• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Can an individual owner sue a builder for const. defects

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Milton Dammers

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California (southern)

I live in a condominium project built 7 years ago and consisting of about 30 buildings. The buildings in the project have from 4 to 6 units each. I live in a 6 unit building.

The 6 unit buildings consistently suffer from roof leaks, severe stucco cracking, slab cracking, and landscaping that has led to rusting "weep screed". These are clearly construction defects.

The HOA board has decided that it will not sue the builder.

My questions are:

1) can I sue the builder to get the money to have my building's roof, stucco, slab and landscaping fixed?

2) can I sue the builder to get the money to have all 6 unit buildings' roofs, stucco, slabs and landscaping fixed?

3) can I sue the builder to get the money to have all of the other potential construction defects in the project fixed, even if the defects are in 4 unit and 5 unit buildings?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:


Don't Blow the Statute of Limitations!

That should answer your question in regards to the legality. Basically, if the buildings were purchased prior to Jan 1, 2003, then you have 10 years to sue. If they were bought after, then there is other criteria to be met. You say your place is 7 years old, so I would assume you fall into the old Statute of Limitations: 10 years.

However, you still have to deal with the Association, since all those defects appear to be with Association owned property. You do not own the roof, the Assoc. does. Of course they would be violating their fiduciary responsibility if they did not seek some form of redress from the builder, if they are able. That might be enough to convince them to at least try!

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

Milton Dammers

Junior Member
Don't Blow the Statute of Limitations!

the link is dead, though I'm certain I won't miss the statute of limitations.

That should answer your question in regards to the legality. Basically, if the buildings were purchased prior to Jan 1, 2003, then you have 10 years to sue. If they were bought after, then there is other criteria to be met. You say your place is 7 years old, so I would assume you fall into the old Statute of Limitations: 10 years.

Thanks, but the statute of limitations is not the legality I'm unsure about. Instead, I'm looking for whether or not I can be the sole plaintiff under the 3 scenarios above.


However, you still have to deal with the Association, since all those defects appear to be with Association owned property. You do not own the roof, the Assoc. does. Of course they would be violating their fiduciary responsibility if they did not seek some form of redress from the builder, if they are able. That might be enough to convince to at least try!

This is closer to what I'm after. Is there a case or a code section that gives the HOA exclusive right to be plaintiff under the three scenarios above, AND/OR is there a case or code section that prohibits me from being the sole plaintiff? Let's put aside my potential lawsuit against the HOA for breach of duty for now. I need to know if I can go against the builder, not the HOA.

Good luck.

Thanks, I'll need it.
Private_person didn't really answer the questions in the original post, though I thank private_person for the effort and attempt. If anyone else out there can answer the original post or the italicized text above, I'd greatly appreciate it.
 
First, the link IS NOT dead. Just because the forum stopped you from clicking it, does not make it dead. Ever heard of COPY & PASTE?

Second, let's look at your original questions:

My questions are:

1) can I sue the builder to get the money to have my building's roof, stucco, slab and landscaping fixed?

2) can I sue the builder to get the money to have all 6 unit buildings' roofs, stucco, slabs and landscaping fixed?

3) can I sue the builder to get the money to have all of the other potential construction defects in the project fixed, even if the defects are in 4 unit and 5 unit buildings?
And your new question:

This is closer to what I'm after. Is there a case or a code section that gives the HOA exclusive right to be plaintiff under the three scenarios above, AND/OR is there a case or code section that prohibits me from being the sole plaintiff? Let's put aside my potential lawsuit against the HOA for breach of duty for now. I need to know if I can go against the builder, not the HOA.
The answer is NO to all of them. No you cannot be the sole plaintiff. Look in your docs and you will see that a unit owner is not allowed to make binding decision, enter into contracts, etc. on behalf of the Association... and the damages belong to the Association, not you. The roof, siding, slabs, etc are NOT yours (which incidentally I stated in my first response).

So it seems I did answer your question the first time around, you just failed to see it.
 

