hausdok

Hi Les, Unless I'm mistaken, and Walter might be able to straighten me out on this, in Tennessee they can award treble damages if you're proven to have been negligent. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Thanks to Charlie Sessums Alpha Inspection Service Brandon, MS

Elizabethton, TN Donna Pearce will be auctioning off her house in a scenic portion of Lynn Valley this weekend and she is making sure the next buyers know more about the flaws in the house than she did when she bought it. Pearce is in a lawsuit with the former owners, Christopher and Amelia Muncey. She alleges they violated the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act by saying there were no defects to the house from the intrusion of water and that a 2002 fire in the kitchen had been repaired “as new.â€

I dunno, I've tried it over and over for the past hour every which way that I can and all I get is an Error 404 File Not Found

The link is apparently no good.

Well, When you build something to code you are building it to the absolute lowest possible accepted standard - you're building a Yugo house. If code requires it and a builder isn't doing it, then that builder is constructing a house that is less than the lowest possible accepted standard for quality - in other words, he's building something with below Yugo quality. Why would you want to follow the examples of those who don't even want to build a home that meets the bare minimum level of adequacy? I don't know about you, but when I buy a product or hire someone to do a job for me, like build a house, I want that person to show me that he or she is going to be doing more than the bare minimum needed. In other words, I might not be able to afford the Rolls Royce house but I sure as hell don't want the Yugo house; I'm looking for something in-between - something better than the median. I think that's the way that most consumers feel when they have a home built. When a builder does it less than the Yugo way, we need to call them on it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I guess I swallowed some ecstasy or something like that with my breakfast, 'cuz I thought I read that Jim thinks that this guy's idea that roofs really aren't that important has merit. Maybe I'm just being more obtuse than I normally am. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Methinks Mons. Fabry is too clever by half. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Yeah, one of Barry's past columns was so heavy with passive inspectorspeak that I actually took my S & W Elements of Style off the shelf and began typing a letter to him to beg him to stop perpetuating inspectorspeak and passive writing in the minds of his H.I. readers. My initial impulse was to send him the Elements of Style along with the letter; however, halfway through writing the letter I realized I was probably overreacting and I deleted it and put the book back on the shelf. We should get Bonnie to send him a copy of her book, The Curious Case of the Misplaced Modifier. I guess we should try to minimize the thread drift though. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Sigh, Just another off-center home inspector trying to promote his business, while using his own odd interpretation of what a home inspection should be to do so, and embarrassing the profession in the process. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Here in Washington State, R303.2 is superceded by the Washington State Energy Code. That code specifies that bath ducts and the like must terminate "outside" and in the builder's guide that accompanies that code, Chapter 8, which deals with ventilation, shows various configurations of ventilation systems that are accepted under the code and how they are to be configured. That chapter includes drawings and shows every single duct passing through the attic and then connected to an outlet that discharges outside of the building. You need to find out what they're using there and then obtain a finding from the IRC of what "outside" means in the context of R303.2. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yeah, I still use it too; I don't look for excess voltage drop but it finds the excess voltage, too low voltage, bootleg grounds, open grounds, excessive ground impedance, reversed polarity, no neutrals or hot/grounds reversed just fine. I think it's biggest deficit is that it can't spot two errors at the same time as Chad has stated. Other than that, it's earned its keep. I'll never trust a 3-light tester anymore; not after a licensed electrician didn't believe my SureTest when I'd identified more than a dozen open grounds and the electrician used a 3-light tester to confirm that the SureTest was wrong. I handed him a screwdriver and told him to open up a receptacle, and then another, and then another; all of them had the EGC snipped away! That 3-light tester said all was fine though. If I didn't have the SureTest, I'd use a Wiggy or a multimeter before I'd use a 3-light tester. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Chris, If you've ever wondered how far back some of these code requirements go and what the basis for them is, you can go here. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I can guaranty you that there was a pre-inspection agreement signed and that the inspector's report covered all bases; however, I don't think that's going to stop a determined lawyer when he knows there's an E & O carrier with deep pockets standing by ready to cave in, settle out of court, and raise its clients fees rather than risk going to court and relying on the fickle mood of a jury. I've sent the fellow an email and asked him whether he'd be interested in posting portions of the report transcript here with the identifying information removed. Don't hold your breath, I'm sure that he probably wants to see this whole thing behind him. Thanks John. He told me the story in passing at about 1:00 pm on Wednesday. I was blown away and asked him to repeat the basic elements while I jotted down a few lines to key my memory on an envelope. I drove home, sat down to the computer and wrote the initial draft in about 30 minutes and then fired a copy of the draft to him to clean up the details. I called him Thursday night to confirm that he'd gotten it and to see whether he'd had time to look at it; he hadn't. He promised to do so as soon as possible. He sent the edits back to me yesterday afternoon, about 50 hours after the telling. Once I sat down to work on it, took me about 10 minutes to edit the draft and post it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hmm, A blog that uses seemingly authoritative articles with no attribution. I wonder who spends more time in attics looking at the underside of roofs and examining ventilation issues; home inspectors or roofers? Certainly, here in the northwest I've seen hundreds of examples of gable vents short circuiting ventilation in attics when ridge vents and soffit vents were added to old homes and I've found my fair share of fungi on the underside of roofs in new homes less than two years old where the builders have used a belt and suspenders approach and have combined gable vents with eave and pot vents placed near the ridge or ridge vents. I tend to believe stuff written by folks who make their living researching this kind of stuff and writing about it; folks like Dr. Joe. If Dr. Joe were to state that the gable vent short circuiting is a myth, I'd probably believe him but I have a hard time believing an anonymous roofer. The original poster lives in Georgia. click here for Dr. Joe's corporation's take on designs that work in the Atlanta region. Here's what they say about attic ventilation for that area: Spend a little time here if you really want to start understanding this stuff. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I've had a SureTest for about 8 years. For about the first year or so after I bought it I too used to test for voltage drop; then I learned about Jim's roundabout way of getting to the NEC and I thought about that a little bit. 10% voltage drop - if the voltage is supposed to be 120 volts delivered to the fixture but the allowable range of voltage is 108 to 132 volts, then you're allowed 120 volts + 10% anyway, no? So, logic dictated to me that if I'm checking the circuits in a house and my suretest tells me near the panel that there's about 119 to 120 volts then I just ignore the voltage drop readout and keep my eye on the voltage reading as I move farther away from the panel and ensure that it never drops below 108 volts at any receptacles I'll be fine. Now, maybe that's an over simplification; but, being an electrical systems moron it makes sense to me so I went with it. So far, it's never bitten me. I mean, let's be realistic, if you tell an electrician that there's excess voltage drop how is the electrician going to verify it if he doesn't have a SureTest - he'll just use his multimeter and test it at every outlet as he moves away from the panel. Won't he only be looking to ensure that it never drops below 108 volts (a 10% drop below optimum)? Yeah, yeah, I know, if there are a bunch of things plugged into the circuit and you're at the end of a circuit with excess drop you could have readings below what you need, and the SureTest wouldn't have detected those in an empty house or with everything off on the circuit, so there's no practical use for this voltage drop test in the context of a home inspection as far as I can see. Anyway, Yung knows to come straight to me if voltage reading ever drop below 116 volts or exceed 124 volts; otherwise, she considers them normal and doesn't write them up. So far, it's worked great for most of the last 6 years. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Well, to be technically correct, I think that we should be referring to horizontal railing sections as "rails." Balusters are supposed to be vertical members that are components of a balustrade and a balustrade is a handrail component that's used around elevated porches or patios. Elements of a balustrade can be vertical posts (stiles), vertical balusters, rails, handrails, and cap rails. I think the 6-inch gap criteria is only applied to diagonal members above stairways and does not apply to the openings in the balustrade above the surface of the deck; those should be no more than 4-inches. That's my story and I'm sticking to it unless someone convinces me otherwise (which is sometimes pretty easy to do). ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike P.S. The gap between that stairway and the lower rail of the stair rail looks to me like it's over 6-inches.

