To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

Is this building OBVIOUSLY bad?

OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
So, some interesting information today. Turns out that they do have engineered building plans for this building. A new employee told me the name of the company that provided the engineering plans for the building, and that they have them. The issue, is that they went against the engineering plans. The plans the engineers made had a gable roof instead of a single slope. I'm desperately trying to get those plans to see what else they didn't do that were on the engineers plan. They told me that they would email them to me today (they didn't). I'm calling again in the morning. I'm being as nice to them as possible, and trying to work with them.
The fact that there are engineering plans, and they weren't against them, makes me feel better about if I have to go the lawyer route. Will keep you guys up to date.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

readhead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
6,177
Location
Durango, Co.
That begs the question, was a single slope building always the plan presented to you? Because even the very uninitiated builder would know the difference between a gable building and a single slope building. Something very dodgy is going on here. Can’t wait to hear the update. You may be venturing into legal country sooner than you think.
 

ybnormal

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
5,002
Like I told my wife when my neighbors new construction blocked our drainage... "A backhoe is cheaper than a lawyer." Dug a new ditch.

Your chances of recovering anything from an unlicensed fly-by-night contractor are slim to none. Money would be better spent on an engineered solution instead of a lawyer. Put a plan together and implement it instead of hiring a lawyer to lead you on a "pay by the hour" wild goose chase against a shyster that only has to swap magnetic signs on his truck to get out of paying you a dime.

The GJ - where free structural engineering and legal advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.

Good luck. You are going to need it.
true enough, but he can always file a claim in Small Claims Court. depending on the state limits, he may be able to claim substantial $$$$ since the contractor will probably not show up. and so while he has a claim and may have to enforce it, there are different ways to do so. one of the ways we did it 25 yrs ago was to place a judgment lien on our scumbags home. he couldn't sell his house w/o being able to pay us off
 

ybnormal

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
5,002
If they poured a monolithic slab with thickened edges it might be possible to come in with new columns against the existing, 40' glulam beams and 4x purlins, all on Simpson hangers. Frame conventional 2x6 walls and then shear everything with 5/8" OSB. An interior shear wall is almost certainly going to be required.

If preserving the 40 foot clearspan isn't an issue, breaking the framing into 20' spans with load bearing posts could greatly reduce the cost.

Building looks good on the outside, but some real WTF going on inside. Kinda like my ex...😉
well, we now know your ex- is NOT Nata Lee
 

PCustoms

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
22,577
Location
VT
So, some interesting information today. Turns out that they do have engineered building plans for this building. A new employee told me the name of the company that provided the engineering plans for the building, and that they have them. The issue, is that they went against the engineering plans. The plans the engineers made had a gable roof instead of a single slope. I'm desperately trying to get those plans to see what else they didn't do that were on the engineers plan. They told me that they would email them to me today (they didn't). I'm calling again in the morning. I'm being as nice to them as possible, and trying to work with them.
The fact that there are engineering plans, and they weren't against them, makes me feel better about if I have to go the lawyer route. Will keep you guys up to date.
Lawyer, now!

I understand the hesitation, but there's a time and a place.
 

drmarkr

ALLIANCE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
4,206
Location
Tucson
To the OP. I wouldn't put much credence in the "free consultation" from the law firm....they're lawyers, not engineers.

As others have said, it's the structural engineering expertise that will guide your actions. If THAT shows negligence on the part of the contractor, then you're going to open your wallet to pay for the best attorney(s) in the area. Assuming the contractor even has assets worth going after.

I'm just a doctor, of course, but I occasionally pretend to be a contractor and less occasionally a lawyer. And I do love Holiday Inn Express.

EDIT: I didn't see Readhead's posts....please ignore my jibberish, lol. The OG has spoken.
 
Last edited:

PugetDude

ALLIANCE MEMBER
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
22,358
Location
Superstition Mountains, AZ
To the OP. I wouldn't put much credence in the "free consultation" from the law firm....they're lawyers, not engineers.

