Columbia is a mediator required to be an attorney to mediate civil court cases other than family disputes.

When states have guidelines or requirements for mediators who receive court referrals or appointments, judges commonly have discretion in applying these guidelines.

The following is a state-by-state summary of statewide mediator lists and minimum qualifications. Major sources of the information are listed for each state.

**Alabama** 

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties or judges may select any mediator.

**Alaska** 

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

**Arizona** 

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

Arkansas
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The Arkansas ADR Commission established three categories of guidelines dealing with mediator skills and qualifications: 1) general guidelines for the public to use in selecting a mediator; 2) standards and procedures for being placed on the voluntary Roster of Mediators maintained by the Commission; and 3)*** standards that may be used by the courts in establishing court-annexed mediation systems or selecting court-referred mediators***. However, Courts are*** not required*** to follow the ADR Commission’s guidelines or to use mediators from the Roster.

Colorado
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties may choose any mediator.

Connecticut
No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

Delaware
No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation. Parties may choose any mediator. The Delaware Superior Court maintains a Roster of Neutrals*** for court referrals***.

**District of Columbia**

No state requirements or guidelines for mediation in a private setting.

**Florida**

March 2012 updated requirements for Florida Supreme Court certified mediators (PDF). Previous information from the University of Arkansas study: No state requirements for the practice of mediation. For court ordered mediation, parties may choose any mediator, subject to the approval of the judge. The State Supreme Court maintains a list of certified mediators. Mediators must be on the list ***to receive court referrals. ***

Georgia
No state requirements for the practice of mediation when a court case has not been filed.

**Hawaii**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

**Idaho **
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties may select  any mediator.

**Illinois**

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

**Indiana**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

**Iowa**

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

**Kansas**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties and/or attorneys may choose any mediator.

**Kentucky**

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation. Parties may select any mediator.

**Louisiana**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The ADR Section of the Louisiana Bar Association maintains a register of persons qualified as mediators pursuant to La. R.S. 9:4106 (civil cases) and La. R.S. 9:334 ***(child custody/ visitation). ***

Maine
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Service (CADRES) of the Maine Judicial Branch maintains Mediation Rosters. ***Court referrals must be made from the appropriate roster. ***

**Maryland**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties may choose any mediator. Each county administrative judge prepares an approved list of mediators*** for court appointments. ***

Massachusetts
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The Chief Justice of each trial court department approves programs*** to receive court referrals. ***

   **Michigan**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

**Minnesota**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

Mississippi
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. A List of Mediators is maintained by the Mississippi Bar. Courts and parties are encouraged, but not required, to select mediators from this list.

**Missouri**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

**Montana**

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

Nebraska
No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation.

**Nevada**

No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation. Parties may use a mediator of their choice.

**New Hampshire**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The New Hampshire Marital Mediator Certification Board maintains a list of Certified ***Marital ***Mediators.

**New Jersey**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

**New Mexico **
No state requirements for the practice of mediation.     

New York
No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

North Carolina
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The NC DR Commission certifies mediators to conduct mediated settlement conferences A) i***n cases filed in the state’s civil, superior courts, and B) in district court cases involving equitable distribution and other family financial matters. ***

North Dakota
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The State Court Administrator maintains rosters of neutrals for ***civil mediation and domestic relations/contested child proceedings mediation.


Ohio
No state requirements or guidelines for the practice of mediation. Ohio has developed its mediation practice as a free market state and there is no certification, licensure, or specific training requirement in place for mediators.

**Oklahoma**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

Oregon
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Community Dispute Resolution Programs which receive state funding must adhere to mediator qualifications set by the Oregon DR Commission.

Pennsylvania
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties may choose any mediator. The PA Supreme Court established minimum qualifications for mediation in*** custody and visitation cases through family court programs and court-ordered mediation for individual cases. ***

Rhode Island
No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

**South Carolina**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Civil actions filed in the circuit court for more than $25,000 and custody or visitation in domestic relations actions, with some exceptions, are subject to mediation. Parties may choose any mediator.

South Dakota
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. To be eligible as a court-appointed mediator in Family Courts, certain qualifications apply.

**Tennessee**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The ADR Commission maintains a list of family mediators and a list of general-civil mediators. Court-ordered mediation and court-annexed programs must use mediators from these lists.

