|
|
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: Last winter, we had a house fire. The burn damage inside was relatively small, but the smoke damage was extreme. It was so bad that we had to move out for several months, and the drywall, insulation, and floor coverings had to be removed from every room. While the house was unoccupied, the winter was unusually harsh, with ice on the inside and outside of the building. During this time, most of the windowpanes cracked, and the window frames no longer slide normally. The insurance company does not consider this to be part of the fire damage and are unwilling to pay for new windows. How can we convince them that the windows would not have broken if there hadn’t been a fire? Rebecca
Dear Rebecca: The insurance company is avoiding payment for window damage on the basis of a slim technicality. They claim that the fire did not directly damage the windows. That may be true, but the window damage is an outcome of the overall situation.
While the house was stripped and unoccupied, the heating system was apparently not in use. Exposure to extreme cold and moisture altered the shape of the window frames and sash. The glass cracked due to stresses at the edges of the panes, and the frames became warped so that they no longer function properly.
When a home is occupied, the winter cold on the exterior of the building is offset by heat on the interior. The internal warmth prevents damage to the window glass and frames. While your home was unoccupied, the heat was turned off, as evidenced by ice on the interior. If a heat source had been maintained in the building, the window damage might have been avoided. Therefore, the window damage was an indirect consequence of the fire and should be covered by the insurance company. In fact, the insurance company should have known from experience that winter exposure to an abandoned building can cause further damage.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: The contractor who built my home won’t fix damages caused by flooding in our basement. We bought the house about a year ago, and the warranty covers one year of workmanship. We don’t trust the builder and want to hire a contractor to fix the problem and then have the builder pay for all of the repairs. We are preparing the case for court. What do you advise? Marcos
Dear Marcos: If flooding occurs in the basement of a new home, this means the builder did not adequately provide for ground water drainage and waterproofing of the foundation walls. These are significant construction defects, and the builder is responsible for corrective work, which is likely to be very costly. In preparing your case, you’ll need professional evaluations for evidence. First, you need a report from a geotechnical engineer. In this case, that would be the fancy name for a drainage specialist.
Next, you should have the entire home evaluated by the most qualified and experienced home inspector you can find. A good inspector will find more construction defects than you are currently aware of, and the added list of defects will strengthen your case against the builder.
The entire matter should be handled by an attorney who specializes in construction defect law. And finally, you should file a complaint with the state agency that licenses contractors.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: : We recently purchased a home and hired a home inspector to find all the defects. During the inspection, I noticed that the wallpaper in the master bedroom was discolored and was peeling at the edges. When I asked the inspector about this, he dismissed it as insignificant, but I continued to feel uncomfortable about it. Last week, I peeked behind a peeled edge of the wallpaper and found green mold. If I’d known about this, I’d have asked the sellers to have it removed. Shouldn’t this have been disclosed by our home inspector? Jeri
Dear Jeri: When you asked the home inspector about the loose and discolored wallpaper, he should not have dismissed the issue. His answer should have been something on the order of, “I don’t know for sure if there is a problem, but the condition of the wallpaper indicates that there could be a moisture related issue below the surface. Therefore I recommend that the wallpaper be removed prior to close of escrow to determine whether there is a problem in that area.” That kind of disclosure would have led to discovery of the mold and would have saved you the cost of mold remediation and wall repairs.
You should contact the home inspector about your new findings and ask that he take a second look at the wall. A common response from many home inspectors in this kind of situation is to claim that the mold was concealed from view and that mold is not within the scope of a home inspection. Both defenses are true and valid. However, competent home inspectors never dismiss evidence of possible moisture damage. That was your home inspector’s primary error.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: : I am selling my home, and everything was going smoothly until the buyer’s home inspector raised a needless issue about the deck. The inspection report says the deck and the roof above it must be attached to the house. I’ve gotten estimates from five different licensed deck contractors, and each of them said that the deck is well constructed and that attachment to the house is not required. My transaction with the buyer is now deadlocked over this issue. Do I have any recourse against the home inspector? Shouldn’t he have known that the deck is properly built? Cathy
Dear Cathy: There are many home inspectors with questionable qualifications, some who are marginally experienced, some who overlook significant defects, and some who cite defects that are nonexistent. It may be that one of those people has inspected your home. If your transaction is deadlocked over this issue, you should insist that the home inspector cite the specific building requirement — chapter and verse — that was violated when your deck was built. If he cannot, then he should amend his report to show that the deck is properly constructed.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: : We just closed escrow on a home, and the day we moved in we found a flooded basement because the water heater had failed. But four weeks ago, our home inspector said the water heater would be good for many more years. Our plumber disagreed. He said the fixture was 10 years old, was rusted at the bottom, and was well past its normal lifespan. We paid our inspector $450 to let us know what was wrong with the house and then had to spend twice as much for repairs on moving day. Is our home inspector liable for this mistake? Faith
Dear Faith: Experienced home inspectors know better than to predict the remaining life of an old water heater. Those who break that rule expose themselves to needless liability.