By Mike O'Handley - TIJ Editor Sometimes, contrary to the old maxim, nice guys don't finish last. Take the case of an inspection company owner that I know whose company was sued not too long ago by an unhappy former client. A while back one of his employees did an inspection on a 100-year old home and noticed that, among other things, there were some significant grading and drainage issues around the home. The inspector warned the buyer verbally at the inspection and in the written report that, unless those conditions were addressed, there was a very good chance that heavy rains could undermine the foundation and erode soil from below the footing and result in structural damage. The buyer, as they often do, opted to purchase the home anyway and completely ignored the inspector's recommendation to correct the exterior grading. Want to guess what happened next? That's right, about 6 months later the inspector's prediction came true during the rainy season; and the buyer, now the owner, thinking that they would pick up the tab, reported the damage to her homeowners insurance company. She must have been really shocked when the insurance company, because the settling wasn't the result of a plumbing leak and had been caused by uncontrolled roof and ground water, refused to cover the cost of the repair. Now, most folks in those circumstances, realizing that they'd screwed up by not immediately following the home inspector's advice, would have kicked themselves, bitten the bullet, and gone on with their lives; not so this buyer. The buyer's next step was to contact a local attorney who has found that suing home inspectors who carry errors and omissions insurance is actually pretty lucrative. It wasn't long before the inspection company owner received notice that his company was being sued for $55,000. The inspection company owner wasn't happy because his E & O policy has a $5,000 deductible. He knew that, regardless of what happened next, he'd be out $5,000. However, since he'd been paying for E & O, he dutifully reported the lawsuit to his insurance company and the carrier promised to deal with it. The attorneys began their legal dance with expert witnesses and depositions that went on for about 2-1/2 years; until, one week before the scheduled trial date, things really began to get interesting. On Tuesday the insurance company offered the homeowner $15,000 to settle out of court and the homeowner refused. On Wednesday, they offered her $25,000 and on Thursday, they offered her $35,000 and she refused both times. By this time, the owner of the inspection company was about to go ballistic. He couldn't understand why the insurance company was throwing so much money at her; when his inspector had clearly stated in their written report that the settling and damage might happen. From the inspection company owner's point of view, he had a defensible case. When he asked the attorney for the insurance company for an explanation, the attorney responded that they were concerned because they'd already spent about $28,000 in legal expenses and they felt that, if they put this single woman in front of a jury, they'd risk losing another $55,000 plus court costs and attorneys' fees. On Friday morning, the owner of the inspection company called the attorney for the insurance company and asked whether they intended to offer her a final settlement of $45,000. When the attorney confirmed that they did indeed intend to do that, the inspector said "I'll make you a deal. If you offer her $45,000, I'll throw in an additional $65,000 to make it $110,000; however, my offer is conditional on my receiving title to the house; she has to take all or nothing, or we go to trial on Monday." When the insurance company made her this offer, the homeowners attorney responded that she wanted to take the final offer; however, she didn't want the inspection company owner to have the house. The inspector responded to the attorneys that, unless her claim was frivolous, he couldn't make money on the house because he would be paying $65,000 plus $55,000 in repairs. The homeowner, who'd long ago decided that she wasn't happy with the house and wanted out of her mortgage, suddenly found herself between a rock and a hard place. She didn't have any equity in the home; so, if she took his offer, she'd have to give up the home and walk away with nothing. On the other hand, the homeowner realized that if she stuck to her guns; and refused the deal because she didn't want the inspector to get the house, he'd withdraw his offer. If that happened, she might get a little bit of cash out of the lawsuit, but she'd still have to pay her lawyer and pay for repairs to the foundation and would still be stuck living in a home that she didn't want. Worst of all, she'd still have to pay off the balance of a mortgage on a home she didn't want. The chance to get free of the mortgage was too enticing; she went for the deal, the bank got paid off and the inspection company owner received title to the house free and clear for $65,000. The insurance company was now out of the picture. Is that the end of the story? Heck no, remember when I said that good things can happen to nice people? Well, as soon as our hero got title to the house, he brought in a contractor to repair the foundation and correct the exterior drainage issues. That work cost him $7,500; then he made an additional $3,500 worth of improvements to the home, to make it more marketable and prepare it for sale. Sixty days later, he sold the home for $120,000 and walked away with a profit of $32,000. After selling costs and paying a 15% capital gains tax, he made a final profit of approximately $27,000. How's that for turning lemons into lemonade? Oh yeah, I almost forgot: the best part of this story - the lawyer that makes a hobby out of suing home inspectors for pocket change? He didn't make a dime. How's that for poetic justice?

