Homeowners (and engineers) beware! it could happen to you. 7

[msucog]

i thought i'd pass along a site that i saw a year or so ago and recently visited again. it's a rather in-depth "diary" of the problems one homeowner is having with their home. in an ironic twist, i visited a project site that we got a call to perform testing on new fill but apparently the fill was already being placed. the "developer/contractor" told me today that the old undocumented fill (10'+) and old storm aluminized steel pipe under a planned building pad was no problem because the structure would act just like a house and float up there...huh.

anyway, this site is worth passing around to your collegues. it might be worth keeping in the back of your mind the next time you're on a project site. if anyone happens to know the congressman for the area of this falling-in house, it sure would be a good deed to put in a good word for this person (by the way, i have no connection to them personally). this is sort of my "good deed" by passing the website link along.

http://www.justanotherlemon.com/CCFL/pulte.htm

 

[Robertmet]

Reminds me of an area on the outskirts of Brooklyn years ago. The houses were built on fill and IIRC a ten year wait is necessary.They built the houses before ten years on slabs.The worst case had a 12" wide crack in the slab !

 

[youngstructural]

I have read the entire site, in detail, and although I am not in a position to comment professionally, here is the jist of my view:

1. The house was built on soils which were not specifically tested for susceptibility to expansive soil actions. I should think the subdivision was tested for expansive soil susceptibility, however this may not have found the issue at this site. If the issues were known, and the design was not carried out to address this, my following points are moot.

2. The home owner's reaction has been emotive and aggressive. The builder may have failed in their duty of care, however simply rejecting all possible remediation in favour of pressing for a buy-back is not condusive to a solution.

3. The professional reports have been thorough and well measured in their advice. The option 3 solution would likely result in an effective repair, and a home without expansive soil issues. The cracked windows are the only point which may complicate this, however coupled with greater drainage as required by the proposed solution, this should also be aleviated.

4. The home owner's insurance situation is something the owner has grabbed onto and repeats numerous times. I would find it hard to believe that the home, once repaired in accordance with the selected option 3 proposal, would not be insurable. I would be very interested to hear anyone who could explain how or why this might be the case.

At the end of the day this home will never be this person's dream castle... But I think that Pulte should be given the opportunity to repair the home in accordance with the professional advice they have received. If I were the home owner I would press for an extension of the warranty to cover cosmetic defects for 18 months after the work scheme were carried out. Also the timber I-joists should be recertified by the manufacturer (through repair or inspection) or otherwise replaced. Beyond this I do not believe the owner's emotive responce has been at all helpful.

Residential home owners make the most difficult clients. They want to pay for a a Suzuki Swift and get a Rolls-Royce... It just doesn't work that way in real-world economics.

Anyone else have an opinion on this case?

Cheers,

YS

P.S. Please remember my very first point and the caveat regarding the builder having not known about the expansive soils before you post a reply to my comment.

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[hokie66]

There is a lot of internet activism in the US about allegedly poor construction of houses. It is understandable and I imagine effective in some instances. Part of it is due to the contracts people sign in which they agree not to sue and rather accept binding arbitration. I am sure there are some shonky house builders there, just as probably everywhere else in the world. Unfortunately, homeowners often have no one knowedgeable enough to protect their interest during construction.

It would be interesting to know the final outcome of this case.

 

[JStephen]

Just looking through a few pages of the site, it looks to me like it is indeed a bad house, but the owner seems to be a good bit of the problem, too. Maybe if I had paid $300,000 for it, I might feel differently myself, though.

 

[msucog]

i'll throw in my two cents. everyone here should take off their engineer or architect hat for just a minute and think about being "the average homeowner"........ok now, put the hat back on (and remember the fundamental oaths we take when we became professionals).

i think the homeowner has every right to be outraged. these are not even remotely close to "cosmetic" problems in my opinion...these are a slow and agonizing failure of the structure on multiple fronts. situations like this are exactly why my firm doesn't deal with residential work. the vast majority of developers are only concerned with high profits, cutting corners, do not perform necessary design/analysis/testing related to the site or structure,etc. the only line of defense is the building inspector which may be doing (or even able to do) little in the way of helping the future homeowner. the inspector is on site on a limited basis and is no engineer. the times i've dealt with neighborhood developments, i was shocked to learn how much profit the developers make on each lot and then to see what kind of crap they put in/under houses.

