The builder can have you arrested for trespassing, plus, to Plus Plus Plus, if he wants. You have no legal right to go onto HIS property at all except by his invitation. You don’t own it until the paperwork is done and the final money changes hands.

And yes, you’re coming across as the type of guy he’d seek to do the max damage to if he finds out that you are still going behind his back. Because it sounds like he’d love to cancel your contract, keep the money, and sell to someone who wasn’t being as big of a smart mouth PIA.

Well...what an interesting thread. The OP acknowledges that:

1. The development is a subdivision in which the developer retains ownership of the property until final settlement;

2. The construction agreement forbids the OP from visiting and being on the construction site;

3. As the OP, he has frequently visited and been on the construction site.

And the OP states that his only interest is "...what action can the builder take if the site visit rules are broken?..."

I'm making popcorn, to sit and watch this one. It's become the Main Thread of the Day.

Hope the builder is monitoring this thread...that will really make it interesting...

Okay--what kind of builder is this and what does your contract say?

Our first house was a large, national tract home builder. Being young and desperately wanting that house we followed their schedule for visits. I was more than irritated when my father reported a visit and a talk with the contractors since he worked nearby. We were never punished for this and since the contractors didn't mind we let Dad do his thing

We had keys to the construction lock on the second house. Never had an issue.

We were 250 miles away when the current house was under construction. The GC/Builder knew when we were in town. It was never an issue, and I sure as heck wasn't coming out here at night alone since it was a bit isolated then. Either my spouse or myself came for visits. It was rare that it was both of us.

If you're determined to fight this battle, stop crowd sourcing your legal advice and get a construction lawyer to review your contract and tell you possible and likely outcomes of violating it. Hopefully you had someone review the contract before you signed, so go back to him or her for a consult.

You have no rights to go onto the property except at agreed upon times. You don't own the house or the land yet. You are definitely trespassing.

Joe Cortlett,

Perhaps I should have used the term, constructive notice. No pun intended. It really is a constructive notice letter sent in order to protect the builder from liability in the case of an accident on the work site. They do happen.

The final result is the poster has been notified to no longer visit the site without making an appointment. He doesn't own the land. Until he buys it, it's trespass unless escorted.

I have interpreted your question and your following comments this way: "Yes, I admit I have done wrong but I want to know how severe the punishment will be if I am caught doing wrong some more, so I can judge whether or not to continue to do so." Perhaps combative is too strong a word, but aggressive seems to fit.

I would certainly never sign a contract with this provision in it. What kind of builder considers his customers "trespassers" on a property that is being constructed for said customer. Spare me the liability concerns. With the aggressiveness in which the builder is enforcing this stipulation, it really makes me wonder what he is hiding. Since he is being spotted on the property after hours, he apparently is not interfering with the construction personnel. That being said, you agreed to it, so it would be in your best interest to stay away. Maybe get a drone ;)

I think this thread is quite an interesting example of how people can see things very, very differently.

Where I live (Australia) it is standard practice for builders to put up a six foot fence around house construction sites, and lock the gate with a padlock if no one is working on site. Builders here are responsible for the safety and well-being of anyone who goes on site, whether it's the subbies, the homeowner, nosy neighbors or curious kids. Hence the fencing. And quite a few builders also put up CCTV cameras and alarm systems when the build is a bit further along, to deter vandals and thieves. So I certainly don't automatically assume the builder is hiding something. It could be he's just protecting the property from damage, intentional or unintentional, and the homeowner or trespasser from injury.

And I'm not sure what's going on with the build that the OP in this case feels it's necessary to antagonize the builder and risk legal action in this fashion: is the builder so untrustworthy that scheduled visits would be inadequate to monitor and discuss progress? Perhaps. But I can't see that pushing his buttons is a good tactical move. Never antagonize a waiter or a builder. You never know what you're going to get in your soup or your house.

Builders here are responsible for the safety and well-being of anyone who goes on site, whether it's the subbies, the homeowner, nosy neighbors or curious kids.

Both U.S. and Australian law break people on your property into three (sometimes 4) categories (1) invitees, (2) trespassers, (3) trespassers who are known to be trespassing, and (sometimes 4) trespassers who are children on property that has a lure to them.

In both the U.S. and Australia, you owe a duty of care to invitees and some limited duty of care to the third and fourth groups. You don't have a duty to trespassers whose trespass you were not aware of.

I believe COMMISSIONER FOR RAILWAYS V QUINLAN: PC 9 MAR 1964 establishes precedent in Australia.