Milton Dammers

Junior Member
Well, it looks like my thanks to "private_person" were premature. I take them back. "Private_person" seems to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.

First off, in response to a very sarcastic and condescending "ever heard of COPY & PASTE?", yes I have. As a matter of fact, that was the first thing I did. This is what the page says:

Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Don't Blow the Statute of Limitations! does not exist.
Go to blog homepage

Perhaps you should check web pages before sarcastically recommending them.

As far as your statement "So it seems I did answer your question the first time around, you just failed to see it", I hope you didn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back and attempting to insult me. Actually, it seems you didn't answer the question. All you did was say I have to "deal with the association". Hmmm, does that mean you think I have to sue the association, or does it mean that I have to beg them to sue the builder, or does it mean....who knows what it means. What it DOESN'T mean is that I cannot sue the builder individually.

I agree that your SECOND response attempts to answer my inquiry, but why procrastinate until the second response to address whether I can proceed against the builder....and why with such vitriol and venom?

Perhaps someone else would care to be civil and respond to a neophyte that naively thought "there's no such thing as a stupid question".
 
Well, it looks like my thanks to "private_person" were premature. I take them back. "Private_person" seems to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.

First off, in response to a very sarcastic and condescending "ever heard of COPY & PASTE?", yes I have. As a matter of fact, that was the first thing I did. This is what the page says:

Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Don't Blow the Statute of Limitations! does not exist.
Go to blog homepage

Perhaps you should check web pages before sarcastically recommending them.

As far as your statement "So it seems I did answer your question the first time around, you just failed to see it", I hope you didn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back and attempting to insult me. Actually, it seems you didn't answer the question. All you did was say I have to "deal with the association". Hmmm, does that mean you think I have to sue the association, or does it mean that I have to beg them to sue the builder, or does it mean....who knows what it means. What it DOESN'T mean is that I cannot sue the builder individually.

I agree that your SECOND response attempts to answer my inquiry, but why procrastinate until the second response to address whether I can proceed against the builder....and why with such vitriol and venom?

Perhaps someone else would care to be civil and respond to a neophyte that naively thought "there's no such thing as a stupid question".
Well it seems you have heard of Copy & Paste, but lack the ability to put it to use. I just checked it again and it is fine. Try copying just the link californiaconstructiondefect.blogspot.com

And since you still can't see the answer in my first response. Here it is in big black letters:

However, you still have to deal with the Association, since all those defects appear to be with Association owned property.
My apologies if I didn't spell it out for you plainly enough. The very fact that you can't comprehend what you read should tell you not to sue anybody, unless you like throwing your money away. Well, that and because you can't even recognize a URL.

And my response was probably nicer than you would get from the old timers here. They probably would have answered your entire post with "Depends. Consult a lawyer."
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The link works fine. Here it is without the forum-added junk:

http://californiaconstructiondefect.blogspot.com/

And, as was further pointed out, your question WAS answered. You are just unable to see it.

Well, it looks like my thanks to "private_person" were premature. I take them back. "Private_person" seems to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.

First off, in response to a very sarcastic and condescending "ever heard of COPY & PASTE?", yes I have. As a matter of fact, that was the first thing I did. This is what the page says:

Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Don't Blow the Statute of Limitations! does not exist.
Go to blog homepage

Perhaps you should check web pages before sarcastically recommending them.

As far as your statement "So it seems I did answer your question the first time around, you just failed to see it", I hope you didn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back and attempting to insult me. Actually, it seems you didn't answer the question. All you did was say I have to "deal with the association". Hmmm, does that mean you think I have to sue the association, or does it mean that I have to beg them to sue the builder, or does it mean....who knows what it means. What it DOESN'T mean is that I cannot sue the builder individually.

I agree that your SECOND response attempts to answer my inquiry, but why procrastinate until the second response to address whether I can proceed against the builder....and why with such vitriol and venom?

Perhaps someone else would care to be civil and respond to a neophyte that naively thought "there's no such thing as a stupid question".
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top