WC8- Thanks for the welcome! Since I was coming in late, i figured I'd try and fit something for each of the thread topics in, to get caught up, and it all started with a phal...I've already gotten some great ideas on how to change my setups (from the on-topic forum), can't wait to try. I love hanging out with the kids at school, it's so interesting to watch the little wheels turning in their heads and see what they'll come up with next. Logic in motion! Computers and I don't really get along, I'm a pharmacist, working in long term care. I make sure everybody's meds are playing well with others and that the Rules (big book o' stuff here) are being followed. My IT Dept probably has me on the list of serial computer abusers, they're always having to bail me out of some electronic disaster while in the field. Ah, the fun of politics. I wind up staring, fascinated, by the talking heads, usually while shaking my own. But, I keep listening, at least with half an ear. We've been listening to Nim's island in the car on the way home, has anybody seen it, would lit be good for a 6 yr old? Speaking of cars, time to spring the kiddo, thanks again for the welcome, looking forward to lots of topics. Liz

I suspect what happened here is that when OP originally asked for bids, she asked that various item be "broken out" so that she would be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison between bids. Then, when the contract was signed with the selected GC, his bid breakdown amounts for items that SHOULD NEVER have been allowance items were included in the column labeled "allowances"...which he is now treating as having turned every bid breakdown item into an "allowance" item. Allowances should only apply in situations where the Owner has not yet made specific choices and where the final cost of the item depends heavily on the quality/price of the materials finally chosen by the Owner. That is, in situations where one could install very inexpensive but perfectly usable builder-grade stuff or go over-the-top with high-end selections that cost 4 or 5 times the amount of the builder-grade materials. (eg., carpeting, wood flooring, tile, plumbing fixtures, light fixtures, countertops, appliances.) Things like siding, framing, and roofing should NEVER be allowance items b/c, for example, once one has specified that a house is to be 2x6 framed with an all brick exterior and 30-year architectural shingles, it should not be necessary to specify the exact manufacturer/supplier of the 2x6s, the exact manufacturer and color of the brick, or the manufacturer and color of the shingles. There just isn't that much difference in cost in the cost of these products. With true "allowance" items (for example- plumbing fixtures) what SHOULD happen is that, once the build reaches the point where particular allowance selections need to be made, the Owner makes initial selections and then receives a full price break-down for those selections from Builder. This is done BEFORE the allowance items are purchased and installed so Owner can see how much over or under the allowance amount their initial selections will run. The Owner then either gives a final approval of those selections or modifies them in an attempt to come closer to the amount allowed in the contract. NO allowance item is ever purchased or installed in the house until Owner - with full knowledge of what his/her selections are costing - gives a final approval of the selections. Thus, no surprises at the end of the build. In fact, with our contractor, in every case where our final selections have run over the allowance amount, we have given the GC a check drawn on our personal funds to cover the difference at the time the allowance items were installed. In other words, we are paying for these overages as we go along... which also kind of keeps us from going over-board on them. It sounds as if, in OP's case, the way the contract was drawn up, everything with a number in the allowance column was treated as an allowance item EXCEPT that owner was never told what amount her "selections" were running - if she ever even made any further choices regarding these items beyond those originally specified in her contract. And now that the items have been installed, her GC and subs are treating "allowance" as meaning, we're allowed to charge her whatever amount we want. To the extent that type and quality of things like siding, roofing, framing, etc. were specified in reasonable detail in the original contract, and Owner did not upgrade the type/quality of materials used from those originally specified, I think Owner has a strong case that she merely accepted the bid amount GC told her he had received from a sub and therefore has a right to expect that price to be honored. Even with true allowance items, if I tell my GC I want a particular brand/style/color of faucets and he comes back to me and says, "I got a bid on those faucets and it's going to cost you $6000 for them," he can't come back to me later and present me with a bill for $8000...even if that is what he actually spent. Or, if I say, I want these light fixtures and he says "okay - I can get those for you within the light fixture allowance amount" he can't come back later and say "you owe me more money because the light fixtures ran 40% more than the allowance." I would recommend that OP see a lawyer ASAP. Her GC strikes me as a snake-in-the-grass type. If he had begun presenting these alleged cost-overruns early on...before purchasing and installing the so-called allowance items, OP could have begun taking steps to control the overall cost. Instead he waited until the end of the build and is now presenting them as "fait accompli" over which nothing can be done except for her to pay the bills. If it had happened on only ONE item, it might be possible that a single subcontractor pulled a fast one on the GC. It would still be his responsibility to either fight the extra cost with the sub or pay the difference out of his pocket but OP might want to help the GC out by splitting the overage amount with him. However, since the same thing appears to be happening with practically every sub, it looks to me like the GC is in the middle of this. He may even have conspired with subs to have them present inflated bills and then give him a kickback on whatever extra amounts they are able to squeeze out of Owner. This would constitute fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud and breach of GC's fiduciary duty towards Owner. And, if GC makes a pattern and practice of presenting homeowners with inflated bills at the end of a build, it is quite possible that he may be liable under the state's Deceptive Trade Practices laws. How all of this will play out ultimately depends on the law in OP's state, the exact wording of her contract, whether there was ever truly a "meeting of the minds" in forming the contract (which is a prerequisite for a valid contract to be formed) and whether a good lawyer can find evidence of a conspiracy between GC and subs to commit fraud or DTPA violations ...which would require an investigation into the GC's relationships with other customers. Even without a finding of fraud/DTPA violations, it is quite possible that a court might find that the two sides were understanding the so-called contract in such totally different ways that there was no "meeting of the minds." The contract could be invalidated on this basis and, if it is, the law of equity would take over and OP would be required to pay the GC for the equitable value of the home she received plus an equitable profit to the GC. That could wind up being significantly less than the final bill GC is now presenting her with. Good luck.

Nicole, Our babies will be really close in ages, how cool. I would share my baby clothes if I could but we are a bit too far away:) I have kept both the girls clothes, we went through them yesterday and I have 3 20 gallon totes full of 24 month clothes. I also kept all my maternity clothes so I am ready to go. I didn't plan on this one, but my I have 5 siblings that will be having babies to pass the clothes along. I passed on Haydens clothes to my sis in law, and she never used one of the outfits, so I am going to keep all the rest of the sizes claiming I might need them for the next baby. Stacie

I'm sorry you lost him Rita. (Rita) I wish you wouldn't beat yourself up. I am certain you were the last thing Rex saw. Rex had been in cardiac distress for sometime before you got him to the vet's office Monday and by the time he was taken from you to the back most likely he was was too far gone to know or recognize anything. Lori Bless you and Bless Rex. He looks like he was quite a character!