Keuchel has already exceeded my expectations for this game
He must really be rockin' your world by now.
Yeah, where did that come from?!?
So, been thinking about whether I have legal recourse for my house woes. I think I am screwed.
California's "Statue of Repose" for construction defects is four years for "patent deficiencies" and ten years from substantial completion for "latent defects."
Given that the then-building inspector signed off on this bullshit, I'm not sure the first would even apply, since the contractor presumably would be entitled to "constructive reliance" (maybe?) on the inspection approval, despite the patently defective construction.
Section 337.1 requires an action for a “patent deficiency” in design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, observation of construction, or construction to be filed within four years of substantial completion of the construction. That section defines a “patent deficiency” to mean “a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection.” If the defect causes injury or property damage in the fourth year, the action can be brought on that defect for one year from the date of injury.
Section 337.15 requires an action based on a “latent defect” be brought within ten years of substantial completion. Unlike the four-year statute of repose, Section 337.15 does not limit actions for personal injuries, but does apply to actions for indemnity brought against others supplying services or materials to the construction, however, if the initial action is timely, a defendant can file a cross-complaint for indemnity in the same action even though the ten-year period has expired. Section 337.15 also does not apply to actions based on willful misconduct or fraudulent concealment.
I mean, WTF? A city official, whose JOB is to protect the public from incompetent or deficient construction and design, has no liability for its own offials not enforcing code?
Even if the answer is “Sorry Doc, you’re hosed,” at this point I’d feel like the money spent on consulting with a good attorney is worth the certainty that’s going to be essential to finding closure with this mess.
You’re a stand-up guy who doesn’t deserve sh!t like this landing on you.
Thanks, Wyl.
It really is a shitty situation. The only good things are that (a) we have the financial wherewithal to survive this blow and (b) a lot of people (our contractor, various subs, and the current chief building inspector) have come together to help us. I mean, we are paying for the work, but I feel as though each has gone above and beyond to do right by us.
If the inspector was negligent isn’t there recourse? Would be hard to prove unless the inspector was fired for cause … dunno. Lots of inspector shinanigans in Nola we’re exposed after the hard rock hotel collapse.
OTOH,
Relying On A Building Inspector’s Approval Of The Work Does Not Shield The Contractor From Liability
By
William C. Last, Jr.
This article is in response to a recent inquiry as to who is responsible for the cost of correcting non-code compliant work that was approved by the building inspector during the course of construction....
...
While a public entity or official is immune from such liability, the contractor has few, if any, legal arguments to avoid liability. The contractor can be liable even if it fully complies with plans and specifications that are not code compliant.
In order to become licensed, a contractor is required to exhibit the knowledge and experience that is necessary for the safety and protection of the public. Such knowledge includes building code requirements. Once a contractor becomes licensed, California law requires the contractor to complete its work in an appropriate manner. For example, a contractor who willfully departs from accepted trade standards (i.e., from good and workmanlike construction) or disregards the plans and specifications violates the requirements of California Business and Profession Code section 7109. Similarly, a contractor who willfully or intentionally disregards the state or local building codes violates the requirements of California Business and Profession Code section 7110. As a consequence, a contractor can be disciplined by the Contractors State License Board.
Despite the contractor license law requirements, the legal basis for such liability is typically contractual in nature. Almost every construction contract includes a clause that obligates the contractor to complete the contracted for scope of work in a manner that complies with all applicable building codes and the requirements of the building inspector.
If I am reading this correctly, in conjunction with the Statute of Repose language, I probably can't sue anyone for my financial losses arising from this crap. But maybe I can go after the contractor's license. Assuming the guy is still alive and in business 30 years later....
In Minnesota we'd have a lot of fun talking about disclosure requirements, hidden defects, and whether statutes of limitation had been tolled. I've handled a few of these cases with success in the "failure to disclose" approach. I had a real fun one where I got to hire a herpatologist to examine the home.
The kicker, though, in Minnesota, is that the standard for damages in disclosure cases isn't what it costs to fix the home, it's the difference in price that you would have paid if the issue had been disclosed. Usually that's much less than the cost to repair.
Much less?
I suppose that could be true in some cases. In ours, the house would have been unsellable, as it was structurally unsound.
The people who sold it to us made at least a couple hundred K profit on the sale. This problem was not their fault, as they had only owned the house for about 4 years and the structural issues were hidden. But the deferred maintenance (some of which we knew about, some we did not) definitely was.
We had to have our sewer line to the city connection redone. We had to have stucco repair done (weep screed installed and cracking repaired). The balcony doors were in terrible shape and had to be replaced. A basement door opened outward (toward the stairs, a significant falling hazard). Those we knew about.
But the (fucking built-in, so $$$) refrigerator was failing and we had to replace it. The gutters leaked and were the cause of the damaged patio doors. About a dozen electrical receptacles need replacing because they are worn (plugs don't make good contact and slip out). The glass seals on the four skylights had all failed or were about to fail. And they didn't do ANY maintenance on the roof. These were things we didn't know.
On the house we sold, we replaced ALL of the windows after we discovered stucco failure at a picture window (the windows were unflashed and the builder's stucco job was shit) because it was the right thing to do. I just don't believe in trying to screw people or to nickle-and-dime people. Even with the costs, we still made a couple of hundred K on the sale. Why be asses over marginal money? We slept better at night for doing the right thing. (Sorry for the righteous humblebrag)
Much less?