Hi Walter, Yeah, I saw that and had meant to change it before you or anyone else picked up on it but the phone rang and distracted me just as I finished replying to it and it skipped my mind. Fixed now. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, As far as I know, there is no prohibition against horizontal rails. The only restriction is that a 4-inch sphere shall not fit between sections and a 6-inch sphere shall not fit between the step and the underside of the stair rail. Oh yea, also the graspable handrail. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, I was thinking that we could do it like when one reserves an airline ticket or a hotel room; they make you provide a major credit card number and expiration date. If you don't show up to board the plane or take the room and give them another payment option, they charge it to your card. If you do show up and pay them cash, then they shred the credit card number. I was thinking that maybe something like this would work: 1. Using that pre-paid UPS scenario (There's one of those UPS stores about 400 meters from where I'm sitting), the borrower fills out an online reservation form that doubles as an agreement and payment authorization. The borrower provides a major credit card number and submits the form. Once I confirm the registration, the borrower contact UPS, pre-pays for the shipment and the UPS guy calls me to arrange a pickup. UPS comes over here, picks up the package and it goes to you. You finish reading the book and then send it back. Once I've got it back, the agreement with the credit card number gets shredded. OK, smart people, Help me figure out how to make this easier and more secure. Keep it computer idiot friendly please. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

No wonder Batman is so reclusive. If I could get that much money for what I discharge, I'd spend all my time in the crapper too! [:-dopey] OT - OF!!! M.

I say we just eliminate roofs altogether and use force fields. May the force be with you. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, I'm sure that Tom and Jim are both joking about the scanning. I dunno about this Pay Pal thing; I've never used it so I don't know whether it will be too much of a hassle or not. Given the limited time I have to dink around with a lot of extra stuff, in my mind the self-addressed pre-paid mailer made the most sense. I'm still struggling with whether I'd require some kind of security deposit on the reference until I got it back. It kind of belies the idea of a free lending library to require a deposit for someone to borrow a book, but I've loaned a couple of my references out before and never saw them again. I'm going to begin compiling a list of the stuff that I've got while I wait for more input. You know, maybe this doesn't need to be just me. If we came up with a pretty good way to do this, that will provide reassurance that one's references will be returned, maybe we could develop a network of folks who'd be willing to participate. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Jim, Well, if I were single I might; however, the Korean konnection would gut me like a halibut if she ever got wind I was trying to track down some girl I'd never had a conversation with 44 years ago. Best left alone. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike