Hello again, construction elves. I was here in March frantically asking questions as my lawsuit began against two contractors who got me good. I am looking at discovery for the second contractor. The contract provided for “install plant-on lumber around 3 windows and on lower wall approximate lengths 75 ft of 2X8 around windows and 42 ft of 2/12 below connecting window.” Allowance: $1,315.00.
I am assuming this was to install wood trim (like the English cottage kind of look) around the windows on the new addition to my stucco home. They ended up putting the foam stuff that is sprayed with stucco to frame the windows (got charged for that, too). I’m going to mediation on the 6th and want to make sure I catch all the bogus charges. Sooooo…is plant-on lumber some technical term for wood trim?
Replies
"Plant on's" are non structural features applied to the exterior wall surfaces to supply architectural interest by breaking up the monolithic flatness of a wall. They still need to be flashed and water proofed so as not to trap water against the wall sheathing and promote rot.
Typically, they are stucco'd over.
The term "plant on" often means a base for an application like stucco. The lumber would be used to build out around doors, windows, etc. If foam board was used, it would be cut to cover all the surface, including over the wood. This would give you a proud area around the windows, like trim made from stucco. If there is an eight inch projection around your windows and a wider section under some others, this is likely what it was used for, although the lumber would be hidden under the stucco.
Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
Thanks! Would the existing wood trim around the other windows have been used for the "plant on"? I wasn't charged for anything but the new windows yet all had the foam put on them. When they stuccoed they put on the gray cement coat and then sprayed the stucco....I'm pretty sure the existing wood trim was removed.
What is the contractor term for the pieces of lumber that are used for decorative trim and painted?
typically referred to as "exterior trim" around here"...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Juliann, It's pretty hard to know what was done, even with pictures it would be a guess unless you had pictures of the progress. Existing wood trim may have been removed and/or replaced depending on it's condition, size, shape and whether it was appropriate for use in the new work. The lumber you mentioned is about $300, add in labor to install and the price you listed sounds in line.There are many pieces of trim that go on a house as well as many names, some are local names and others are widely recognized. The side trim on a window is often called a casing, the top, a head casing. A piece under the window sill is sometimes called an apron. In essence, each piece of trim has it's own name. The general term "exterior trim" is often used to group all the painted and decorative exterior woodwork. Carpenters in my area would know what piece of trim a "porkchop" was, but elsewhere you might get a funny look. Certain areas may also be lumped together such a "rake trim". This is the woodwork at the roof line on a gable and could include many individual pieces of wood, each with a separate name.It sounds as though you think you may have been charged for something you didn't receive. If I saw your previous post, I don't remember it. Have you asked the contractor to come over and explain any questions you have?Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
I think what she was getting at from reading her post that the contractor charged for wood around the windows then stucco.
What they actually did was to use foam instead of the wood then stucco. From reading the other posts I gather that foam is ok but she was charged for the wood. I could be way off base but that is how I see it. I assume the wood is more expensive than the foam and once installed wouldn't be seen by the homeowner so the contractor used foam instead?
Semper Fi
That's what I read also... double-billing someone who doesn't know the difference. Or at least they thought she didn't, and now they're being challenged. Mediation sounds like the next step in the process, according to the contract, from there it either goes to arbitration or court.
Stucco is pretty rare around here. Marine. EIF systems are seen on commercial buildings and sometimes architectural details are built up with a wood backer, then foam board, then the stucco. I hope the poster wasn't ripped off. Obviously, no body was paying attention to what was being done. There are some unscrupulous contractors out there but I like to think they are in the minority.Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
There are some unscrupulous contractors out there but I like to think they are in the minority.
I feel the same way. Hard for a HO to keep up with the work progression especially if they work themselves and or have very little knowledge of the building process. They don't usually know many contractors nor work with them and will instead pick up the phone book and check the yellow pages. As a HO it is hard to find "quality" contractors that will give quality work at competitive prices. In my life I try to use the "you get what you paid for" mentality. I try to go the middle of the road in pricing unless I really know the contractor will give a much better product to be able to substantiate a higher cost of the job. You are at the mercy of the contractor to complete the work professionally and correct. That is why it is very important to use contractors that have been referred. IMO.
Semper Fi
If the quoted description had not listed lumber sizes (2x8, 2x12) then one might argue that "plant-on lumber" is a regional term, and local convention is that foam is used as the base material. Then the contractor might have done it correctly. But since they listed lumber sizes, sounds like someone took some liberties.
In the olde days, didn't they have exposed lumber on the houses, with plaster in-fill? Maybe the design intent was to have real exposed lumber, and the gc modified it for a more modern look.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Hammer, you said: What they actually did was to use foam instead of the wood then stucco. From reading the other posts I gather that foam is ok but she was charged for the wood. I could be way off base but that is how I see it. I assume the wood is more expensive than the foam and once installed wouldn't be seen by the homeowner so the contractor used foam instead?