I suppose that could be true in some cases. In ours, the house would have been unsellable, as it was structurally unsound.
It really comes down to what the appraisers say. If they'd say the value was $0, because unsellable, then great.
Again, this is MN. No idea how these are handled in CA.
I'm taking a time machine back to murder whoever invented humidity.
I’d like both you and jobu to hold my beer(s).
Ok, but you likely won't get it back.
same, and yes, i'm a constant complainer. that's why i don't live there.
I never complain during the winter, but I am insufferable during heat waves. Also, I was doing trim in the kids's rooms today so I was outside either painting or cutting a lot and basically just a big ball of sweat.
The Russians lost their Luna 25 spacecraft.
Something I had forgotten: The player that hit the foul tip that gave Mauer the concussion was Ike Davis.
If I traveled back in time and killed baby Ron Davis, would I be convicted of a crime?
Not by Rhu.
Keuchel has already exceeded my expectations for this game
He must really be rockin' your world by now.
Yeah, where did that come from?!?
So, been thinking about whether I have legal recourse for my house woes. I think I am screwed.
California's "Statue of Repose" for construction defects is four years for "patent deficiencies" and ten years from substantial completion for "latent defects."
Given that the then-building inspector signed off on this bullshit, I'm not sure the first would even apply, since the contractor presumably would be entitled to "constructive reliance" (maybe?) on the inspection approval, despite the patently defective construction.
Worse, this 1976 California Court of Appeals case absolved a municipality of liability for negligence or incompetence of a building inspector.
I mean, WTF? A city official, whose JOB is to protect the public from incompetent or deficient construction and design, has no liability for its own offials not enforcing code?
Even if the answer is “Sorry Doc, you’re hosed,” at this point I’d feel like the money spent on consulting with a good attorney is worth the certainty that’s going to be essential to finding closure with this mess.
You’re a stand-up guy who doesn’t deserve sh!t like this landing on you.
Thanks, Wyl.
It really is a shitty situation. The only good things are that (a) we have the financial wherewithal to survive this blow and (b) a lot of people (our contractor, various subs, and the current chief building inspector) have come together to help us. I mean, we are paying for the work, but I feel as though each has gone above and beyond to do right by us.
If the inspector was negligent isn’t there recourse? Would be hard to prove unless the inspector was fired for cause … dunno. Lots of inspector shinanigans in Nola we’re exposed after the hard rock hotel collapse.
OTOH,
If I am reading this correctly, in conjunction with the Statute of Repose language, I probably can't sue anyone for my financial losses arising from this crap. But maybe I can go after the contractor's license. Assuming the guy is still alive and in business 30 years later....
In Minnesota we'd have a lot of fun talking about disclosure requirements, hidden defects, and whether statutes of limitation had been tolled. I've handled a few of these cases with success in the "failure to disclose" approach. I had a real fun one where I got to hire a herpatologist to examine the home.
The kicker, though, in Minnesota, is that the standard for damages in disclosure cases isn't what it costs to fix the home, it's the difference in price that you would have paid if the issue had been disclosed. Usually that's much less than the cost to repair.
Much less?
I suppose that could be true in some cases. In ours, the house would have been unsellable, as it was structurally unsound.
The people who sold it to us made at least a couple hundred K profit on the sale. This problem was not their fault, as they had only owned the house for about 4 years and the structural issues were hidden. But the deferred maintenance (some of which we knew about, some we did not) definitely was.
We had to have our sewer line to the city connection redone. We had to have stucco repair done (weep screed installed and cracking repaired). The balcony doors were in terrible shape and had to be replaced. A basement door opened outward (toward the stairs, a significant falling hazard). Those we knew about.
But the (fucking built-in, so $$$) refrigerator was failing and we had to replace it. The gutters leaked and were the cause of the damaged patio doors. About a dozen electrical receptacles need replacing because they are worn (plugs don't make good contact and slip out). The glass seals on the four skylights had all failed or were about to fail. And they didn't do ANY maintenance on the roof. These were things we didn't know.
On the house we sold, we replaced ALL of the windows after we discovered stucco failure at a picture window (the windows were unflashed and the builder's stucco job was shit) because it was the right thing to do. I just don't believe in trying to screw people or to nickle-and-dime people. Even with the costs, we still made a couple of hundred K on the sale. Why be asses over marginal money? We slept better at night for doing the right thing. (Sorry for the righteous humblebrag)
It really comes down to what the appraisers say. If they'd say the value was $0, because unsellable, then great.
Again, this is MN. No idea how these are handled in CA.
I'm taking a time machine back to murder whoever invented humidity.
I’d like both you and jobu to hold my beer(s).
Ok, but you likely won't get it back.
same, and yes, i'm a constant complainer. that's why i don't live there.
I never complain during the winter, but I am insufferable during heat waves. Also, I was doing trim in the kids's rooms today so I was outside either painting or cutting a lot and basically just a big ball of sweat.
Over at Defection, Roth writes about Dallas Keuchel and the Twins in general
*Defector , danged autocorrect
Thanks for sharing - that was amusing!