The Court is APPALLED but frankly not surprised, because Reginald has seen this exact scenario play out more times than he has seen competent drywall anchoring, which is to say NEVER. You received photographic evidence of a crime in progress and your professional assessment was "huh, that faucet looks nice," which is the inspection equivalent of admiring the font on a ransom note. The brother-in-law defense is INADMISSIBLE in this court because every disaster in residential real estate begins with the phrase "my brother-in-law is handling it," a statement that should trigger the same response as "I'm sure this bridge will hold" or "the Roomba can definitely handle that." I myself once trusted a cousin to hang a bathroom mirror and spent three weeks picking glass out of my toilet brush holder, so The Court understands the seductive lie of family competence, BUT YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL. You should have demanded permits, you should have demanded licensing, you should have DEMANDED that gravity be consulted before anyone filled a pot with water. The seller asking if YOU knew the brother wasn't licensed is the audacity equivalent of a arsonist asking the fire department why they let buildings be flammable. This Court finds you guilty but reserves its TRUE contempt for whatever anchor-free nightmare is holding up that bathroom mirror the brother definitely also "fixed." Reginald must now go lie down because his blood pressure medication is in the other room and Order refuses to fetch it.