i think the homeowner should be "difficult" because the developer will do everything possible (legal or otherwise) to keep from having to fix all the problems. if the developer makes a minor so called "fix", they will then be able to say "see, i've put all this time/money in to fixing the problem so i'm done". the homeowner is the lone sheep with limited funds while the developer has a team of high paid lawyers and deep pockets.

i would like to hear how the issurance company can get away with dropping coverage since that seems very shady...i'd consider filing a complaint with the better business bureau since this sort of situation is exactly what insurance is for...they should not be allowed to drop coverage due to this one house.

as far as the contract, i'm sure it's like every other contract...intentionally long, infused with lawyer jargon, disclaimers, etc. unfortunately, the homeowner did sign it. however, the homeowner may still have a case if it was not written in a manner that is understandable to the homeowner. the homeowner is not a lawyer or engineer or otherwise and has a right to not be taken advantage of. on a flipped argument, a homeowner's real estate agent should be there to help the homeowner avoid some of those landmines. either way, given the age of the house and the resulting destruction that is occurring, the developer should be fully liable to purchase the house back from the owner. i could see how this sort of language would apply to some situations but may also be construed as unreasonable given the damage that has occurred...i think a court might throw this part out of the contract.

if i recall correctly, there are little known laws that protect the residential home owner from poor foundation conditions...it seems like i remember being told that it covers 10 years (i don't recall exactly and have never researched this but i was told this by a geotech professor).

overall, this case is a sad example of how the system has failed the homeowner and is exactly why developers should be required to follow a structured exploration, design, and testing program similar to commercial building construction (at least on a small scale) and should be required to stand behind the homes they sell. while the developer would likely try to put their responsibility back on the engineer and testing firms, at least we (engineers) have the ability to have our lawyers look over the contracts and negotiate the terms of the contract. the down side is that the developers would expect to continue making massive profits and would simply pass the costs on to the homeowners...but when they wouldn't be able to sell the higher priced houses, maybe it'd require them to lower prices and make a more reasonable profit.

the fact is that the homeowner is unknowing about the tactics developers use to protect themselves legally, shouldn't be expected to be a geotechnical engineer when buying a house, and should be able to expect that someone will fix these problems. usually, the person fighting for the homeowner would be the insurance company. i think a court would decide in the favor of the homeowner (assuming the homeowner could afford a good lawyer) if a case was filed against the developer. also, the insurance company should be put in the fire too...hell, maybe the insurance company should be put in the fire first since they are the ones that should be making the fight for the homeowner.

by the way, i purchased my house before i became an engineer and am certain i signed papers that say more or less the exact same thing this person signed. i did have the experience from being a contactor to know not to buy a house that was not located in a fill area. having now spent several years as a geotechnical engineer seeing all the ugly problems and dealing with such leagal issues, i am able to see that my contract says a bunch of foolish things....i dare some of you to pull your contracts and read it line by line while sitting next to a lawyer. the reality is that i'm willing to bet even highly experienced folks (engineers, architects, etc) could easily end up in the same situation...who would be there to protect you and what would you do in the event everyone left you to fight for yourself?

 

[youngstructural]

Do you honestly believe that this home should be bought back?

Obviously there are flaws which are in need of repair, however unless you assume that the builder has done something incorrectly on purpose (and I do not; please refer to my first post), this is not a cause for buy-back.

The repairs would have been done over a year ago had access to the home been permitted... But no; Instead the home owner refused to permit the repairs and has continued campaigning for the only acceptable solution (in her mind): The re-purchase of the home.

Just look at the dates involved! A quick summary:

- Date of closing: 12 June 2006.
- Date first issue noted: 11 July 2006.
- September: Pulte inspects; They concluded there was no fundamental problem.
- October: Pulte inspects: Oops; Might be something to this complaint (Engage PEs)
- November through December: Inspections and on-site testing.
- January: Reports to Pulte from Professional Engineers engaged.
- 11 February 2007: Pulte offers a viable structural/geotechnical solution.
- ?? February 2007: Home owner rejects repairs and demands buy-back.

Before you criticise or jump on any band wagons: How many of you would have caught the trouble faster than October (Two months after first complaint; Pretty fast really!), given that you would only be seeing sticking doors in a home with a floating slab.

Including inspections, testing, consultation and professional services work (with how busy we all are!), everything was addressed, reported back, decided upon and corrective actions offered by Pulte on 11 Feb 2007. Perhaps it could have been faster, however this is ONLY 7 months after the first complaint. And at this point Pulte was willing to do significant works, offered to house the owner in alternative accommodation, pay a meals stipend, as well as permit access to the home while under construction. Short of guaranteeing a negative pressure workspace I can't see what more they could have done.

Oh, and the date stamp, Google cache and internet archive all indicate that the website is from MAY 2007. Thus the homeowner was offered a fully workable solution, with alternative accommodation as well as meals, AND REFUSED IT.

This is almost certainly not a black and white issue, and YES, I do think it is unfortunate that it has happened...

But I do not accept that this woman is the down-trodden victim to be pitied and Pulte the evil mega-corp to be harassed and badgered.

Just my honest, impartial, opinion given even the one sided account fully intended to make me conclude the opposite. I wonder what is not written on the site that might further clarify the situation?

Regards,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[msucog]

i do believe it should be bought back. the repairs suggested are cosmetic at best and do not fix the problem. the problem will continue to get worse. if the problems are so minimal, it sure did have an effect on the appraised value of the home. the photos do not look trivial to me. i do believe the shotty construction was "intentional" in the sense that the developer intentionally did not provide a suitable foundation (either through construction methods or lack of enlisting a geotechnical engineer if crappy soil conditions were known to exist) for the structure.

if it were my house, i'd expect a complete fix...which would end up costing more than the value of the house...so yes, they developer should buy it back. heck, if it's all just cosmetic issues and there's really no serious problems, then obviously the house would have appreciated in value over the years and the developer could then turn around and sell the house for the same price or more than they sold it originally.

and i've never personally seen a developer willing fix such a mess of a house so i think being a raging hell of a woman will probably see more actual results. but what do i know...it's all just my opinion. we shall agree to disagree on the matter then.

 

[hokie66]

I agree with msucog. A competent builder would not have built on this site without specific geotechnical advice. This is a major project builder who should be responsible for his finished project, and the owner should not have to bear this misery. I may have dealt differently with the builder, but cannot say I would have accepted his repair proposals.

 

[Lion06]

I didn't even read the article, but just from being reasonable, I fall in the camp of the homeowner and here is why.
If you hold zero expertise in a particular area and are relying on the builder/developer to build a house properly as well as perform the necessary tests on soils, etc. to ensure satisfactory performance(which I think we can all agree should be done on any home, but people expect more on expensive ones and rightfully so - a home is the largest investment most individuals in the free world make in their lifetime).
When someone has just invested such a LARGE sum of money in a brand new home and the home has serious problems such a short time after completion of construction, I don't believe that the homeowner has any responsibility to give the builder the benefit of the doubt for any fixes that could occur. The homeowner has no reason to believe that the fix will be carried out with greater care than the original construction (and I would argue that the homeowner would be foolish to believe that it would be).
Additionally, I think we can all agree that engineers are not infallible, and to believe that the recommendations provided (even if executed properly) would have completely remediated the problem (and not just provided a temporary bandaid to get past any additional warranty period provided) might be naive at best and stupid at worst. I am not saying that any of the reccommendations would be purposefully inappropriate, but we all know mistakes happen and after just experiencing that severe of a problem I know I certainly wouldn't be giving anyone the benefit of the doubt - especially on the investment that I'll be paying a large portion of my salary for over the next 30 years of my life.

 

[youngstructural]

Well I think that's officially the first time I have been stupid in just about as long as I can remember...

