To go along with the above mention of an HOA, you might also get a copy their Covenants and BYLAWS before you write an offer. In TX, you are required to get a copy of this before closing. If you don't ask however, you might not get your copy until closing. And later when you go to build, you might be in for a surprise. Many HOA's have an architectural committee that reviews plans prior to construction to verify that is in compliance with the HOA's covenants. Examples might be masonry requirements, side vs front entry garage, set back lines, minimum square footage etc. Are there only set builders who can build in the development, or can you bring your own? Is there a time limit to build in the neighborhood, IOW new buyers must begin construction within a year or something like that? If it's going to be a while until you build, what upkeep must you perform on the lot? Must you keep it mowed in the growing season? If so, who is allowed to do that? HOA dues and assessments might also be something to check out. These restrictions might be nothing to worry about, or on the specific lot in question, the set backs could prevent you from being able to build the house you want. I'd also verify easements on the property. Drainage easements, sanitary easements, etc could also affect a lot's buildability. I almost purchased a lot one time that had a sanitary easement on it. Due to septic being required, it was going to be very tough to build on the lot, and comply with the easements. I decided it wasn't worth it, and passed on the lot. I'd also have an Real Estate Agent you trust pull comps for what has sold in the area. I'm sure you've the verified schools in the area? Sorry for the rambling, just throwing out some of the things I've dealt with. HTH!

saftgeek - I hate to admit it but you are all too correct about far too many attorneys! I was a high school teacher for 20 years before deciding to go to law school and I have been deeply appalled by the how truly unethical and dishonest some lawyers are. In the six years I've been practicing law, I've run into more dishonest, downright sleezy lawyers than I met incompetant teachers in twenty years of teaching school... and people are always knocking teachers for being incompetant! Shyster lawyers make me ashamed of this profession just as incompetant teachers sometimes made me ashamed of the teaching profession. I would urge you or anyone else who has evidence of a lawyer behaving dishonestly or unethically to report them to their state bar association. It might not do any good but then again, it just might. At least in Texas, I think our state bar tries to disbar the unethical lawyers whenever they can find them. It certainly sounds like your ex-boss was exactly that type. I also truly am not trying to paint GCs as dishonest. I believe the vast majority are honest folks who do their best to do a good job when building a home and, if they make mistakes, try their best to fix them. BUT, as in all professions, there are some people building homes that are either lazy, dishonest, or so downright disorganized that the homeowner who ends up hiring one of them needs to be able to go to court and get help. And, unfortunately, the contract promulgated by the Texas Association of Builders is specifically designed to protect these bottom-feeding GCs from facing the music for their bad behaviour. The funny thing is, I KNOW that it was the TAB's lawyers who drafted the d--n contract that protects the bad builders, so when I'm knocking the contract, I'm also slamming some of the members of my own profession! I actually suspect that most builders who use the TAB form contract do so because it is available to them cheaply and they don't know any more about what it really says than the homeowner does. And, so long as there are no major problems with the build - nobody is any the worse off. But, I defy any honest person who has ever READ the TAB contract to argue with a straight face that it is a fair and balanced contract. Among other things, it requires the homeowner to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Basically an implied warranty of habitablity means that courts have said when two parties enter into a contract for one to build a home for the other, there is an implied understanding between them that the finished home will be inhabitable. The owner doesn't have to make sure to insist that language be put into the contract SAYING that the house must be able to be lived in when comleted...the courts will assume that since the contract was for the building of a home, the finished product must be something one can inhabit or it is simply not a "home." But, just in case someone WANTS just a shell - or something like that - to be built, courts will allow the parties to agree to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Asking the homeowner to waive the implied warranty of habitablity might be fair if the homeowner wanted to build something totally new and different and the builder said, "you know, I can build that for you but I don't think it'll be something you can live in when I get done, are you SURE that's what you want?" But, I think you would have to agree that, except in those rare instances, a house should be inhabitable, just like a car should be driveable, a suit should be wearable, and a wedding cake should be edible. Would you agree to buy a new car from a manufacturer who insisted that you agree to waive the "implied warranty of driveability"? Would you purchase a suit from a tailor who refused to warrant that it would be wearable? Would you order a wedding cake from a baker who refused to guarantee that it would be edible? Why would you buy a home from someone who refused to warrant that it would be habitable????? Nevertheless, the Texas Association of Builders - with the help of its attorneys no doubt! - realized that implied warranties can be waived and that most homeowners don't ever really read or understand the contract they sign. So they put language into the form contract that waives the warranty of habitablility on every single home built under it. That means the homeowner may think he is contracting for a turn-key home but, even if the house he gets is so defective that he cannot possibly live in it - say the sewage pipe has broken in the wall so that there that raw sewage has contaminated all the insulation - the homeowner cannot argue that the builder breached the contract by building an UNIHABITABLE house. Fair????? The TAB contract also requires that the owner agree upfront to "binding arbitration" in the event of a dispute. This doesn't sound too bad...unless you happen to know a couple of facts about binding arbitration. First, arbitration is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than small claims court even though most building disputes are going to be over amounts small enough have brought the claim in small claims court. Second, arbitrators are selected and PAID by the parties to the dispute which means that arbitrators make more money if they are selected for more cases. If an arbitrator wants future work, they have to make sure that the party that is more likely to bring them future business is happy. Care to guess which party is more likely to NEED to hire an arbitrator for a second or third or fourth construction dispute? Some studies have shown that homeowners win less than 5% of claims that go to arbitration but win about half of claims that are tried in a court of law. Even those few homeowners who are nominal winners in arbitration almost never win enough money to actually repair their homes! The TAB contract also requires that the builder receive his final payment, in full, (i.e. NO RETAINAGE) at the time of the final walk-through even though it also specifies that a punch list of items to be corrected/completed/repaired will be made at this same time. In theory the builder is supposed to return and finish the punch list. But, WHY should the unscrupulous builder bother? After all, he has already been paid in full AND the homeowner can't even sue him in small claims court due to the binding arbitration clause I already mentioned? Do you think that is fair? I could go on and on about other clauses that are in the TAB contract but I suspect I've made my point. A builder who insists on using the TAB contract after having some of its many unfair clauses pointed out to him may not actually BE dishonest but, IMHO, neither is he the kind of straight shooter I really want to deal with. Straight shooters are willing to play on a level playing field.

