New Home Owner Suggestion

Page 1 of 2  
My house of 2 1/2 years old has been determined by soil tests not to meet the 1500 pounds per square foot load bearing capacity minimum it was designed for. 4 of 5 test sites next to my foundation failed by an engineering company test. So I have a dilemma-sue the builder, maybe get some money out of it and still have a defective house or sell it like it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

might as well fix it, since you must disclose the problem to all buyers and they wouldnt pay what you paid for the home.
your only option is sue to get it fixed or ruin your credit and walk away, letting the bank take it back thru foreclosure.
you need a lawyer, best wishes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree a sale isn't going to solve this. If you disclose it as required, from what little we know, it sounds like the house would be just about unsalable. And if you don't, the buyer is going to figure it out and sue you when they find out.
Also, walking away in most cases has implications beyond a ruined credit rating. The holder of the mortgage can still come after you for the shortfall and assuming you have any other assets, income, etc, collect. If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out.
In many areas new homes have some type of warranty program backed by an independent agency that covers major structural issues like this.
I also agree that you need to talk to a good lawyer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:18:21 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You are some EE. In case you havent heard Einstein, bankruptcy doesnt always relieve you 100% anymore. Try something else you dont know. Bubba
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bubba, is this your new pastime? Following me around, attacking me over nothing?
If you follow the thread, all I did was point out that walking away from a bad house and letting the bank foreclose doesn't absolve the owner of the debt. If the bank is still owed more than the house can be sold for, they can come after other assets or income. And yes, I said:
"If the overall financial situation is so bad you have to file bankruptcy, then that's one way it could be wiped out."
Note the word "could". I never said that bankruptcy will ALWAYS wipe out all of it. But often it still does. For example, if the debtor's income is less than the median in their area, then they can go for liquidation bankruptcy. If not, then it gets more complicated and there is means testing to determine if they will be required to pay back some of the debt over time.
You'll also note that I suggested they contact a lawyer.
And once again, besides baseless attacks, you contributed exactly what that was helpful to the discussion?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

They tested the soil right next to my foundation. They went down 6 feet/ nothing but sand and wet clay. After reaching 6 feet the soil impact tester dropped out of site at 2 spots with no resistance. Time to "lawyer up"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What's a builder supposed to do if they want to fix the situation BEFORE building a house?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

dig to solid bedrock or pour a large slab several feet thick to distribuite the load....
or dig deep and backfill with proper gravel
some areas arent worth building on because the sub soil is just too poor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I found a county online GIS map that shows the soil type in my neighborhood as "unsuitable for residential development". I also found that the town building inspector was supposed to inspect footing soil before they were poured. This is a monolithic slab on ground. I have seen them pour concrete slabs in the rain, leave 2 x4's outside, roof trusses outside uncovered in the rain and never saw anyone compacting soil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I found a county online GIS map that shows the soil type in my neighborhood as "unsuitable for residential development". I also found that the town building inspector was supposed to inspect footing soil before they were poured. This is a monolithic slab on ground. I have seen them pour concrete slabs in the rain, leave 2 x4's outside, roof trusses outside uncovered in the rain and never saw anyone compacting soil.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's been a few days since this discussion began, so you've had some time to contact a lawyer. What did he/she say about the situation?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

recommending class action, neighbors having same issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST), hands on

More reason for a lawyer. A Judge will determine if the case is class action or not.
What does the agent for home owner's insurance say? Unleash their lawyers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren wrote:

OP didn't say- one builder or multiple builders? And how many judgement-proof disposable companies are in the chain of ownership and financing for the subdivision? And does case law in the area give them the out of 'well, it passed inspection- sue the county'? Hopefully the lawyers OP and neighbors hire will research all that before they run up a big bill and get told the case is not worth pursuing.
None of that is what OP wants to hear, I realize. I have seen subdivisions like that, built on filled-in wetland, or over sinkholes. There are several in this town, where the footer or slab level of the houses is maybe 3 feet higher than the picturesque brook that runs through the subdivision. A heavy rain, and there is ponding all over the place. A local developer just did an infill of modular houses dropped on garbage lots like that in a bottom-land subdivision that failed at least 40 years ago, judging by the existing houses. Bulldozed out all the typical bottom-land brush that had sprung up and hydroseeded, to make it resemble actual lawns, and sold them off to clueless entry-level buyers. This subdivision is obvious blatant flood plain, to anyone that looks at a topo map. A wet spring and a bad storm, and the half-ass river a block away will be running through the neighborhood.
Some land should not be used for anything but swamp/woods, or maybe moisture-loving crops. But there is basically no inspection or land-use planning (other than shopping centers or casinos, of course) in this township. Having grown up in the business, the red flags jumped out for me. They would likely have jumped out for anyone that grew up on a farm, as well. Most folks don't have a chance to gain that knowledge growing up, and have to learn the hard way. Solid hard ground is scarce around here- topography is mainly swamps and old sand dunes with a thin coat of topsoil.
aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you cant sue the builder but you can sue the builders insurance company thats why they have builders insurance and that will make it more expensive to get insurance later and prevent him from doing this to others........ see if the builder built close by and check other properties and go through a class action.
good luck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who says you can't sue the builder? Insurance isn't protection against anyone suing you. In any case like this, you sue the party responsible, because they are the ones who did the damage. You have no direct case against their insurance company, who did nothing wrong. If there is an insurance company with a policy in place that covers what is being sued for, they will get involved, settle, or go to court to defend against the suit. But it starts with suing the party responsible, not their insurance company. Suppose you did sue the insurance company, and the suit results in a judgement for more than the insurance company policy, but the builder has plenty of other assets. Does that mean you should just walk away with whatever you can get from the insurance company policy limit? When you sue the builder, if you get a judgement and it's covered by insurance, the insurance company will pay up to the limit. Any excess results in a judgement enforeceable against the builder himself.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 9, 7:24 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Yes you sue the builder. His insurance company may or may not cover it. For example, if he knowingly built on fill, then insurance is not going to cover it. However, if he hired a sub who forgot to compact or something, then it's possible they will cover it. Insurance covers an "occurance" which is like an accident, only broader. Building on fill is not an accident. (Hiring a sub who screws up is considered an "accident"). Liability insurance companies do not just roll over and cut checks for foundation replacements. They have good attorneys etc. It isn't like submitting a claim for windshield replacement on your auto policy. Also, you need some damages. Your damages can not be "I think it's going to fail" or "this builder left 2x4's in the rain" therefore I need a new house. What are the damages?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 9, 10:24 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I have just been through it, so without going through the nitty gritty you are partly right but it was the case with mine over the same thing But i had to do the insurance company for the builder not the builder in the end But both will suffer in the end. Weather you agree or not .....Thats what happened
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You had to "do" the insurance company? Was it good for you?
Why the reluctance to share the details? I'd like to hear the case where you sue the insurance company instead of the responsible party.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:53:25 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Maybe "trader4", if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red slippers together 4 times and say, "There's no place like home" you just might hear the "case" in your own little feeble mind. Id guess he doesnt want to share the details so he doesnt have to watch you type out a 10 page post of nit picking drivel. Bubba
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As usual Bubba, you add nothing constructive to the thread and you're dead wrong. FYI, you sue the party responsible, not their insurance company. The insurance company didn't do anything wrong. The insurance company, if they believe their policy covers the suit, will then either reach a settlement or defend the insured. That's how it works. But keep following me around in the newsgroup and making an ass out of yourself, so more people can see what you're all about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.