As others have said, it's the structural engineering expertise that will guide your actions. If THAT shows negligence on the part of the contractor, then you're going to open your wallet to pay for the best attorney(s) in the area. Assuming the contractor even has assets worth going after.

I'm just a doctor, of course, but I occasionally pretend to be a contractor and less occasionally a lawyer. And I do love Holiday Inn Express.
This should determine whether the OP should pursue a relationship with a lawyer, a structural engineer, or another contractor.
 

Boogerman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
833
Location
aspen cove hill
Interesting that original design was for gable roof. That would resolve the moment concentration at the top, but would still leave the lateral wind resistance problem. I would expect the plans to have a diaphragm design on the bottom chord of the rafters/trusses in that case. It'll be interesting to see how the design engineer accounted for wind loads.

This would be interesting personally if you were near me. There's some easy fixes, but they will all require eliminating the open space and large spans. Break it up into 20x20 cubes, and it becomes a lot more structurally sound. As Redhead said, foundation will come into play if you try to beef up the framing and keep the open spans. And, remedial work to insure watertightness will be a given. I know I didn't like the limited views I saw of the window flashing treatment, but hard to tell from the photos.
 

Ak Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
532
Location
Interior AK
Based on what I’ve read here plus the thread about the leaking windows I’d be inclined to tear the entire place down and start over again.
 

Countyroadtrailers

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
98
Location
Alabama
Scary, but giving that the building is pretty, assembled, and likely paid for I would have it fixed, and quite easily minus the need to cut out and form some beam and post footers.

I would have it engineered, and use the existing “rafters” as purlins and weld them directly to my new beam x3 running side to side. It could be built to order by any steel building manufacture without siding. Have it engineered to the weight loads of the existing building as a freestanding roof only metal structure so that all the racking prevention is built into the columns.

I’m not sure what part of Alabama you are in but I would expect


Would whip you up a freestanding interior backbone with or without interior columns that would likely be difficult to get into position as you have a sag, but that could be jacked up without difficulty, it’s just work.

The windows can always be fixed, even if you simply but side to side column less awnings on them attached to new interior columns.

I would just treat this as a building that assembled in reverse order. Forklift for de-sagging. Use your rafters as purlins and move on.

You could even have the structure designed as a backbone that’s set back to the interior and cantilevered over your mezzanine leaving that in place.

1703978230316.jpeg
 

readhead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
6,177
Location
Durango, Co.
I agree that this building could be repaired but at what cost and compromises to the design. I was in the structural fabrication and erecting business for twenty five years and still sell metal buildings currently. Now anything is possible but is it practical. Building a new steel structure inside this existing structure could very quickly exceed the cost of the original building.

This is where the OP is in a very bad position. Someone is going to spend a lot of money and someone is going to loose a lot of money. Chances are the contractor will slip by with a judgment against him that will never get paid and the owner gets left with a mess. The only possible bright spot might be the builders liability insurance if he has any.

None of us spectators here really have a good grasp of the overall situation and most of the advice is speculation. This is one of the worst “bad building situations” I have seen and I have been involved in more than a few similar reworks. I think the way forward will entirely depend on the engineers reports. The OP will have to decide which way to go based on the information provided.
 

Countyroadtrailers

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
98
Location
Alabama
I agree that this building could be repaired but at what cost and compromises to the design. I was in the structural fabrication and erecting business for twenty five years and still sell metal buildings currently. Now anything is possible but is it practical. Building a new steel structure inside this existing structure could very quickly exceed the cost of the original building.

This is where the OP is in a very bad position. Someone is going to spend a lot of money and someone is going to loose a lot of money. Chances are the contractor will slip by with a judgment against him that will never get paid and the owner gets left with a mess. The only possible bright spot might be the builders liability insurance if he has any.

