Home builders fight against providing a 10-year warranty

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:40 PM MDT


PHOENIX — Officials from the organizations that represent home builders in Arizona are asking a judge to prevent a vote on  measure which would require their members to provide 10-year warranties on what they sell.


 The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Maricopa County Superior Court, contends that the petitions misled signers because the summary says its approval would provide a warranty on homes.

 That’s true, But attorney Lisa Hauser said Proposition 201 also would provide some additional legal protections to those who buy new commercial buildings.

 Hauser also contends the initiative itself is legally flawed because it does not have an actual title. She said the fact tha the text of the measure saying that it should be referred to as the “Homeowner Bill of Rights’’ does not meet the legal requirements.

 And she said the text of the measure fails to put all new language in capital letters — a requirement to show petition signers what is new — a flaw Hauser said will allow a judge to declare that the entire initiative cannot be put before voters in November.

 Calls to the attorney representing the backers of the initiative were not immediately returned.

 The legal maneuvers are designed to keep voters from getting to weigh in on what could prove to be a popular measure, especially among home buyers unhappy with what they believe are construction flaws.

 The key provision of the initiative, crafted by and financed by the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, is that requirement for a 10-year warranty.

 There is no such requirement now in state law. Instead homeowners who contend there are construction defects have to sue, something that lawmakers have said can be done only within eight years of the home being completed.

 That warranty provision governs only residential property.

 But Hauser noted that another provision of the measure  extending that right to sue over construction defects to 10 years — applies to anyone who develops, sells, designs, plans or builds any real property. And that, she said makes the summar description of the initiative false and deliberately deceptive.

 She conceded, though, that the actual language of the initiative was attached to each petition, meaning that signers could actually read the full text for themselves rather than relying on the summary.

 Aside from the warranty requirement, other major provisions of

 Proposition 201 would:

 - allow homeowners to help choose the contractors hired by the builders to make the repairs;

 - give buyers the right to cancel within 100 days and get back most of their deposit;

 - let homeowners sue without fear of having to pay a builder’s legal fees if they lose.

 It also would require that model homes be outfitted exactly the way they would look for the purchase price advertised or have a price tag on each of the non-standard items.

 Spencer Kamps, lobbyist for the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, said his members believe that the measure, i approved in November, would lead to more disputes between buyers and builders being resolved in court rather than through negotiations.

 Kamps also contends the initiative itself was started as “a type of blackmail’’ by the union because a specific Arizona subcontractor who does heating and air conditioning work for home builders — he would not say who — refused to unionize.

 Richard McCracken, the attorney for the union, denied earlier this month that was the case.

 But Sean Mahoney, the union’s regional director, conceded to Capitol Media Services last year that the initiative might never have been launched had home builders helped push to ensure tha union contractors are hired for home construction jobs. He said if union-trained workers were doing home construction “we probably wouldn’t have the defect issue and we probably wouldn’ be pushing this.’’

Comments

    Amy wrote on Sep 27, 2008 9:28 AM:

    " Our foundation is cracking inside our 4 1/2 year old home and our complaint was discarded by the homebuilder who said they are not responsible and our claim declined with the Registrar of Contractors (without an in person inspection). It is getting worse - any advice? "

    CSch wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:28 PM:

    " Some states have a 10 year statute of limitations on construction defects. A new house should not have major problems when it's only 10 years old, and some serious problems do not appear for a few years. Foundation failure or other structural failure for example, can make a house so seriously defective it's not worth repairing. There are too many construction shortcuts being taken by this industry that lead to serious damage. Instead of trying to shackle their customers legal recourse they should be building houses RIGHT. "

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   









Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750