Home inspectors routinely determine the age of a water heater by reading the serial number on the label. If your inspector had done this, he might not have predicted years of continued use for the fixture. In fact, most home inspectors typically report that an older unit may soon fail.
Aside from the age of the fixture, your home inspector should have noticed the rust at the bottom of the tank, a clear indication of age and of past leakage. It appears, therefore, that he did not conduct a thorough inspection of the fixture.
Before you replaced the water heater, you should have notified your home inspector of the problem and given him the opportunity to review the damage. Some home inspection contracts require that the inspector see the defects in question, otherwise the inspector is absolved of liability. On the other hand, a written statement from the plumber who replaced the water heater will provide evidence in your favor. But first you must contact the inspector and let him know that this problem has occurred.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: : We have lived in our home for 27 years, and for much of that time have found termite frass on various windowsills and at some of the doors. My husband thinks that fumigation is a waste of money. He says termites can return as soon as the tent is removed from the house. He prefers to use insect spray whenever he sees the frass. I’m concerned that we might be neglecting a serious problem. Could you please explain how termites can affect the condition of a home and the best way to get rid of them? Nina
Dear Nina: Here are the seven basics about termites:
1) Termites continually reproduce. This means that old colonies have larger populations — with more mouths to feed — than young colonies. A colony that is 5 years old may contain several thousand termites. A colony that is 27 years old could number in the millions. Consider how much wood that many termites could eat in a day.
2) Termites live within the recesses of the wood members that they consume. The damage that they do is not visible on the surface. They eat tunnels in the wood members that they inhabit until the outer veneer of the stud, joist, or rafter is all that is left.
3) When termite tunnels become cluttered with frass (droppings), termites make small holes in the surface of the wood so that the frass particles can drop out. The frass that you see on your windowsills is a small sample, compared with the piles that might be found in the attic or behind the drywall.
4) Insect sprays cannot penetrate into the wall cavities, framing members, or the attic spaces where termites live, eat, and multiply. The best way to eliminate termites is to have your home thoroughly fumigated. Postponing this process ensures continued consumption of the wood members of your home.
5) A new crop of termites can invade your home soon after the fumigation is completed. But for several years, fledgling colonies remain small, and the amount of wood those termites can eat on a daily basis is trivial.
6) Small, start-up colonies can be managed by having termite inspections every few years. If new colonies are discovered, localized treatment by a professional termite company may be an effective approach.
7) Most homes are sold every 5-10 years. Upon sale, a termite inspection is usually a standard part of the transaction. Therefore, most termite colonies have little chance to become highly populated. Significant termite damage usually occurs in homes that remain under the same ownership for decades because most homeowners seldom give termites a thought until they sell the property. Meanwhile, the termite colonies in these homes silently reproduce.
Your husband needs to rethink his approach to the termites in your home. What matters now is to eliminate the large, old colonies that are eating the structure of your home today and each day that you postpone treatment. The longer you wait, the more damage will be done by those hungry tunnel makers.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: I am looking for the legal definition of a bedroom. I bought a house that was listed as a four-bedroom home. Two bedrooms are in the remodeled attic, with short, doorless alcoves for closets. And I’m not sure if these rooms are large enough to qualify as bedrooms. Can you help me to figure this out? Christine
Dear Christine: Here are the basic requirements for a bedroom:
1) A bedroom must be at least 70 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 7 feet.
2) The ceiling must be at least 7 feet high above the finished floor. If the ceiling is sloped, 50% of it can be less than 7 feet, but no part of it should be less than 5 feet.
3) There must be an openable window for light, ventilation, and fire escape. For light, the window size must be at least 8% of the floor area. For ventilation, the openable portion of the window must be at least 4% of the floor area. For fire escape, the window must be at least 5.7 square feet in area. The opening must have a minimum height of 24 inches, a minimum width of 20 inches, and a maximum sill height of 44 inches. (Note: There are additional window requirements for basement bedrooms, but this was discussed in previous articles.)
4) Contrary to popular belief, no closet is required in a bedroom.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: Our Realtor has been showing us listings for several weeks. But last week, we found a for-sale-by-owner property and made an offer to the owner without calling our agent. Since our Realtor spent so much time trying to find a house for us, are we obligated to involve him in this purchase? Rob
Dear Rob: This type of situation is a sore spot with many real estate professionals. Your Realtor devoted many hours to your search for a home and now will receive nothing for those efforts. Unless you have a contract with him, you are under no obligation. However, most agents feel that the time and effort they spend showing property to a prospective client warrants some loyalty.
The seller in this case is clearly under no obligation to pay a real estate commission, nor is it likely that he would be willing to pay one. So there’s probably no way to involve your Realtor in the current transaction.
The most fair and respectful way to have handled this situation would have been to inform your Realtor of your interest in the property, rather than contacting the seller directly. The Realtor could then have called the seller and said, “I have clients who are interested in your home. Would you be willing to pay a reduced commission if I bring you an offer?” At that point, the seller could have accepted or declined. If he had declined, you would have been free to make your own offer, without misgivings between you and your agent.