None of us spectators here really have a good grasp of the overall situation and most of the advice is speculation. This is one of the worst “bad building situations” I have seen and I have been involved in more than a few similar reworks. I think the way forward will entirely depend on the engineers reports. The OP will have to decide which way to go based on the information provided.
I can agree with that, did we ever find out how much he has to date payed out?

I just know if it was mine, I would be running beams and recovering some of my money by using what was there.

I just can’t see with the demo cost, trash bill, and other considerations costing more then using this as a skin with a new backbone.

Any money put to legal fees will likely be lost, and even if they have insurance without e&o coverage they likely still wouldn’t pay since it’s really their redesign.
 

bluedog225

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
3,276
Location
Texas
The optimistic formula for legal intervention is something like consult, retain, pay (not going to be contingent), win (maybe)/or settle(maybe), try to collect (probably not), end up with money spent for no benefit (maybe a property lien). Reminds me that you can check to see if he owns property. And check to see if your deal was with him or his company. Makes a diff. Don’t forget to factor in him shutting business and walking away to start another (like towing companies do). Or filing personal bankruptcy. [I’m not your lawyer; this is not legal advice; consult an attorney; buy low; sell high etc 😂]

It’s a good looking structure. I see this building like siding put up before the structure. The idea of throwing it all away would bug me.

I gotta ask what fresh heck will asking about the foundation tell us?
 

LOW1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
2,637
Location
ontario
Take things one step at a time. First an engineer. He or she will want to see all documents and photos regarding the build And will want to visit the site and then write a report. Designing fix options will also be needed. My guess on cost would be $2500 to $5000 but you will want to ask.

And then get the written input and estimates from contractors. Expect to pay them for their work.

And then a lawyer. This could easily cost $5000 or $10,000 and that’s before the real in court work starts. In addition to that there will be expenses for the expert witnesses that you need, etc.

Construction litigation is a deep black hole that you pour money into. And it’s almost always more than one party’s fault. And after the fact fixes are frequently not as good as original quality construction would be.

A fix may involve interior columns or other intrusive fixes which are perhaps what you wanted to avoid in the first place.
 
Last edited:

CraigStu

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
4,023
Location
Blacksburg, Va
I think drmarkr's point is important. "Assuming the contractor even has assets worth going after." This can determine how far you go w/ lawyers. The other important point is were you dealing w/ a person or a corporation? Most any small business has a corporation which may own equipment but probably not the guy's house. But say he is dumb w/ no corporation but has a house and you put a lien against it. Great, but how many $1000s did that cost, and you get nothing until he sells it. And depending on how much equity he has, you could still get nothing because I am pretty sure the mortgage company has a primary lien so they get paid first. Same goes for trucks and other construction equipment.
 

readhead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
6,177
Location
Durango, Co.
My point exactly. Judgments are very often worthless. Having been in the construction industry for over fifty years I have seen most every scam and irresponsible behavior out there. Usually the customer is the loser. The OP needs to be careful, deliberate and well informed about how to proceed. I’m not generally the guy that seeks legal recourse but it may be worth a look in this case. Again, it all comes down to what the engineers reports reveal.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
Alright, well this just got a lot better or worse for me. I have the engineering plans. Attached below. As you can see it's nothing like my building. The supports for the trusses were supposed to be doubled up, and it says they aren't to be spaced more than 8 ft. They are actually spaced 10 feet, and not doubled up. For the ends of the building it says those supports shouldn't except 5' OC, and they are actually 10' OC. There's also a support in the middle for some kind of garage or something...idk what that is. This design has my address on it, and was definitely meant to be mine. They flat out ignored the engineering plans, and built me a tiny carport design with no structural integrity. I don't know how to tell if a company has enough money to go after in a lawsuit, but I think these guys do have enough to go after. Here's what my plans are now.
1. I'm going to go to them with the plans, and pictures of the house and point out the differences. I'm going to ask them to fix the differences other than the single slope roof of course, but I'm going to ask them to double those up, and add some kind of support (maybe even a wall down the middle to support them...idk yet.
2. If they're anything but overjoyed to help me, I'm going to hire a structural engineer and a lawyer.