-----------------
Yes...except I asked for the wood trim to be removed and replaced with the foam to cut down on maintenance. The contractor apparently forgot that and assumed the wood would be replaced after the house was restuccoed when the contract was drawn up....and then didn't refund me. I'm sure I didn't see any wood go on under the foam...and if they had put wood there they could have just stuccoed over that...which would have been more durable than this foam stuff you can stick a pencil through (or doorknob as I found out). Since this is a phantom charge that the new "fix-up-other-idiot's-messes" contractor wouldn't be doing anything with, it needs to be an adjustment in the cost of the contract (if the fix up guy charged to fix it, it would be counted against the cost I paid and would factor into damages).
Huck, I think I remember you from before when I was having attorney problems. I fired the son of a gun and now have an excellent (and very expensive firm.) The contractor is insured but we don't know if insurance will pay a settlement or just defend the contractor. For others...this is a really fun situation where I was scammed by a contractor, the son-in-law of a co-worker, who let his license lapse and didn't get the framing plumb, and then an interior designer who was working for me at the time. She announced she had a contractor's license and subs and promised to fix his crooked junk but just built right on top of the mess. His work was so bad no one else would touch this liability she told me,...and assured me over and over how "lucky" I was that she was there. Anyway, I'm running into all kinds of fun stuff like altered invoices, missing invoices and things that weren't done but charged for now that she had to hand over her paperwork. She has marked every hiccup up 40% and higher and I was clueless.
Good news in CA...there is a law that any contractor who is unlicensed at any time on a job has to pay back every red cent given to him plus 10% simple interest. We have a summary judgement hearing on Sept. 20. A title check shows that the doofus removed his name from the title of his house after I sued him so we will overturn that and put a lien on his house. Bad news is he will probably claim bankruptcy and I don't know if liens hold.
For those insterested here is the orginal thread.http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=70276.1&maxT=6
Thanks for the thread, Bill. I think. Not exactly a swing around memory lane that is uplifting....but this is...regarding the wrong color bath tile floor she made me pay to tear up. I said back then " Unless she is doctoring invoices they should show what the tile guy said...she sent back tile and ordered the same thing again. "
I'm a prophet! But the invoices that showed the return were missing...a coincidence, I'm sure. <cough> So I went to the tile company to ask them to explain the the paperwork to me. I ran into a woman, about to leave the company for other employment, who found the contractor so disagreeable that she remembered not only her but the tile order. She explained to me what had happened. The contractor obviously thought the wrong color tile was the company's mistake...not hers. The salelady set about trying to find me the missing invoices...which were 2 years old by now. Saleslady calls corporate and they tell her that they can't give them out to anyone but the contractor, obviously. I tell her I'd be happy to get a subpoena. In a few minutes corporate calls back and tells the saleslady that since she is leaving the company....she would tell her how to get into the computer and find the invoices. So she does, prints them off...and sure enough, the contractor sent back the wrong color tile and re-ordered the exact same tile...and then installed it and blamed me so she could charge me to fix it. Better still...she wrote on an early invoice that she sent the tile back because of the color. Months later, after I told her to rip it all out, she writes in that I wanted it torn out because I didn't like the blue accent pieces. (I always wondered what happened to them...when I asked why she didn't put them in the second time she told me that I would like it better without them.)
NEW question:
Work was for a 9 ft extension of the end of the house. The rest of the house was restuccoed so it would all match. They did the chicken wire stuff up to the gray cement looking stuff before spraying on the stucco. This contractor had a habit, as time went on, of finding ways to make new costs appear. I scared her enough that she refunded one backdated invoice that she said I never paid (because it never existed). I'm sure there are other instances.
Anyway...an extra stucco charge is for $2,250.00 to "repair stucco around 10 windows where wood was to make flush for new foam."
Now...if they were doing the entire process from the chicken wire to the spray (which was done after the wood was removed, obviously) ...what "repair" would be necessary? If the stucco wasn't "flush"...it was the stucco they put up. Why would they need to repair what they did? Is this legitimate?
So you asked for the wood to be removed and replaced with foam and now you are complaining that the foam is too easily damaged? Sounds like you made the decision to over ride his recommendation. I dont see any way for you to prove what is under the stucco or not under the stucco without tearing it off.
Not complaining...just observing. That is what the contractor recommended to reduce maintenance. Sounded good at the time. She either forgot when she whipped that contract up...or did it on purpose. She had the stucco bill up to $22,000 before she was finished with me. The actual cost, as I can see from her discovery, was $12,000. This is not an upright person so I am looking at everything with distrust. I have to get the figures into my lawyer tomorrow so he can submit our brief and I am realizing that the invoices and contract are so convoluted I can't figure them out...then I remembered the contractor elves who helped me when this all started. So here I am again.
The windows were put in before the stucco. So I am wondering if being charged to "repair stucco" around windows when they did the stucco is legitimate. I could understand it if the windows were put in after the stucco and it got torn up but that didn't happen. The repair charge is separate and came in months after the other invoice. They did such a crummy job that even I could see it was bad...like they stuccoed over satellite cables, stuccoed a sprinkler to the wall and that was just the beginning. So I'm wondering if this is just an after thought to try and get some money for the return visits (3 of them). I was charged $2,250 to "repair stucco" around 10 windows.