**Texas**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. An impartial third party appointed for dispute resolution services by a court or a governmental body must have qualifications for cases involving family law and child development.

Utah
No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

Vermont
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties may select a mediator of their choice. The Vermont Court Administrator keeps a list of mediators, most of whom have gone through a training program to practice in the federal courts in Vermont, for the information of judges making court referrals on major civil cases.

Virginia
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. Parties can choose any mediator. The State of Virginia has a roster of approximately 1000 certified mediators. Mediators must be certified to receive court referrals.

**Washington **
No state requirements for the practice of mediation.     The Washington Mediation Association has a voluntary Mediator  Certification Program for members.     There are court rules for mandatory mediation of healthcare claims. 

  **West Virginia**

No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The Supreme Court of Appeals maintains a list of Court-Approved Family Court Mediators for court-annexed programs.

Wisconsin
No state requirements for the practice of mediation. The only statewide mediation program is the Medical Mediation Panel. Panels Coordinator

Wyoming
No state requirements for the practice of mediation.

http://www.mediationworks.com/images/uparrow.gif

So, in summary, there are no restrictions in virtually ANY state in the US, except as it y may pertain to court-ordered mediation and arbitration with court-appointed mediators/neutrals.

Since IAS is private ADR, limited EXCLUSIVELY to inspection-related disputes, any applicable rules to the mediation process wold not apply in an IAS setting. Further, the associated costs of IAS arbitration are capped at $400 currently, and is non-binding, unless both parties agree, in advance, to make it binding arbitration.

I hope this information is helpful to anyone wanting to take the issue further with their own state government. By all means, please publish any official findings and by all means please make me aware of them.

In the event that we are not able to offer IAS in any particular state, we will immediately cease and desist upon notification from a governmental body having jurisdiction over the matter. A suggestion would be each state’s Attorney General’s office. But, even f you discver it on your own, and absent of a letter from a governmental agency, please just let me know. f it makes sense, we’ll shut it down in that jurisdiction.

Even as published above, sometimes things seem more restrictive than they are. As a single example, the State of Pennsylvania has some generic guidelines regarding court-ordered mediation. We had a case a few years back were the arbitration clause was challenged by an attorney in court. The judge remanded the case to mediation/arbitration as indicated within the Clause. IAS was named in the clause. Shortly thereafter, both attorneys agreed to make the arbitration BINDING. We are not registered with Pennsylvania as a domestic or foreign company of any type whatsoever. Arbitration took place over the Internet. A judgement was rendered and upheld by the court. We are not on any list or roster created by or known to the Pennsylvania Courts. The judge refused to set the arbitration clause aside. While I am not suggesting that this would be the outcome every time, but to our knowledge on the issue, we are good to go in all states and the Discrict of Columbia.

Again, ad by all means, investigate for yourself prior to engaging ANY service offered, whether mine or someone else’s. And, by all means, discuss any and all clauses you are placing in an inspection agreement with competent counsel.

For any of you who may be curious, and choose to investigate our ability to provide this service in your own state, you’d be doing me a favor by publishing your findings, along with a contact reference, n your posting.

Thank you!

Nathan,

Proving once again the a s s you continually show yourself to be, I remind you that it was you who brought up the issue, and I have encouraged anyone curious to contact their State Attorney General’s office. This includes you, Nathan.

The issue you are harping on is COURT APPOINTED or COURT ORDERED arbitration, not private arbitration. An excerpt from the law which you quoted (which is also the law the DAG and I discussed at length):

Yes, it was absolutely a casual telephone call, which I memorialized. The individual was a Deputy AG. We went over the law, simultaneously. But please do not take my word for it; contact him yourself.

And yes, arbitration and mediation are both forms of ADR

As an example, and this was taken from Nevada’s Rules On Alternate Dispute Resolution:

Again, this refers to “court-annexed alternate dispute resolution”. So, if you were speaking as to qualifications to operate WITHIN the state court system, as appointed by the judiciary, you would be correct. In tis case, however, you are incorrect. Simlar rules apply in about 50-65% of sattes currently. We don’t, however, perform court appointed or directed ADR.

In fact, anyone reading this is encouraged to contact their own AG’s office and ask these questions.

As to why anyone should consider using the service, my only advice is to examine other ADR services available to them. I believe this to be sound advice.