A mere failure to exercise reasonable care was not a basis for claim by a trespasser, there must: ‘be injury due to some willful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act done with deliberate intention of doing harm or at least act done with reckless disregard of the presence of the trespasser, – reckless disregard of ordinary humanity towards him’.
Viscount Radcliffe held: ‘trespasser to whom the occupier is accountable for his actions, even if dangerous’, is one of whose presence he actually knows or one whose presence at the time of injury can fairly be described as extremely likely or very probable. To go further is to accept the proposition that a trespasser who insists on forcing himself on to the occupier’s premises and lets him know that he intends to enter in this way can impose on the latter, against his will, a duty to take precautions and have care which may seriously impede the conduct of his lawful activities. In their lordships’ opinion the law does not admit of this result.

The big difference between Australia and the U.S. is what is considered due care. In the U.S. putting up a sign and making trespassers aware of the danger is sufficient due care for the third group.

---------------------

This is why you will often find terms in a contract that limit your right to visit the site. Because once you move from invitee to trespasser they remove a lot of their liability. Enforcement of that clause is typically a bit more rare.

---------------------

To the OP,

You are asking what can be done and hoping to find results on what will be done. Unfortunately, the answer to the first is rather simple, and the answer to the second is rather impossible.

You are essentially doing two things wrong by visiting the site. The first is trespassing and they have every remedy available to them that a trespasser would. The fact that you are eventually buying the house doesn't give you the right to come look at it anytime you want. This holds true for sales of existing homes also. Just because you gave me earnest money doesn't mean you get to show up at dinner time. The second wrong is breach of contract and they have all remedies that would be available for this type of breach. I understand that you have a vested interest in the home, however, you signed the contract and the law doesn't like you signing a contract and then not abiding by it. You would have to argue that the site visit policy was against the public good, which you might successfully argue, but it would likely cost you as much as the house.

Now as to what the builder is likely to do... The builder knows this, and he is not likely to have share the information with us rather than you.

Hold on...my bowl's empty and I have to go to the kitchen for more popcorn...!

No hurry. Mike’s awaiting bail on that trespassing charge. He won’t be back for a bit.

what is the next level? What can the builder do?

Mike- homeowner here. Imo, you- not the contractor- need to walk this back an emotional step or two. Did you have a lawyer in the contract examination/signing? Ask him/her. But the biggest flag is- why do you feel the need to go onto a property you don't own for a house that you could always not buy...quite that often?

If I were you, that's the question I'd be asking. Your contract sounds like it's clear. But you seem to need to hover, even though it could potentially get you into contractual hot water. Why, might be a good question to ask.

Little confused as to why this thread got so heated. It was a pretty straightforward question, or so I thought.

Your ‘tude is what set off the races. You’re the speeder who got caught burning rubber in front of the cop to get back on the highway and go 90 again.

It’s your obvious contempt for abiding by the contract you signed.

When it comes to legalities, questions like "what can the other side really do to me" come up all the time. Sometimes the person asking the question is going to like the answer he gets, and sometimes not. And it's not like I asked what would happen if I robbed a bank. We are talking somewhat gray area stuff here. And we still really don't have much of an answer...and doesn't look like we're ever going to get one, because almost every reply talks about either attitude or popcorn, neither of which have anything to do with the question.

"Ever get" an answer? You have no RE attorney for the "legalities"?

Let's just be frank: You don't own the land, nor the materials, nor the house. You have a contract that specifically bars your from doing what you're doing. That simply isn't a "gray area".

You're completely right: Sometimes, you ask a question, and the answer- no matter what angle- comes up short from what you want.

Talk to your contractor. There are obvious issues here that could be solved with a real conversation. Maybe a beer.

"We are talking somewhat gray area stuff here"

As an accountant going to law school one of the biggest surprises to me was all of the gray areas of the law. Having said that the information you have provided thus far is as black and white as you can get. You are not really in a gray area of the law here. You signed the contract, any subtlety for trespassing was removed when you agreed to not go on site.

Believe it or not, that isn't your biggest problem here. The question you ask is what can the builder do.

The builder can absolutely do two things, (1) call the police, (2) claim you breached the contract and keep your deposit. I want this as clear as possible... HE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO EITHER OF THOSE THINGS! If this appears gray on your screen please adjust your color settings.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean you will be arrested and convicted if he calls the police. The police officer might issue a citation and the prosecutor may decline to prosecute.