Who is actually going to be doing my job? How much experience does he or she have. Have you ever set tile like this? Etc... Our tile contractor was supposedly the best. But it wasnt him. He sent some young guys who had very limited experience who messed up the edges on the kitchen back splash. Couldn't really be fixed. Among other issues. They did the formica in the laundry room too. Terrible job. That they fixed, but really it was an amateurish job all around.

Okay - I checked out the warranty and it is pretty standard, a little on the lean side, and makes no mention about finish adhesion, which is the top manufacturing related issue that I have had the pleasure of dealing with. Regarding going through the trouble - I would suggest not skipping that - at least verify all of the conditions - this is the best thing you can do so you do not have problems down the road. Warranties are only as good as the vendor you are dealing with. Every time I have had an issue and they start asking the "questions of doom", I simply pull out my pics, readings, documents, etc..., and the next question from them is asking me what my recommendation is and then they fund it - end of story. They pay for material and labor. On the flip side, before I did this, they would start asking the "questions of doom", I could not answer or back the answers up with proof (I used to be like the 85% of vendors- no testing, it was a hassle, "it don't matter" camp - and I paid for a ton of jobs with lots of zeros on the end of the replacement costs). They, rightfully so, turned me down, or if they felt sorry for me gave me a discount for the wood or give me a box or two at no charge. Since I have began doing things as correctly as possible, hardwood floor claims are basically nil. In my mind, Claims fall into four basic areas: Manufacturing Related, Installation Related, Site Related, and Maintenance Related. By performing the pre-installation testing, using qualified mechanics, & maintaining your floor correctly, you have just eliminated 95% of everything that ruins a natural hardwood floor (Actual Industry numbers puts Manufacturing related problems at <1%, but I think it is really higher than that because they get off the hook so often because of the lack of documentation of pre-install conditions). The warranty covers the delamination of the plies and walking through the finish from normal household use. The testing does more than keep a warranty intact, it gives you the best chance that there is never a problem with your natural floor product - if the installer knows how to do this testing and documentation - they probably know how to install the floor correctly too. It really does not take a huge amount of time to do this stuff, and if the installer/vendor doesn't have enough time to do it, do you think they will take the extra time to install your floor right? I would have my doubts. I have seen all of the major companies step up and take care of issues (delamination, finish peeling) when this information is presented to them - they actually are impressed and say they wished everyone would do this. You should never have to deal with the manufacturer directly - your vendor should do all of that for you.