Lawyers Send Vague Construction Defect Notices in Attempt to Subvert SB 800’s Right of Repair

It seemed like such a simple concept. If there are any problems with your new home, you ask the homebuilder to fix the problems. If the builder makes the repair, the problem is solved and there’s no need to go to court. If the builder doesn’t fix the problems, you can go to court to force it to pay for the needed repairs.
That was the common sense idea behind the groundbreaking SB 800 construction defect litigation reform known as the "Right to Repair Law". But since its adoption in 2002, some of the lawyers who were cut out of the process by SB 800 began to devise ways to get back into the action. Instead of telling the builder what is specifically wrong with the home, these lawyers send builders vague and non-specific notices of general defects such as “soils/drainage problems,” “slab efflorescence/peeling/chafing,” structural/framing defects/deficiencies,” window condensation – multiple locations,” “heating/cooling deficiencies,” and “window leaks – multiple locations.”
Imagine the dilemma of the builder who is given this list of repairs. It can’t determine what the problem is or where it is located. How can it fix a defect that is not even described in the slightest detail? If homeowners can assert unknown and speculative claims, there can be no right to repair. The claim will almost certainly go to litigation instead.
In order for the reforms of the Right to Repair Law to have any meaning, homeowners must properly describe the facts that lead them to believe their homes are defective. Only if provided this information, can a builder locate, inspect and repair the defects.
This week we filed an amicus “friend of the court” letter asking the California Supreme Court to take up a construction defect case brought against Standard Pacific. That case arose after the homeowners’ lawyers had given the builder a generic list of unspecific defects, and Standard Pacific was unable to identify, let alone repair, the alleged problems. Standard Pacific asked the homeowners and their lawyers to be more specific, and to make the homes available for inspection, but the homeowners and their lawyers refused. The Supreme Court did not accept the case, but this issue will surely arise again in other litigation if this practice continues.
At some point a court will recognize the game that is being played by construction defect lawyers who yearn to return to the litigious pre-SB 800 era, but until that day homebuilders will need to remain vigilant in upholding the common sense ideas behind the Right to Repair Act.

By Jon Goetz