Advice/opinions welcome.
 

Attachments

  • mb_final_edited.png
    mb_final_edited.png
    7 MB · Views: 191
OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
My point exactly. Judgments are very often worthless. Having been in the construction industry for over fifty years I have seen most every scam and irresponsible behavior out there. Usually the customer is the loser. The OP needs to be careful, deliberate and well informed about how to proceed. I’m not generally the guy that seeks legal recourse but it may be worth a look in this case. Again, it all comes down to what the engineers reports reveal.
I'm worried that if I go the lawyer route, even if it's a bad idea they'll say that I should go their route. I mean, they make money if it's good or bad for me. I feel pretty confident that this company has enough money that it wouldn't be useless to sue. They have a factory with forklifts and equipment to weld all of these trusses together. And I know they put up at least 3-4 buildings a month (both larger and smaller than mine oddly lenough.)
 

LOW1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
2,637
Location
ontario
This is where the OP is in a very bad position. Someone is going to spend a lot of money and someone is going to loose a lot of money.
The Lawyers will come out just fine.

OP can only come out ahead if he can recover his attorney fees plus the cost to repair/replace the building as well as any lost property value.

And that will only be if the contractor has insurance or is willing to accept responsibility.

I do not want to sound negative but OP may want to look at this as a pure business decision - how can I get out of this mess as best possible for the least amount of money?
 

Zeke

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
17,176
Location
Long Beach CA, the sewer by the sea.
Alright, well this just got a lot better or worse for me. I have the engineering plans. Attached below. As you can see it's nothing like my building. The supports for the trusses were supposed to be doubled up, and it says they aren't to be spaced more than 8 ft. They are actually spaced 10 feet, and not doubled up. For the ends of the building it says those supports shouldn't except 5' OC, and they are actually 10' OC. There's also a support in the middle for some kind of garage or something...idk what that is. This design has my address on it, and was definitely meant to be mine. They flat out ignored the engineering plans, and built me a tiny carport design with no structural integrity. I don't know how to tell if a company has enough money to go after in a lawsuit, but I think these guys do have enough to go after. Here's what my plans are now.
1. I'm going to go to them with the plans, and pictures of the house and point out the differences. I'm going to ask them to fix the differences other than the single slope roof of course, but I'm going to ask them to double those up, and add some kind of support (maybe even a wall down the middle to support them...idk yet.
2. If they're anything but overjoyed to help me, I'm going to hire a structural engineer and a lawyer.

Advice/opinions welcome.
Opinion: this make no sense. The 2 buildings share nothing in common. The building you have is a contemporary design. The plans are for an ordinary building. I don't have time to go further but something is not adding up in the least. It's as if you told someone to build a building and then left town. And there was no communication of what type or shape beforehand.

I think this thread is a farce.
 

Boogerman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
833
Location
aspen cove hill
I agree after seeing the plans versus what's built that you have a very clear suit against the builder. Everything that's been said about chances of recovering more than attorney fees applies of course.

The original design is pretty good, as a concept. The columns aren't "paired", they are trusses. The side carport structure or whatever it is (that appears to have been dropped off the actual built structure) creates a strong braced frame to provide lateral wind resistance. I would have preferred a bit more lateral wind resistant design perpendicular to the gable end walls, but other than that I think it's a good design.

Are you telling us everything? Did you really have a design for a gabled roof building with a side garage or carport "lean to", and then accept the contractor building a flat roof box with no side garage instead? Or did they suggest maybe this would work better and you agreed? A lot of those "side conversations" or agreements will come into play in any legal actions and remediations.

The problem with adapting what you have is you're going to have to break down the space into pretty small pieces to work from within, or put in some very hefty moment resisting frames to hold up the existing built structure. Moment resisting frames can require a lot of foundation, and are going to eat up a lot of internal headroom and some floor space.