Additionally, his cancelling the contract and keeping the deposit might not hold up in court. So it is possible that you could pay $50,000 in attorney fees and present a public good or some affirmative defense and win.

However, that is kind of a pyrrhic victory.

Mike, I'm neither an attorney nor a contractor but I've learned a few things during my many years on this planet. Here's a big one: Pi**ing off someone who is in a position to give you what you want is never a winning strategy. Good luck with your build.

Agree with einportlander ^^^. There's the intangible but very real element of respect (or lack of) here. And respecting rules is respecting the individual who wrote them into an agreement you signed.

As a business person, if I feel there's a lack of respect or an individual is going away unhappy no matter what I do, that person is probably at the end of the line for my attention as I'll focus my energies on folks I think do have respect for me and WILL go away happy.

Since you asked for advice, what I'd do is apologize for your oversight (I'd call it that) and explain how you and your SO are very excited to see progress (a totally understandable emotion) and could you all schedule a time to go through the house with him or his super. I can't imagine a builder who wants to have happy customers saying "No" to that. He may have a few rules like no kids, wear hard toed boots, arrive promptly, an hour long, etc. which you should respect.

But good luck. Exciting times!

Mike,

A qualified, ethical attorney would not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by rendering legal advice over the internet. That is the primary reason why you are not getting an answer that is specific to your situation.

You may get responses that generally describe the actions builders can take in response to hypothetical situations, including known trespassers on their work sites. The accuracy and applicability of the information you get on the internet are never guaranteed.

If you are looking for legal advice for your specific situation, the most responsible course of action is to consult an attorney licensed in your state who can review the specifics with you.

If you are looking for general information on what a hypothetical builder can do, many have already given you possible scenarios.

The builder has already asked you politely to stop your unscheduled and uninvited visits. The reasonable course of action would be to STOP. If you feel strongly otherwise, consult an attorney in your area.

The OP posted, "...The agreement specifically says don't do it. But that wasn't the question. The question is: what can the builder do if this rule is ignored..."

The OP: 1) freely admits he is violating the terms and conditions of his construction contract, 2) posted that he only wants to know what the builder can do to him for openly violating the terms and conditions of the contract, and then 3) subsequently posts "...Little confused as to why this thread got so heated. It was a pretty straightforward question, or so I thought..."

Pass the popcorn, please...! This is really entertaining.

A gray area? Most of us don't see any gray. The contract you signed said 'I won't do this,' but you are doing it anyway.

Your builder has all the marbles. You used to have some, but you gave them (your deposit) to him.

Just to be clear.Just

Were I presented this contract with the knowledge that the builder wouldn't sign any contract that allowed site visits, I would sign it if I wanted the house bad enough. After that I would do exactly as the OP did and visit the site whenever I wanted.

Contractors being incensed over a small breach is pretty rich. How many builders put a time frame in a contract only to miss it by 6 months?

Many contracts have small breaches all the time. Those breaches rarely kill the deal. Contractors breach constantly, so to pretend that a contract with a builder is some sort of sacred cow is a bit much.

However, that isn't the question here. If you ask me what I would do, were I the OP, my answer would depend on what I found thus far. If there were serious workmanship defects I would keep right on visiting and assert that his breach of standards necessitates my breach.

However, I would certainly open myself to repurcussions.

Yes. OK. Construction contracts often have small breaches...sometimes large breaches. We get it.

But we don't know why the OP is so consistent in his apparent desire to visit the site, contrary to the apparent terms and conditions of his construction contract.

The OP hasn't complained about the builder or the quality of the build. For all we know the build is proceeding perfectly. Or maybe not. We don't know.

All we know is what the OP has told us. Which is he acknowledges he is in violation of the terms and conditions of his construction contract, has received a "cease and desist" letter from the builder, and now wants to know what the builder may do if the OP continues in violation of his construction contract.

That's all we know. That's. All. We. Know.

Well, OK, that's not all we know. We know, for example, that for many tract and subdivision projects, the terms and conditions about staying off the site are common. They are not unusual.

We are left to wonder: if the OP is so suspicious and concerned about the quality and proper construction of the project, why in the world isn't he attempting to retrieve his deposit and look elsewhere where he may have greater confidence in what's going on.

Or is the OP simply a Nervous Nellie?

We. Don't. Know.

So...we're left with this entertaining drama, for which there's really little to say that hasn't already been said. More than once.

Pass the popcorn!

