Homeowners Responsibilities
with Reference Court Case
Superior Court of
Arizona Maricopa County
CV 1999-092049
11/13/2003
HON. Barbara M
Jarrett
Do I need to make sure the Grading
and Drainage is correct when purchasing a home?
66. Plaintiffs (Homeowners) have not met their burden of
proving that the grading and drainage of their lot at the time they took
possession of the properties was not done in accordance with the requirements
of the Town of Gilbert. Plaintiffs have
not met their burden of proving that the grading and drainage of their lots was
not done in a workmanlike manner consistent with the custom and practice for
residential grading in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and in Gilbert, Arizona,
during the period from 1993 to 1996.
83. Drainage – “The contractor … is not responsible for
conditions caused by others not under his control after close of escrow,”
What caused the foundation to move?
67. The primary cause of the movement of the foundations and
floor slabs of the Plaintiffs’ homes is from water that has penetrated the
dried-out expansive soils under the foundations and stem walls of the homes and
has caused such movement. As stated previously,
UDC allowed the soil to dry out before commencing construction of the homes,
rendering the soil highly expansive. The
geo-technical experts for both parties agree that there is a direct correlation
between homeowner-installed lawns and other substantial landscaping features
that require irrigation on the one hand and the amount of foundation and slab
movement that a home has experienced on the other.
What if I add or change the
landscaping?
68. Each of the Plaintiffs has installed some landscaping
and other improvements (such as pools, decks, concrete walkways, etc.) to their
property. These improvements and
landscaping have had the effect of substantially altering and/or eliminating
the original drainage patterns for the properties and have caused irrigation
and rain water to pond or otherwise become trapped at or near the foundations
of the homes.
69. The amount of water used by the Plaintiffs (with the
exception of the Draper Plaintiffs on Lot 52) to irrigate their landscaping and
other improvements is, in general, excessive.
70. The impeded drainage, lack of positive drainage away
from the foundations of their homes, and excessive irrigation, combined with
the existence of the highly expansive soil conditions, have caused the movement
of the foundations of the homes. The
movement of the foundations has produced the vast majority of the cracking and
other distress about which the homeowners now complain. In fact, there is a direct correlation
between areas of blocked drainage on Plaintiffs’ lots and monometer readings
showing movement of the homes’ foundations and/or floor slabs.
Is cracking normal?
76. Some drywall, stucco and concrete cracking, some
sticking of doors and windows, and some movement of woodwork is normal and to
be expected during the first two years after construction of a new home. The Homeowner Orientation Guide, which was
given to all home purchasers at North Shore, explains that because the homes
are “located in a desert environment” and because of “temperature variations
combined with expansive soils that are common in the area,” the resulting
“expansion and contraction from day to day” can cause “minor warping of wood
materials and hairline cracking of drywall, stucco, concrete and mortar.” The Guide also states that, because minor
cracking of these building materials is normal and to be expected, “UDC Homes
will not be responsible for minor cracking that falls within accepted industry
standards.”
Do I need to do routine maintenance?
78. Although the homes that are the subject of this
litigation are approximately seven or eight years old, the evidence at trial
disclosed that most of the homeowners had done little routine maintenance
(except for warranty repairs by UDC), and most had not taken steps to repair
even normal and expected cracking of drywall, stucco and concrete at their
homes.
79. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors has established and
published Minimum Workmanship Standards that were applicable at the time the
homes in question were built. Those
Standards apply for the first two years after construction of a new home and
specify that the following things are normal construction tolerances and are
not deemed to be construction defects:
80. Gypsum Wall Board – “Visible defects such as nail pops,
cracks and seam lines due to expansion and contraction of structure” are
normal. “Normal defects such as hairline
cracks where drywall meets a dissimilar material are considered acceptable and
can readily be corrected by the owner when redecorating. If nail pops occur, the contractor shall be
responsible to correct the fault only one time during the first year of
occupancy.
81. Stucco – “Hairline cracks, if not excessive, are
acceptable. If crack exceeds 1/16”, it
is unacceptable and should be repaired.”
82. Concrete – “Cracks 1/8” are acceptable without
repair. Cracks wider than 1/8” shall be
properly repaired with appropriate material.” With respect to garage slabs, carports, patios and sidewalks, “cracks in
excess of 3/32” width and 1/8” vertical displacement or compound cracks are not
acceptable.”
Download the court case