A buyer closes on a property, moves in, and within months discovers something the seller never mentioned: a roof that has been leaking for years, a foundation with documented cracking, or mold spreading behind walls that were freshly painted before the sale. The paperwork looked clean. The inspector found nothing alarming. But the problem was there all along.
This is where Austin attorney, Shanon Stanfield brings his experience as a Texas trial lawyer to the table. Stanfield has spent more than 16 years representing individuals and businesses across Texas in real estate and commercial disputes, building a practice around more than 500 cases that span construction defect litigation, fraud claims, business partnership breakdowns, and complex commercial property disputes. His reputation in Austin legal circles rests not just on courtroom experience, but on the judgment he applies before a case ever gets that far.
That judgment, he argues, is the part most clients don’t expect when they first call his office.
Why the Documents Are Only the Beginning of the Story
When a potential client brings a real estate dispute to Stanfield, the first thing he does is sit with the evidence. Contracts, inspection reports, seller disclosures, emails, text messages, transaction records. “A pretty big role,” he said of how those materials shape his initial assessment. “I need to feel comfortable with the basic evidence before moving on to other aspects of the case, such as the amount of damages and each side’s story.”
But he’s quick to point out that the documents are not the whole story. They rarely are.
Juries don’t decide cases by reading spreadsheets. They follow narratives. They look for moral clarity. And in most real estate disputes, the written record and the actual history between the parties tell very different versions of events. “Juries understand disputes through narratives and moral lessons,” Stanfield explained. “While the dry documents will represent part of the story, there is always more to it that should be thoroughly explored and developed early on in the case.”
That means the background of the parties matters as much as the contract language. A seller who flipped twelve properties in three years tells a different story than a retiree selling the family home. Relationships, patterns of conduct, and context give the documents meaning that they cannot supply on their own.
Construction Defects and the Compounding Problem
Among all the categories of Texas real estate litigation Stanfield handles, construction defect cases carry some of the most layered complexity. A structural problem rarely stays contained. A failing roof leads to water intrusion. Water intrusion leads to mold. Mold leads to air quality issues and consequential property damage that can cost multiples of the original repair estimate.
And the legal path to recovery is just as complicated as the damage itself.
“Structural defects from the roof down to the foundation can lead to other property damage, such as water leaks, mold, and negative air pressure that can be costly to address,” Stanfield said. “The claimant will likely need to hire one or more experts to testify regarding the nature and cause of the defects and cost of repairs.”
That expert requirement is not a minor detail. Construction defect litigation in Texas often lives or dies on the credibility and depth of expert testimony, and qualified experts are expensive. On top of that, a plaintiff still has to prove that a seller actually knew about the problem and made a deliberate choice not to disclose it. That evidentiary bar, Stanfield notes, has gotten steeper over the years. Proving actual knowledge is now a harder climb than it was a decade ago.
When multiple parties are involved, the picture gets more complicated still. Owners, general contractors, subcontractors, sellers, and business partners may each carry a share of responsibility. Stanfield’s approach to sorting out who’s actually liable reflects the pragmatism that defines his practice. “You can usually sort out who is most responsible based on the nature of the defects and/or damage,” he said. “The good thing about suing multiple parties is that the defendants will usually start pointing the finger at each other, giving the plaintiff a good idea of who really screwed up.”
How Discovery Can Change Everything
Some of the most consequential evidence in a Texas property dispute never appears in a seller’s disclosure. It lives in the records of a contractor who worked on the property two years before the sale. It sits in emails between the previous owner and a plumber. It exists in permit records and repair invoices that a buyer would have no way of accessing without the tools of formal litigation.
This is why Stanfield views the discovery process as one of the most powerful instruments in real estate litigation strategy. “I usually subpoena documents and testimony from third parties, like contractors who worked on the property before it was sold to my client, to find those ‘smoking guns’ regarding prior knowledge,” he said.
Formal discovery can make or break a case. And it’s one of the reasons Stanfield sometimes files suit even when the initial evidence is thin. The full picture of what a seller knew, and when they knew it, may only become visible after subpoenas go out and depositions get scheduled.
But discovery strategy requires preparation on the client’s side too. One of the most common mistakes property owners make after discovering a problem is moving straight to repairs without allowing the other parties to inspect the property first. That shortcut can backfire badly. “Performing repairs before allowing the other side to inspect and document the pre-existing condition of the property can lead to a spoliation claim,” Stanfield warned, “where the client risks not being able to introduce important evidence at trial.”
Preserving the property’s condition, sending formal notice and demand, and giving potential defendants a documented opportunity to inspect are all steps that protect the client’s evidentiary position before a single filing hits the court.
The Question Every Client Needs Answered First
Before Stanfield evaluates the strength of a legal claim, he evaluates something more fundamental: whether winning the case would actually mean anything.
This is the question that separates experienced Texas trial lawyers from those who simply sell clients on litigation. A legally valid claim against a defendant with no insurance, no assets, and no identifiable income stream may be worth almost nothing in practical terms. A judgment no one can collect is a piece of paper.
“The most challenging disputes can be those involving defendants who do not have insurance to cover the claim and do not have readily identifiable assets and income streams to collect from,” Stanfield said. “Sometimes knowing what kind of defendant you’re dealing with is more important than knowing all of the facts or law for a case.”
He starts every evaluation with actual damages. If the total doesn’t reach a threshold that makes economic sense given litigation costs, the math won’t work regardless of who’s at fault. From there, the analysis turns to fault, collectability, and the realistic range of outcomes at trial versus settlement.
The factors Shanon Stanfield weighs before advising a client to proceed typically include:
- The total actual damages and whether they justify the cost of litigation
- The strength of documentary and testimonial evidence
- Whether the defendant has insurance coverage or accessible assets
- The complexity of expert testimony required and associated costs
- The other side’s apparent willingness to settle versus their posture in litigation
- Whether filing suit and pursuing discovery is the only way to develop key evidence
That last point matters more than it might seem. In fraud and deceptive trade practice claims, the smoking gun evidence often doesn’t surface until after a suit is filed. Being selective about which cases to pursue doesn’t mean walking away from hard cases. It means knowing which hard cases are worth fighting.
Stanfield on Settlement, Trial, and Reading the Other Side
Real estate disputes rarely follow a predictable path. Some opposing parties and their attorneys are genuinely interested in resolution. Others take an aggressive posture from the start and show no interest in compromise. The strategy required to handle both situations is different, and a good litigator has to be ready for either scenario before the first demand letter goes out.
“A lot depends on the other side,” Stanfield said. “Are we dealing with a party and attorney who’s interested in settlement or someone who has decided to go rambo or scorched earth. It is important to be ready for either scenario before sending a demand and filing a suit.”
Stanfield’s approach to settlement and mediation isn’t passive. He begins thinking about the realistic path to resolution as early as possible, using what he knows about the defendant’s posture, financial position, and legal exposure to shape how the case gets built from the outset.
More than 16 years of Texas commercial litigation have sharpened that read considerably. Stanfield summed up the practical lesson this way: “Anyone can sell you a used car, not everyone sticks around for when the engine breaks down.”
That line says something about how he views his role. Getting into litigation is the easy part. Knowing how to evaluate it, develop it, and bring it to a result that actually matters to the client is the work that demands experience. For property owners and businesses facing complex disputes across Texas, that distinction is the one worth understanding before the first call is made.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals facing real estate or commercial legal disputes should consult a licensed attorney regarding the specific facts of their situation.