Your structural engineers fix will dictate what is feasible, and what it will cost. I'd take that to the contractor, not come in with a suggestion that they put a wall down the middle and start doubling up columns. Putting a wall down the middle and doubling columns won't get you anywhere near the original design, might not be structurally sound still, and will not accomplish what you started out to get and paid (at least partially) for the first time. You come in and ask for and agree to a substandard correction before you even have an opinion on what a correct solution is, and in a few months you'll be posting another thread about what to do next because your building still doesn't work. And, you'll be in even poorer legal position, because the company will have done what you asked for, and you are still not satisfied. The best is to ask that you be put into the position you originally contracted for.

It very well may be least expensive to dismantle this and start over, unless you're willing to accept a very different product than you wanted. For instance, you might be able to make a pretty good house out of this, with a small internal garage or shop workspace. Or a series of smaller shop rooms and one or two small garage bays.
 
OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
Opinion: this make no sense. The 2 buildings share nothing in common. The building you have is a contemporary design. The plans are for an ordinary building. I don't have time to go further but something is not adding up in the least. It's as if you told someone to build a building and then left town. And there was no communication of what type or shape beforehand.

I think this thread is a farce.
I desperately wish this thread was a farce. I think what happened is that I went over the plans with his wife, and his employees, and he didn't bother asking anyone about what the building needed to be except for the size. 60x40. And he maybe paid for the engineering plans without knowing anything about the building? And then made it up as he went along. idk what went through his head, and I don't care at this point.
 

LOW1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
2,637
Location
ontario
OP: did you not look at the plans before agreeing to the build? Did you not monitor the construction to see what was being built?

In most construction situations the plans are attached to the contract and thereby made part of the contract.

Perhaps a classic example of how construction disputes are seldom the fault of only one party?
 
OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
I agree after seeing the plans versus what's built that you have a very clear suit against the builder. Everything that's been said about chances of recovering more than attorney fees applies of course.

The original design is pretty good, as a concept. The columns aren't "paired", they are trusses. The side carport structure or whatever it is (that appears to have been dropped off the actual built structure) creates a strong braced frame to provide lateral wind resistance. I would have preferred a bit more lateral wind resistant design perpendicular to the gable end walls, but other than that I think it's a good design.

Are you telling us everything? Did you really have a design for a gabled roof building with a side garage or carport "lean to", and then accept the contractor building a flat roof box with no side garage instead? Or did they suggest maybe this would work better and you agreed? A lot of those "side conversations" or agreements will come into play in any legal actions and remediations.

The problem with adapting what you have is you're going to have to break down the space into pretty small pieces to work from within, or put in some very hefty moment resisting frames to hold up the existing built structure. Moment resisting frames can require a lot of foundation, and are going to eat up a lot of internal headroom and some floor space.

Your structural engineers fix will dictate what is feasible, and what it will cost. I'd take that to the contractor, not come in with a suggestion that they put a wall down the middle and start doubling up columns. Putting a wall down the middle and doubling columns won't get you anywhere near the original design, might not be structurally sound still, and will not accomplish what you started out to get and paid (at least partially) for the first time. You come in and ask for and agree to a substandard correction before you even have an opinion on what a correct solution is, and in a few months you'll be posting another thread about what to do next because your building still doesn't work. And, you'll be in even poorer legal position, because the company will have done what you asked for, and you are still not satisfied. The best is to ask that you be put into the position you originally contracted for.

It very well may be least expensive to dismantle this and start over, unless you're willing to accept a very different product than you wanted. For instance, you might be able to make a pretty good house out of this, with a small internal garage or shop workspace. Or a series of smaller shop rooms and one or two small garage bays.
Here's the original contract, that clearly states single slope.

1704299142696.png
 
OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
OP: did you not look at the plans before agreeing to the build? Did you not monitor the construction to see what was being built?

In most construction situations the plans are attached to the contract and thereby made part of the contract.

