Hey everyone, New to the forum and hoping and can get some much needed advice. Built a new house last year and I’m just now getting around to finishing the basement. Didn’t do much work myself on initial build. Went with a reputable builder. Anyways down to business. I’ve always felt the basement ceiling was low but never gave it much thought, not down there much. Last week I got out a tape and measured to start laying out the basement. Come to find do out my ceilings are 7’9″ concrete to bottom of floor joist. Whipped out my copy of the plans and it says 8’4″ poured wall and 8’2″ ceiling height. Long story short I called my builder and he said it was the concrete guys fault cause they poured the wall short. 8 feet. Says he would like to trade some work to square up and not get anyone else involved but his idea of squaring up and mine seem to be a little different. What kind of price tag would you guys put on this? I don’t want attorneys involved anymore than he does but I just paid a large sum of money for this place and I’m stuck low basement ceilings. Any help is much appreciated!
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The best tool for straight, splinter-free cuts is made even better without a cord.
Featured Video
How to Install Cable Rail Around Wood-Post CornersHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
First of all,
it's irrelvant what price tag anyone here puts on "squaring up". IMO, it's pissing in wind to ask such a question.
Secondly, was your contract with the builder or the "concrete guy"? If the former, then what has the concrete guy have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Thirdly, my guess is that unless you're willing to go to court over this, then you're stuck with 7'-8" ish finished ceiling height. "Low" is relative. Again, if you want low defined in reference to your plans and building contract, then you're likely going to have invest additional time and money in having someone else define that relationship and how that is resolved. Good luck with that.
Note: Time and progress payments are not on your side.
.
Hoo boy, absolutely agree with DN on this one (which is not often <G>)
What is Mark's opinion ? DN's nemisis?
Maybe have a rare consensus with DN that OP is one screwed pooch for not catching this his own self before the joists were set - and having already cut the check to the builder LAST year.
I'd stick the builder for about $300/yard for the concrete that was not formed and poured (whoopee, maybe $500) , plus some work? Maybe bring the concrete guy around and drag his (jobsite word) around to pour a punative damage 3 or 4 yards of patio or sidewalks ?
Les' say 4"/8'-4" = 4%. Say the sub contract for the foundation was sya $20K. 4% or 20K = $800.
I'd say, without forking over $5-$10k to a (jobsite word) for litigation, OP should be happy with say $500 in cash and about 800/25/hr = 2 days makeup work? Probably cannot even get that, maybe a ham for Easter?
Look at the concrete guy billing. If billed for an 8'4" wall worth of concrete, go to local prosecutor with a fraud charge if you are the vindictive type?
Hmm, DIY looks better all the time, eh?
HA
amazing what happens when one (DN) responds without being a derrogatory turd imposing his self proclaimed greatness on everyone...
Rollin_82:
the fact that the builder is willing to work with you says something about the guy.
how long since the last check for the build? whats the contract terms for workamanship/ warranties?
the fact that some much time has gone by is not a favorable thing for your case.
The builder wants to keep it away from litigation, find out exactly how serious he is about it and go from there.
If your contract does specifically outline the ceiling heigh of the basement and your builder does not provide a satisfactory resolution, litigation will be your only recourse. long, very costly, and uncertain results...
I'd say you should get an estimate for raising the house five inches. That's how much you should ask for.
Lawyer Time
You had approved plans, and they were not followed. You didn't get what you paid for. What is that worth?
Well, you need a lawyer, one who specializes in construction law. I suspect there will -ultimately- be some insurance folks involved as well. The use of a lawyer is essential, or the various contractors will have you running in circles. Trust me, this is a very settled area in law, and 99% of the things you will hear are NOT what the correct solutions are. Your contract was with the general, and it's his responsibility to ensure his subcontractors do their part.
Of course he doesn't want attorneys involved .... why risk dealing with someone who knows what they're talking about? Still, that's no reason for you to not get the informed opinion of an expert.
BEFORE you see the shyster .... get clear in your mind what resolution YOU want. Do you really want / need a tall basement? Is there a code issue with your lower ceiling (I believe 7'6" is the minimum for habitable space). Or, does it really not matter much to you?
Also ... did you really pay a "large sum" for what you got? Was it clear to everyone WHY you wanted something that was not the 'usual' basement?
Most true 'fixes' will require the involvement of an engineer - either to raise the house up, or to dig the basement down. Both will involve your living somewhere else for six months.
Still, don't think you've won the lottery. Courts try to address the actual harm that was done, rather than 'punish' someone. Be able to explain just how this error harmed you to whatever amount you're asking for.
really?
renosteinke wrote:
Both will involve your living somewhere else for six months.
What crystal ball are you gleaning this bit of stated fact from?
Why bring up a non-issue?
renosteinke wrote:
BEFORE you see the shyster .... get clear in your mind what resolution YOU want. Do you really want / need a tall basement? Is there a code issue with your lower ceiling (I believe 7'6" is the minimum for habitable space). Or, does it really not matter much to you?
Clearly there is no code height issue with a 7'-9" tall (rough) basment. In fact, depending on how the basement rooms are defined on the plans (yet to be revealed by O.P.) , those ceiling heights minimums can be reduced to as little as 7' according to the IRC. There might be a contractual leg to legally stand on here, but it doesn't appear to involve code.
IMO, advising legal counsel in this case is folly; the inference of winning a lottery even worse. The only possbile winner here would be legal counsel. The losers would be the O.P. , the builder, and the tax payer (tying up courts with unneccassry litigation). If the builder wants to throw the owner a bone to make up for an oversight that should have been brought to his attention long ago, then I think the O.P. should count his blessings and take what he can get at this point. Be sure to get that specific "bone" in writing which should include a delivery of goods and service completion date.
Good grief DN, ya tryin' ta give me a nervous breakdown or something -- having to agree with you TWICE in one week!
If ya don't hear from Mark, he probably went into cardiac arrest ? <G>
Some Examples
Here are some examples, where contractors have suffered greatly because they didn't pay attention:
Job "A," the customer had a house built relatively far from the water main, up a hill, and some long pipe runs. As a result, the plans specified that all piping be a larger sixe than shown on the 'usual' pipe schedules. This deviation was highlighted in the job notes (part of the bidding package) as welll as personally brought to the attention of the plumbing company representative. Nevertheless, the house was piped using "what we always use." The error was discovered at final inspection. Litigation ensued, and the contractor was on the hook for a complete re-pipe. His offer to simply refund the difference in the cost of materials was not accepted.
Jobs "B' and "C" involved HVAC contractors, who insisted on providing 240-volt equipment, rather than the 480-volt gear specified. For Job "B" the HVAC guy got to pay for the transformer and electrical work necessary to create the needed power; on Job "C" the contractor was forced to provide the correct equipment - even though he was not able to return the 'incorrect' unit.
Job "D" had the same exact issue of the basement ceiling being too low for 'legal' use. This was an issue only in an area where there was overhead plumbing. That particular job involved all manner of additional complications (starting with the State Archaeologist), but the real saving detail was the areas' intended use for storage. Pipes were moved a wee bit, and the city signed off on it.
Why bother with having plans, if folks are just going to do whatever they please?
I recall a custom house, where everyone's work was greatly complicated, simply because the framer put studs where he desired- rather than as shown on the plans. That house wound up with some switches in poor locations and duct runs that had some rather creative bends. It costs time and money to 'work around' such trolls.
This 'attention to detail' is also part of the hiring process. For my own house, I have rejected several HVAC contractors - or have had them decline the work themselves - because I have made clear that I will not accept many common HVAC practices. If they don't want the job, well, it's a free country. I see no reason to buy something I don't want, though. That's why we have contracts - let's not have any of this blank sheet of paper 'contract' nonsense that simply says "install air conditioning $3200."