In regards to my build our project manager let us know that under normal circumstances he would ask for us not to go onsite unless accompanied by himself or the lead builder. However as my partner is health and safety co-ordinator and foreman for a building company he said as long as we understood that he had no liability if any accidents were to happen onsite while he wasn't there we could go as often as we liked.

We were looking at progress just my partner and I yesterday and I was pointing out things I was worried about. My partners exact words were - "I can see why the project manager doesn't want owners walking through without him, you're being a PIA". Point taken!

So I definitely see both arguments, not wanting liability for any accidents which would effect their business and also minimizing PIA customers like me calling them everyday asking about things that aren't finished.

I too am puzzled by the backstory we don't know. I'm going to guess that the "nasty letter" was a follow up to the builder having orally told the OP not to visit the site after hours. So why is the OP so insistent on following this course of action? If the build is going that badly, then I'd be thinking about other remedies than visiting the site every night.

If the build is going reasonably okay, then it seems to me the rational thing would be to organize a mutually acceptable schedule of approved visits. And if the OP has doubts about what is going on, he could bring along someone with professional qualifications to review progress. I know that, where I live, the owner (or prospective owner) has a right to "reasonable access" to a site (which would not include clambering over 6 foot fences in the dark of night but which would include agreed arrangements, formal or informal, with the builder). So I'm repeating my earlier point: why not compromise on this rather than risk legal action?

I should have included in the original post the fact that I currently see nothing wrong with the build. The build is not "going badly".

This evening, I wrote a response to the builder's letter. In it, I requested a brief meeting with the Super. We'll see how it goes.

Until then, I guess you guys can eat your popcorn.

It sounds like it's a track builder. I realllllly don't know why people use tract builders to build the 'cheapest' they can get away with and sell for the 'highest' price. IMO, anybody putting 'hundreds' of thousands in a house should be able to visit anytime they want to......period!!!!! And take pics. People want to SEE what they are paying for!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMO.....track builders are worst than used car salesman/'woman. Yes, they should sign a contract if they do this they are totally responsible for any injuries and not the GC. That's just common sense. Lawyers......what do you think?

I realllllly don't know why people use tract builders to build the 'cheapest' they can get away with and sell for the 'highest' price.

Three words: Location, location, location. (Translated for robin0919: Location!!!!!!!!, Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Locationnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!)

I don't like tract builder quality, but I completely understand why people would choose one, and I would consider it. Tract builders in many communities do more than just build houses, they develop and define entire areas. A tract developer can define schools, shopping, traffic patterns, etc. They change the entire demographics of areas and savvy buyers can reap serious rewards. In the major city near our farm, three tract developers have turned the worst and least desirable area of the town into the most desirable area, with amazing restaurants, shopping, schools and, of course, crappy homes.

Three words: Location, location, location. (Translated for robin0919: Location!!!!!!!!, Location!!!!!!!!!!!!!, Locationnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!)

Robin doesn't understand about location. He lives in an area where houses aren't even above $100,000 or so he says and continues to imply.

@bry911 crappy homes that the original buyers will be able to turn around and sell for beaucoup bucks...

Mike - what remedies does the contract say they have if you violate this or other provisions in there? That is the key question you have failed to answer.

The other key question is that since you think things are going well, why would you want to derail them by deliberately antagonizing your builder? That’s totally inexplicable.

@alison I think that many cities are full of "tract homes", just from times gone by. If you look at a lot of mid-major cities in America, you will see pockets of the same or very similar homes, often from the same builder or set of plans - you've got your 1900s sprawl, and your post-war sprawl, and your 1960s sprawl, and on and on - they just get absorbed into the cities/burbs as those places grow, and sometimes replaced by newer different after fire or teardown.

Don't forget the Sears and Roebuck kit houses! Which were sometimes of pretty dubious quality, depending on who was assembling the kit. (Do I have to use that many exclamation points to play?)

"...So the question is: what is the next level? What can the builder do?..."

Well...the OP says everything in the construction is going fine. There are no issues.

So, if the OP persists in visiting the site after being asked not to do so, what can the builder do?

Do you have any idea how much site trash can be loaded between the studs of every wall? Do you have any idea of how many studs can be nailed to top and bottom plates with one nail instead of three? Do you have any idea how much time and money the builder can save by not preselecting framing lumber? Do you have any idea about any of the things a builder can do if he wants...?

Why would you want to persist and upset the person building your house when you say things are going well?

Pass the popcorn...