Where the process is one-sided and expensive, a judge may set the provision aside. CAS is no longer arbitrating inspection-related disputes. AAA is expensive, as are others. But, examine all the alternatives available.

So, the value of IAS can only be determined by the person considering purchasing it. To each, it has a unique value. One signs up for access to low-cost arbitration and mediation. Fees are paid directly from the plaintiff to the neutral.

So, please make this as big an issue as you’d like, but be honest and advise folks to contact their own state AGs for qualified opinions.

If we were breaking the law, the AG and court systems would be unhappy. This is where any official opinion should come from.

Do not take my word for it.

Can you honestly say you recommend the same for your own products and services, or do you regurgitate opinions of those on your payroll, or by osmosis?

I do not fear you, nor do I respect you. I welcome your diversions from issues that make you uncomfortable. Isn’t that really what you are trying to do? No biggie, really.

Unlike you, however, I do not rely on pumping up the masses, promising them this or that, in order to get them to purchase this service.

Therein lies a big difference between us, Nathan.

IAS was created to help NACHI inspectors exclusively at one time. Since then, it is available to anyone.

In our case, the cart did come before the horse.The service was never intended to be a money maker, and was conceived as a means to make our organization more attractive to an insurance carrier in order to get a steeper discounted rate to our members. The program did not work out, but the concept survived.

Some E&O carriers like it, and others remain silent. I always recommend that inspectors carefully consider the requirements as set forth in their E&O policy prior to engaging ANY alternate service.

So, you see, I really DO care about inspectors. I do not view them as a means to an end, and would never consciously put anyone in harm’s way.

Can you back up your own assurances with the same level of committment? Is this why you continually try to steer inspectors clear of performing their own research and contacting their own attorney?

What are you afraid of, Nathan?

He fears home inspectors who publicly pledge to never sell their clients’ private information to him. This thread is an attempt to put you on the defensive and to take attention away from this.

Buyers considering the purchase of a new home will often hire a home inspector to examine the home for them and report its condition. If you are considering the purchase of a new home and are looking to hire a home inspector, consider the inspector’s commitment to your privacy in addition to his other qualifications.

There are home inspectors who will offer lower fees to their clients as an incentive to hire them — and then sell private information about the home buyer (or the home) to third parties willing to pay them for this information, to make up for the lower fee. Usually, the home buyer is unaware that the home inspector is gaining from the sale of his private information. Nor is the home buyer aware as to whom or how many third parties their private information is being provided to.

If your home inspector is offering a variety of “free” add-on services in addition to his report of the condition of your home, chances are good that you’re private information (and information about your home) is being provided to an unnamed third-party.

Contractors who sell and install home alarm systems, for example, consider home inspectors to be a valuable resource for new customer leads and will reward them with cash and other incentives to provide them with the names, phone numbers and addresses of new home buyers. Sometimes the home inspector will sell their clients’ private information directly to a contractor but may also sell the information to “lead brokers” who, in turn, sell the information to a variety of contractors and service providers.

Rarely are home buyers informed by their home inspector that he is profiting from the sale of their private information or to whom the information is being sold. At least one lead broker forbids home inspectors who provide him with private data about their clients from revealing anything concerning the inspector’s contract with the lead broker to the home owner, which includes his “compensation” arrangements.

Many clients of home inspectors, some who are on state sponsored “Do Not Call” lists, are unaware how the telemarketers calling them came to get their name while some are even more surprised to find door-to-door solicitors knowing to ask for them by name shortly after moving in to their new home.

Not all home inspectors engage in this practice and consumers should ask an inspector they consider hiring as to whether or not he or she engages in the sale of private information about his or her clients. Added services that require personal information or client registration such as “free” short term warranties or “free” product recall research are important red flags that should be explored.

If you choose to hire a home inspector who will be providing your information to any third-party for any reason, it is wise to have the inspector provide you with the third party’s name, address, telephone number and other identifying factors to ensure that you can contact them should you find yourself receiving harassing or unwanted solicitations as a possible result — and to trace any other parties to whom that party may have provided your information to, when necessary.

In this age of private information gathering by government agencies and computer hackers, consumers should be proactive in protecting their private information from being bought, sold and re-sold among various parties that are unknown to them. The purchase of a new home is no exception.

Excellent post. Thanks for the info Joe.

Another excellent post. Thanks Jim.

NACHI, meet the real N.P.T.