At this point, you can choose whether or not to inform your Realtor of the decision you have made. Expressing your concern and extending your apologies would probably be more respectful than to say nothing at all.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: I’m having trouble with the seller of the home I am buying. When I first looked at the house, he said the fireplace was in good working order. But my home inspector says there are loose bricks and mortar in the firebox. Now the seller says he never used the fireplace but was told when he bought the house that it worked. When I asked him to fix the loose masonry, he refused because the sale is not contingent on the findings of the home inspector. And he still insists that the fireplace is in working order, even though the home inspector disagrees. Does the seller have to pay to fix the fireplace? And if not, can I get out of the contract even though there wasn’t a contingency on passing inspection? Kim
Dear Kim: If the purchase contract is not contingent on the findings of the home inspection, then the seller is not required to make repairs, and the condition of the fireplace does not provide an option to cancel the purchase. The seller, however, should stop insisting that the fireplace is in working condition. If he has never used it, and if the bricks and mortar are loose, he obviously has no basis for that claim.
Your choice, then, is to decide if the cost of chimney repair overrides the value of the home. If the property is acceptable to you in all other respects, does a fireplace repair of several hundred or even a few thousand dollars offset its desirability. If so, you may have to forfeit your deposit. Otherwise, you should proceed with the purchase and eventually pay to have the fireplace repaired. But before you decide, hire a fireplace specialist to provide a detailed evaluation, as well as a written bid for necessary repairs.
The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector
Dear Barry: You never do columns that recognize holidays. Even at Christmas time and the 4th of July, your articles are always about property defects, real estate disclosure, and home inspections. Now that Halloween is here, how about a spooky house story; something in keeping with the season. Surely you’ve inspected a few creaky old houses. How about it? Bram
Dear Bram: Home inspections tend to be business-as-usual events: checking the foundations, roofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc. But there was one inspection that I recall with dread and discomfort; an inspection where property defects ceased to be of concern, where routine was over-shadowed by fear, where disclosures were eclipsed by a frenzied struggle to flee the premises. And it just so happened that this inspection occurred on the eve of Halloween.
The house was an old, neglected, two-story Victorian, with leaning fences, tangled vegetation, and dense vines engulfing the walls, windows, and roof. The property, in escrow as a probate sale, had been the subject of headlines when the owner had been found hanging from the rafters of the foyer. The police investigation had not determined whether death was from suicide or foul play, and the body’s subsequent disappearance from the local mortuary had unsettled the community.
The buyers and agent were unable to attend the inspection, but the agent had left a key under the mat. Pressing open the massive door, I entered slowly and commenced what I had hoped would be a routine inspection. But then, beneath the lofty ceiling of the darkened interior, I beheld the noosed rope, still attached to a high, dusty beam. A foul odor of decay permeated the stagnant air, and I recalled reading that the man had spent many days at the end of that rope before the neighbors had found him. The prospect of working alone in those dim, silent rooms unsettled me, and my foremost thought was to complete the job and get out of that ominous place.
A steep stairway descended to the basement, where I proceeded to inspect the old stone foundations, but the sounds of creaking timbers echoed throughout the building, disrupting my attention. And then there seemed to be a different sound, somewhere upstairs. At first, it blended with the incessant creaking of the structure, but the difference soon became apparent. This was not the sound of timbers. It was the slow but steady motion of footsteps. Someone was in the house. Hoping that it was the real estate agent, I called out, “Hello, is someone upstairs?” No one answered, but the footsteps continued down the hallway and stopped at the dark entrance to the basement staircase. I called again, “Hello, who’s there?” Again, no answer. Then, a shadow appeared on the stairs and moved slowly, silently downward.
The dark, disfigured form gradually took shape, his head laid awkwardly against his left shoulder. Yet my attention was drawn from this to some shadowy, indistinct object that dangled from his left hand. As he reached the basement floor, a putrid foulness filled the room, so that breathing became difficult and repugnant. Gripped with horror and disbelief, I was unable to move. But then, the eyes of that disjointed head found me, the lips formed a sardonic grin, dripping with thick gray saliva, and my mobility was wakened by a wave of terror. Clawing my way up the basement wall, I squeezed into the narrow space between the ground and the floor framing, seeking desperately for any way of escape. But the advancing form appeared atop the foundation wall and steadily pursued me into that dark crawlspace.
Trapped in a corner where the foundation walls joined, I realized with desperate finality that I could flee no further. Somewhere is the nearby darkness, I could hear that half dead form crawling toward me. Clutching at my flashlight, I was startled at the impending nearness of his face: the glare of cold eyes, the glint of gray teeth, the viscous fluid that dripped from grimacing lips — and that mysterious object gripped in his left hand.
Terror pounded in my chest as I faced those final, hopeless, remaining seconds. The feet between us became inches. His right hand gripped my ankle as he drew forward. Then his left hand extended the old gunny sack that he held, and the acrid smell of cold breath filled my face, as he cried, “Trick or treat!!”
|
|