1. Read her site for the details between the lines. The house is only in this advanced state of disrepair because she has refused access to correct the issue.
2. I am not qualified to comment as to whether or not the crush box option would work, and I simply accept the Geotechnical report's findings in absence of my own specialist knowledge in the field. If you believe that the geotechnical report has been written to simply provide a "band aid" solution, then you are presuming the engineer has worked in bad faith. I do not make that assumption of my fellow professionals.
3. The practice of specific geotechnical testing and reporting for each site at a subdivision would add substantially to the cost of new homes... And save very few homes from difficulties. The public at large are not willing to support this cost.

Has anyone else thought of the possibilities that this home was bought and the PEAK of the housing market, and now the owner wants out above anything else because of the market loss irrespective of the possibility of repair.

Seven months. AND the damage at that point was nowhere near this severe when the solution was offered. Pulte is fully within their right to withhold correction for damages which have occurred after they offered to correct the problem.

Regards,

YS


B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[Lion06]

YS-
I just want to be clear that I was not referring to you as stupid. I certainly respect your opinions and posts, I just happen to disagree with this one.

 

[hokie66]

I am of the school that site investigation work and footing design should be done independently for each site. It has been required where I work for many years, the public demands it, and even though we still have problems, I am sure it is beneficial and cost effective.

 

[msucog]

i an definitely not implying anyone here is dumb/stupid either. i do see the points you make but i happen to disagree. lets back up and i'll provide a quick example of how i might agree with your position. if the developer was working for the owner and said "we see an issue that should be evaluated by a geotech" but the owner declined. then the developer says "there is potentially substantial risk to not having the geotech take a look at this" and the owner says no. then in my hypothetical situation, the owner was informed of a potential problem where they would be assuming significant risk but they chose to save a few dollars even though they were warned. then yes, the owner would be fully responsibile for the after effects. my hypothetical situation does not appear to be the case for this homeowner.

as i mentioned earlier, we will have to agree to disagree...i happen to think that the developer was only looking at turning a big profit as usual and figured that if a problem did come up, all the legal lingo in the contract would save their butt from having to deal with it (plus the more time they can put between them and the problem, the better off they are)...and unfortunately that is the big developer way more often than not.

as far as site investigations and footing design for big residential projects, it is "required" here but is a joke. it might be 50 acres with a few borings...may or may not be testing of placed fill. that doesn't even remotely address the later issues of utilities, footings, etc. the only times i've seen this truly enforced is if the structure is a 3+ story residential apartment (and that's only in one county as far as i can remember...could be a few others but definitely not all). i think the residential code enforcement should be dramatically ramped up...i also think commercial should be more stringent even though it (not implying contractor practices in general) has improved to some degree over the past couple years.

 

[hokie66]

msucog,

Even if the owner resisted having the geotechnical work done after the builder identified the risk, in my opinion that does not relieve the builder of risk, just makes the owner a contributor. Legally, that situation would lead to different outcomes in different jurisdictions.

 

[swall]

The homeowner is lucky to at least have Pulte to fall back on. What if the builder had gone bankrupt? You'd be on your own at that point.

 

[csd72]

I only read the beginning, but this is crazy. In some parts of Australia the builder has to provide a 7 year warranty on any house they build - this is more like the way it should be.

 

[Dinosaur]

I think the buyer paid for a new house. I don't think the repaired house will be what the buyer is paying for. I think any manufacturer should have to buy back what he produces when it doesn't meet the agreement. This is the mechanism that will urge them to do their initial site investigation properly. If this were a car, what would you ask the dealer to do?

 

[Lion06]

dinosaur-
Excellent point with the car analogy. If this were a car, you'd get a brand new one or get your money back to buy a different one, you would NOT get everything that is wrong fixed. It would definitely qualify as a lemon. I fail to see why a more expensive investment should be treated differently. If anything the requirements should be more stringent as the investment increases. A $300k house is about 10x the investment of a pretty nice car that most would purchase.

 

[JedClampett]

I discovered this site a few months ago while looking for something else. My sympathies are with the home owner. It seems like she is getting the royal screw job.
But I would like to hear from the builder also. There's two sides of every story and I bet there's a doozy of another side to this one.
I'm sure the builder doesn't want to set a precedent. But it seems like in a large development and in this economy, there are probably a few houses they can't sell. Offer to move her into one of these and walk away. As a condition of this settlement make her discontinue the website. Don't they see how much bad publicity this is causing?