Nathan’s new tactic is to pretend to have a professional discussion while anyone with a brain can see what is really going on.

Let’s hope the boy’s 15 minutes of fame is almost over.

We all need a break.

Nathan continues to try and muddy the waters when he insists on using the term “arbitration” that results from a court proceeding.

I think Joe has made it very clear that the service he provided has nothing to do with the courts or any state requirements there in.

Bump! :wink:

Bump! :wink:

NAthan,

Your questions were asked and answered. It is our position that we are not only qualified to perform arbitration in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, but that the service is legal.

Asked and answered. I can point to specific rules of arbitration, such as Minnesota’s Rule 114 which is specific to ADR. Arbitration and mediation, collectively, is ADR. Restrictions imposed by the courts generally apply to court ordered or court-annexed ADR processes, not private arbitration.

This includes the State of Indiana, where I suggested you contact your State’s AG office for clarification.

Instead, you choose to snipe in the typical manner prescribed. Your questions are valid, but at the same time, are nonsensical… for I have provided the ULTIMATE remedy for anyone who thinks I am wrong; and that is to contact their own AG or court system and inquire on their own behalf. They can then post those findings right here.

The sole problem here on this forum is YOU, Nathan… end everyone knows it. We are compliant everywhere the service is offered, and we have done the homework. You fail to accept this as fact, and you are within your rights to do this… as is everyone else. I recommend always consulting with an attorney regarding liability and legal matters. In this instance, where regulatory questions are asked, the recommendation is, in the event you don’t believe me, to contact a State official… such as the AG’s office for clarification. This is sound advice. Sorry you do not agree.

Pretty much, yes

*Arbitration and mediation takes place over the telephone, over the Internet, or a combination of the two.

Not necessarily. Every case if different. It depends on what the courts have found, what is legal to include, and the like. For instance, in Massachusetts an inspector may lose his license for contractually limiting his liability. it does not mean that the clause is illegal, only that it could cost the inspector his license. So, it truly depends.

We have had but a single case request binding arbitration. It was requested by the attorney for the plaintiff. What was being arbitrated in that case had nothing to do with the findings of the inspection, by the way… so the neutral never really knows what case will be brought forward. The arbitration clause was contested in the courts, BTW, and upheld by the judge.

Asked and answered. Also, your characterization as to who is qualified as a court-recognized arbiter being licensed to practice law is incorrect. Generally speaking, it requires 30-40 hours of training and some other reasonably attainable credentials specific to arbitration, not law. This includes family court.

When I speak of getting an opinion from a carrier relative to private dispute resolution, the decision of the atbiter could potentially leave the carrier on the hook. Typical provisions within policy documents limits the defendants rights to settle the matter on their own, and often include a requirement to NOT speak to the opposing party and to defer all inquiries to the claims adjuster. Not wanting to jeopardize an inspectors E&O coverage, the soundest advice to provide is to advise inspectors who carry E&O to check with their carriers first with regard to private dispute resolution. To our knowledge, carriers have no specific qualifications for dispute resolution services. We have been contacted to serve as consultants for claims review by some attorneys representing the carriers, and in other cases, the carriers have embraced the service.

As to the nature of your questions, in general, again, one can easily inquire with the courts for clarification. Some E&O carriers and attorneys do not like arbitration, as they have little control over the proceedings. While your own offering may be embraced by the carriers, it is done so in a self-serving fashion, for if you indemnify the inspector and make the E&O claim go away via payment of some sort, they have the potential of losing NOTHING if you refuse to pay on a claim.

In arbitration, the carrier could be on the hook for thousands. This is why some are skiddish.

Sorry your panties are in a knot, Nathan.

I expected nothing less, actually

Joe has no issues to address IMHO. He has been clear from the beginning.

This is just another attempt by the “great Thornberry” to divert attention away from him and his operation.

He is the one that obfuscates, avoids answering questions, lies , and disparages multiple inspectors on this message board.

He has shown over and over that he is not forthcoming when it comes to his business practices, his brokering of client information, and his ability to speak truthfully.

In short, when challenged, he lies or diverts.

He offer some services of marginal utility but I and others have chosen not to do business with him for very specific reasons.

The Client Fidelity Pledge gives consumers a choice in an age where personal information about clients is sold on the open market.

Many people just want to be left alone and don’t want their home inspector involved in such schemes.