*
We purchased a lot found a builder and started digging for our first build. The beautiful .70 acre lot ($60k price) is in a almost fully developed SE Michigan subdivision with 107 lots. After hitting water during the foundation digging an inspector inspected and told us to get soil tests. 3 months later we are $25k in the hole (punn) and are finally pouring the footings.
Question: Should the developer cover some or all of these charges? I know there are some ‘as is’ clauses in the purchase agreement and we could have tested before purchase, but I do not see it feasable to have spent $1,070 to get the proper boring tests before we bought the land.
Any input, experience, feelings will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Brendan
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about haunted pipes and building-science tomes, and they ask questions about roof venting and roof leaks.
Featured Video
Highlights
"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
*
Brendan:
My experience is limited to the S.E US, but if a lot is one of the last in a subdivision, there is often a good reason.
Your situation with engineered footings are not uncommon in my area. Around here, when purchasing a building lot, county and USGS maps can be consulted for flood soils that often coincide with soil that require engineered footings. BTW, "flood soil" does not necessarily indicate that the land may flood. As a matter of fact, I have looked at lots that had "flood soil" located 50' above a dry stream. These areas often have soil with a high silt content that does not support the PSF of the clay that we are used to dealing with. This soil is usually easily identifiable by the dark brown color (or sometimes a white/gray clay) and the fact that it is relatively easy to dig in. A probe rod usually will reveal this in a few minutes.
In addition, in this county, there are soil maps that show somewhat accurate information of soil types for each parcel throughout the county. Further, when a parcel is subdivided, the county do preliminary soil analysis to verify the feasibility of development on each lot. If marginal soil is found, the lot is still allowed to be sold, but the soil condition is noted on county records.
Sorry to hear about your misfortune, but I think if nothing else, by sharing your experience on this form, it will help others to "buyer be ware".
*
Aren't those engineers so cheap? I live in the eastern U.S. and what brendan noted before is exactly right. Were you digging a basement or crawl? Was the land agricultrual before being developped? Agriculture causes the land to create what I call a hard pan beneath the surface and will not allow water to leech through the ground. I have hit water on this type of land usually between 1 and 4 feet below surface. If you are digging a crawl all you have to do in this type of soil is first dig in one corner to see where or if it gets better, usually it is better within the next foot or so. As far as a basement and still have water the engineer is the only way to go but that is for your own good. As far as the developer compensating you for this, Good luck. The only time I have seen them compensate for this kind of deal is if the lot had been filled during development, you can usually tell when it has been. Look for signs of vegetation, topsoil, and different layers of soil under the surface. Good Luck!
*
Brendan, in an "Almost built out subdivision" of 107 lots, are you the only buyer of swamp land? As other lots were developed was this problem evident?
This sounds like something that would be required to be disclosed by the seller. Here in California it sure as hell would be. Have you discussed it with the seller? Have you contacted adjacent property owners or a lawyer?
Is there any more to this story? What are the "as is" clauses? Do they specifically address these high tide conditions?
Joe H
*It is suprizing how wpeople who will pay hundreds of thousands for a lot and house will balk at paying 2500 for soil consultants to look at it. unless the seller had knoweldge that the lot was unbuildable or would require excessive work to build on it, I do not believe they will be responsible. Did you ask if they knew of any other problems when the other houses were built.Rick Tuk
*
>As far as I know there have been two other lots that needed engineering. One was discounted 30k with a footnote it needs engineered footings. One was bought and after they started digging found it to be bad. The developer swapped that one out for another one and gave the bad one to his son. And then ours. Our lot was probably looked over because of a 10'x10'pond overflow drainage field on one corner. There is still about 20 lots available but those are lakefront and $150k+
>The information on the land was that it was not farmland (moderately treed) but the original owner, in the early 70's, owned 1/2 of massey fergusen equipment company and worked the land with some big equipment. He created (dredged) the one acre pond we are on (and 8 others) and filled part of our nearby lake to provide 20'X20' lots for docks and boats. All of this pre DNR/EPA regulations. Looking at the soil layers of our lot shows no topsoil except for some great stuff near the pond (dredge) About 2 feet down there is a dark layer of 1ft (original topsoil??) then 3-9 feet sandy gravely rusty dirt.
>We were digging a basement. The basement level was dug about 8 feet below the surface. The perk soil borings showed all ok but they went down about 7 feet. It was only when we were at 8ft and digging footings that water was encountered. at 9 feet. (one side a walkout with frost footings) We were still about 4ft above pond level at deepest footing depth (pond being 60yds away) The fact that water was encountered required an inspector. The inspector said the water was ok but upon walking the perimeter of the hole he found the front side (away from pond) to be soft and ordered a stop build until we get it tested. The whole 50ft front side of the house was a sinkhole for the limestone fill.
>The 'as-is' clause is geared toward a sale of an existing house. It was sold to us on a land contract thru a real estate company. In one line is says the seller agrees the property is 'in working condition' and another line saying 'purchaser agrees buying property as-is' All of it is fine print and nowhere did we inital anything that says that we agree any problems subgrade is our responsibility.
>Overall my thoughts are that the developer did not know about our problems beforehand but people say that they can know those things because it's their buisness. Based on his prescedence of giving a discount on one and swapping out the other I feel he should be oblidged to give us a break. Also from what our soil engineer and workers say there has been a prescedence for developers covering these charges.
Thanks to all for input so far, Brendan
*
If you hit oil on your property, do you think that you should share it with the developer?
*I disagree that the builder should know these things because it's his business. There is no way to know what's underground until you dig it up.Hard pan usually occurs after years and years of heavy equipment working on a piece of land. If you do have hard pan, the solution is to break through the hard layer. There is equipment made just for this. A few holes get punched in the ground and you're okay.Because it sounds like you're lank front or almost lakefront, I suspect high water is more likely the problem.It's unfortunate that this has happened to you but I really don't think it's a problem you can pin on anyone else. I wish no one had to be responsible for the cost of these things but if it happened on your property, I feel that it's your problem now.Now, if the builder was aware of the problem and kept it from you, that's a different story but somehow that seems unlikely to me.
*Brendan:Once again, sorry to hear about your misfortune. You say"Overall my thoughts are that the developer did not know about our problems beforehand but people say that they can know those things because it's their buisness. Based on his prescedence of giving a discount on one and swapping out the other I feel he should be oblidged to give us a break. Also from what our soil engineer and workers say there has been a prescedence for developers covering these charges."So, why are you talking to us and not the developer? - or did you leave that part out?
*
We have talked to the developer. We gave him all the invoices for the work (which he asked for) and last week we got a fax from the realator that sold us the property saying the developer will not pay. We are at the point of meeting with our lawyer. So far it's been homeowner vs developer. Maybe with some larger guns coming into play he might reconsider.
Instead of posting exactly where we are at in this whole scenario and giving the he-said she-said information, I've opted to post the stripped down, unbiased problem, to the forum and get some imput. Forums like these are a wealth of information.
Thanks to all for replying.
Sincerely,
Brendan
*I would look around for a local who knows about the history of the land. If the developer dug out the pond and filled in one or more ponds, or marshy soft spots on your land with the dredge, that could play into this. I know of a case local to me where this was done, and a subdivision was created on wetlands zoned as such, originally. And I can imagine how their foundations/basements are working out. A little research may get a lot of benefit, especially if the developer was a little shady.Good luck,MD
*In this area a perc. test is required to get a septic permit. Before purchasing the property in question it is standard procedure to have one done before purchase because it has to be done anyway. To not spend less than 2% of the cost of the lot as assurance (or insurance) seems strange.Good luck.
*
Brendan,
It sounds like the developer was at least considering some type of reimbursement since he asked to see your receipts for the work that was necessary to rectify the problem. Perhaps you and the developer can still work out some kind of compromise. I'll guess that he's hesitant to admit any responsibility, as that could be precedence for him to pick up the entire bill. Just a thought.
*
Talk to a lawyer. Joe H. has good advice. There may be disclosure laws on your side.
*
We purchased a lot found a builder and started digging for our first build. The beautiful .70 acre lot ($60k price) is in a almost fully developed SE Michigan subdivision with 107 lots. After hitting water during the foundation digging an inspector inspected and told us to get soil tests. 3 months later we are $25k in the hole (punn) and are finally pouring the footings.
Question: Should the developer cover some or all of these charges? I know there are some 'as is' clauses in the purchase agreement and we could have tested before purchase, but I do not see it feasable to have spent $1,070 to get the proper boring tests before we bought the land.
Any input, experience, feelings will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Brendan