Making builders accountable to homeowners
King Homes Clogs Weep Holes
Greetings,
Our story regards the un-fortuitous combination of a defective roof, leaky bricks, and two clogged weep holes. The house was built by King Homes in Lumberton, Texas, in 1998. It has brick veneering, which includes a one-inch air gap behind the brick, and weep holes at the bottom of the wall every 24 inches. KJ Remodeling, Lumberton, Texas, put a new composition shingle roof on the house following Hurricane Ike in late 2008. We bought the house at the end of June, 2009. We found the defects within a couple of weeks of ownership.
When we first looked at the house, we also reviewed the Seller's Disclosure which states that the Seller discovered this leak only following Hurricane Ike, which flooded the front room of the house. During the process of purchase negotiations, we noticed that there were a couple of soft spots in the sheet rock in that area of the house. After many rounds of offer and counteroffer, we finally agreed to accept these (and many other) defects "as is" for a price. Once we owned the house, I went to replace the soft sheet rock but instead found rotten wood and a large "slug" of mortar in the air gap behind the brick.
Defect One: The leak. Following Huricane Ike, the Seller hired KJ Remodeling to put the new roof on the house, which included stopping the leak in this part of the house; obviously that did not happen. Our investigation showed that water entered the air gap (behind the brick) in two ways: (1) through the brick wall, and (2) through roof gaps between or in shingles and flashing. Three separate roofing companies visited the house and told me that the flashing and shingles were not installed properly.
Defect Two: Clogged weep holes. The size of the "slug" of mortar, improperly called a mere dropping, was about 3 feet long, 4-8 inches tall, and 1-inch thick; it clogged two weep holes. So, the water leaking into the wall could not escape through the weep holes, but entered the wood structure and the house, causing dry rot. According to our investigation, the wood rot appeared to be much older than 1 year.
This problem is nothing like some of the other issues that I have read on this Web site, for that I am grateful, but by one estimate, the repairs could exceed $7500.
Currently (13-Aug-2009), none of the three parties (Seller, King Homes, or KJ Remodeling) are willing to take responsibility for this problem. The Seller uses the "as is" clause as a shield. KJ will not even return my phone calls. To his credit, King Homes does visit with me, and has given me the name of a brick mason (who gave me a reasonable price to remove and replace the brick). But King Homes does not take monetary responsibility for the damage or the defect.
I have filed claims on their Permit (surety) Bonds of both King Homes and KJ Remodeling, with the hope that the Surety will take some action in my favor. Beyond that, time will tell, but small claims court is not out of the question. Even if I get a decision in my favor there, that is not a guarantee that I will get my money back. That is because Texas Law requires that I return to court to get an action on their assets. And of course, one can never replace the time lost on these types of issues.
Steven McCrary
Lumberton, Texas
Our story regards the un-fortuitous combination of a defective roof, leaky bricks, and two clogged weep holes. The house was built by King Homes in Lumberton, Texas, in 1998. It has brick veneering, which includes a one-inch air gap behind the brick, and weep holes at the bottom of the wall every 24 inches. KJ Remodeling, Lumberton, Texas, put a new composition shingle roof on the house following Hurricane Ike in late 2008. We bought the house at the end of June, 2009. We found the defects within a couple of weeks of ownership.
When we first looked at the house, we also reviewed the Seller's Disclosure which states that the Seller discovered this leak only following Hurricane Ike, which flooded the front room of the house. During the process of purchase negotiations, we noticed that there were a couple of soft spots in the sheet rock in that area of the house. After many rounds of offer and counteroffer, we finally agreed to accept these (and many other) defects "as is" for a price. Once we owned the house, I went to replace the soft sheet rock but instead found rotten wood and a large "slug" of mortar in the air gap behind the brick.
Defect One: The leak. Following Huricane Ike, the Seller hired KJ Remodeling to put the new roof on the house, which included stopping the leak in this part of the house; obviously that did not happen. Our investigation showed that water entered the air gap (behind the brick) in two ways: (1) through the brick wall, and (2) through roof gaps between or in shingles and flashing. Three separate roofing companies visited the house and told me that the flashing and shingles were not installed properly.
Defect Two: Clogged weep holes. The size of the "slug" of mortar, improperly called a mere dropping, was about 3 feet long, 4-8 inches tall, and 1-inch thick; it clogged two weep holes. So, the water leaking into the wall could not escape through the weep holes, but entered the wood structure and the house, causing dry rot. According to our investigation, the wood rot appeared to be much older than 1 year.
This problem is nothing like some of the other issues that I have read on this Web site, for that I am grateful, but by one estimate, the repairs could exceed $7500.
Currently (13-Aug-2009), none of the three parties (Seller, King Homes, or KJ Remodeling) are willing to take responsibility for this problem. The Seller uses the "as is" clause as a shield. KJ will not even return my phone calls. To his credit, King Homes does visit with me, and has given me the name of a brick mason (who gave me a reasonable price to remove and replace the brick). But King Homes does not take monetary responsibility for the damage or the defect.
I have filed claims on their Permit (surety) Bonds of both King Homes and KJ Remodeling, with the hope that the Surety will take some action in my favor. Beyond that, time will tell, but small claims court is not out of the question. Even if I get a decision in my favor there, that is not a guarantee that I will get my money back. That is because Texas Law requires that I return to court to get an action on their assets. And of course, one can never replace the time lost on these types of issues.
Steven McCrary
Lumberton, Texas
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by Homeowners of Texas.org on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Homeowners Of Texas to add comments!
Join this Ning Network