It might be a legitimate charge, might not be. Why did the repairs have to be done? I am quite sure there is more than one side to the story. Just because someone charges more than the job costs doesnt make them a crook. There is really no way anyone here can tell you if those charges were legitimate or not. Too many details that we will never know. You seem to think they were not so go with it. The lawyers and insurance people will take over from there. Just be honest about it. Nobody is going to win at this point but the attorneys anyway.
I am trying to be honest. That is why I am asking. Perhaps I need to rephrase the question. When windows are already in place and a house is stuccoed from scratch, is there any legitimate reason that the stucco job that was just finished would need to be repaired around the windows? There wasn't any vandalism so I can't think of any reason.... but if there is a reason I'd like to know. Honesty aside, it is just plain stupid to give figures to attorneys that I can't support. As for crooks...I'm comfortable in calling anyone a crook who creates bogus invoices, backdates them...and then alters discovery documents to try and erase the evidence. I have found four of those so far.
Correct installation of new windows in existing stucco requires that the stucco be cut back, the window installed and flashed correctly and then the stucco repaired around the windows.
Now, you did have the whole house re-stucco'd, but that is typically a single coat over the existing finish coat. Done right, around the windows they would need to install expanded lath and then apply at least 2 coats (curing at least several days between coats) to bring te repair up to the level of the existing so that a finish coat could be applied over everything at once.
So... it could be legitimate work. And they could have correctly flashed the windows. No way of telling unless you tear it all off and check at least one.
OK, that helps a lot. It could have been legitimate then. I guess what is confusing me is why this would not have been included in the original bid instead of a separate invoice four months later...surely it was an obvious need from the beginning. I guess they could have forgotten to include it or something. On a contractor scale of 1 to 10, I am working with 10s now...those stucco guys were about a 2 in comparison.
Maybe this question will put this to rest (and if it doesn't I promise to kill it anyway) ...would the repair you described have been done before or after they put that gray cement looking coat all over the house? The repair charge was after they had put the gray stuff on. We had a very rainy season that year and they left the gray coat on for a couple of months before they came back to put the stucco finish on.
The "repair" to fill in around the windows would have been the first stucco work after the windows were installed - before applying the overall coat to the whole house.
Update in case anyone is on the edge of their seat. There is no lumber under the foam. After checking her measurements, I was obviously charged to replace the original wood trim and then later charged to change out all wood trim for foam. No refund. Attorney told me to have the contractor submit the cost to take down the foam and put up the wood (and painting) that was bought and paid for in the contract as part of the damages.
This is just one example of many. She also charged me for a redwood deck and put in fir...no refund. No. 1 on my Top Ten list for this week is the invoice I found from the cabinet maker. The cabinet company charged and was paid $2,300 for built-in cabinetry including installation. My bill from the contractor was $2,600 for the cabinet with an extra $750 charge for installation tacked on.
I'll just let the funny stucco charge go since it could have been legitimate.
Thanks everybody! The happy side of the "As the Contractor Turns" is finding out there really are good people in the construction business. I'm using Angie's List now and putting them all in.
No. 1 on my Top Ten list for this week is the invoice I found from the cabinet maker. The cabinet company charged and was paid $2,300 for built-in cabinetry including installation. My bill from the contractor was $2,600 for the cabinet with an extra $750 charge for installation tacked on.
Not saying this is the case with your contractor, who sounds like a scammer. But oftentimes I'll mark up my cabinet guys bid, to cover my time spent designing and drawing the cabinets, meetings with the H.O. and the cab. sub, checking on production and insuring quality control (lots of details that are easy to get wrong - esp. if the homeowner has specific wants) scheduling and overseeing installation, as well as taking liability for anything that goes wrong in the process. I also typically charge more for the install than my cabinet guy does. So I'll usually include my installation cost in the bid, in case I have to do it. If it works out that he can do it, fine, but I need something in there in case I have any corrections or call-backs."...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Just for the record, Huck...I would never fault the contractor for his fee. My current contractor is charging 20% and I would guess that he probably gets more with trade discounts from his suppliers and he is worth every penny. Problem with this lady is that the only tool she was trained on was a tape measure.
I've got my damages figured out best as I can so next on the agenda is mediation and summary judgement on the first guy.
I figured that. From what you've said, it sounds exactly like you've figured it. I just wanted to explain, for the benefit of the peanut gallery, there are times we contractors gotta legitimately mark things up. Good example is a cabinet job I posted on another thread - I paid for the cabinets up front, didn't collect my pay for almost 2 months. Stuff like that is why I mark up. And the design, etc. I mentioned
BTW, wish you the best on your judgement, let us know how it turns out! Legitimate contractors hate scammers, because they give us all a bad rep."...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
It is difficult to understand what you are asking. After the stucco was installed there would be no reason to repair it unless something was changed, damaged, installed incorrectly or something along those lines. That could be a legitimate charge or not depending on the circumstance. I am assuming that repairs were actually made. On the other hand the repairs invoiced could relate to the repairs done before the windows were installed or after they were installed in order to prep for stucco. So the answer is maybe they are legitimate charges maybe not. It is just too general of a description on the invoice to tell one way or another.