Perhaps a classic example of how construction disputes are seldom the fault of only one party?
They refused to show me the plans, but they drew them on paper (super basic, just single lines with what I ended up with), but in their shop, they showed me the double pillars. I visited the site every single day. BUT, I will say, that when I saw the "studs" weren't doubled up and asked about it, they said it was fine. I didn't know enough at the time to argue, and just happily watched my building being built.
 

Boogerman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
833
Location
aspen cove hill
With that additional information, your legal recourse by relying on the "plans" versus what's built isn't going to be useful. At this point, the contractor is just giving you the wrong plans after the build, so you've learned nothing from them. There's nothing in common between the plans and your contract and your building; the contract has what he produced: a 40x60 single slope roof box with no lean to and a roughly 18 to 20 foot height. The plans show a gabled roof building, 12 foot wall height, and a lean to that is 60x52 feet. The only thing in common is they are both metal frame.

There's no way any judge or jury is going to believe that you contracted for the 60x52 building, and then watched the contractor build the other one, and then had him come back and make corrections, and then built a mezzanine and other improvements inside to take advantage of the tall space, and just now realized that you got a different building than you contracted for and want it replaced. At this point your only real dispute with the builder is suitability of the building for the purpose it was intended for, i.e. is it built to "standard", whatever that is.
 
OP
S

Slimmons

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
66
With that additional information, your legal recourse by relying on the "plans" versus what's built isn't going to be useful. At this point, the contractor is just giving you the wrong plans after the build, so you've learned nothing from them. There's nothing in common between the plans and your contract and your building; the contract has what he produced: a 40x60 single slope roof box with no lean to and a roughly 18 to 20 foot height. The plans show a gabled roof building, 12 foot wall height, and a lean to that is 60x52 feet. The only thing in common is they are both metal frame.

There's no way any judge or jury is going to believe that you contracted for the 60x52 building, and then watched the contractor build the other one, and then had him come back and make corrections, and then built a mezzanine and other improvements inside to take advantage of the tall space, and just now realized that you got a different building than you contracted for and want it replaced. At this point your only real dispute with the builder is suitability of the building for the purpose it was intended for, i.e. is it built to "standard", whatever that is.
I think you're right and the plans help nothing. I'm just going to see what they are willing to do. But I can't just accept this at a loss. I'll still probably get an engineering plan to fix the building, but after that, it's whatever these people will do for free. If they won't do anything, I guess I'll just build inside with wood and hope I don't die when it falls.
 

LOW1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
2,637
Location
ontario
I think that you are at the point where its necessary to hear from the builder as to what his view is.

There are at least two sides to every dispute. In construction disputes there are usually many more.

From your information it sounded like the contractor was not a fly by night one but was instead an experienced and established builder. Although anyone can make a mistake the contractors explanation is therefore important.

Best of luck in finding a reasonable solution.
 

Boogerman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
833
Location
aspen cove hill
I think you're right and the plans help nothing. I'm just going to see what they are willing to do. But I can't just accept this at a loss. I'll still probably get an engineering plan to fix the building, but after that, it's whatever these people will do for free. If they won't do anything, I guess I'll just build inside with wood and hope I don't die when it falls.
A "build inside with wood" design will be quite doable, and can make this a very acceptable building. It just won't be a large open space inside.

A beam with support walls down the center would go a long ways towards making the roof stronger. Internal walls 20 feet o.c. with 4 foot shear panels at each end against the existing walls would fix the lateral bracing. Awnings to help the window leaks and put in the requisite fasteners where they're missing will help the leaks.

I'd still get an engineers opinion on the roof truss acceptability, even with a center support. And any other suggestions they have after seeing it in person. Only so much a person can see in photos.
 

Hank11

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
1,147
Location
Tennessee
I suggest you find a lawyer near you who regularly practices construction law. Call around and talk to them. There's going to be someone who can help you, if nothing else advise you on Alabama law and your options for recovery. You're not getting qualified legal advice on this or any forum.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom