The International Residential Code, which is adopted by many states, requires foundation drainage. I cannot fathom why your architect and contractor omitted this very important (and pretty cheap) system, no matter what their opinions. Find out from whoever issues permits in your area what code is used (you may be able to find out on-line).

were you required to have soil testing done?? seems like the water table issues might have come up?

"...We heard from the GC and the foundation subcontractor after they dug the basement that based on the soil and location we'd "never have to worry about water..."

Have you invited your GC and foundation subcontractor over to your house for pie and coffee, and asked why they said what they said...?

I'm continually amazed at how some builders and specialty contractors may say and do anything to avoid a litte extra work required by the building code, the construction drawings and good practice.

That said, soil conditions are frequently ignored at an owner's peril, and yes, investigation of soils for bearing, movement and drainage is an owner's responsibility.

I dont know how common this is but our county has water table data online.

Might be worth checking with the county to see what data they have T see what you may really be dealing with.

This doesn't help attribute the blame to the correct party, but -

When the contractor and foundation subcontractor said you'd never have to worry about water, were they winking and elbowing each other? I can imagine that they BOTH were aware that there were going to be water problems and that their inference in saying that was because they knew there was going to be PLENTY OF WATER. (What they meant was, there weren't going to be any worries about getting enough water. Which turned out to be the case.)

You say you hired "an architect and GC" like they were one and the same company. As in a builder with a drafter on staff. Not two separate people, with two different paychecks and both responsible to only you. That needs to be clarified, as the duty to the customer is different, depending on who signed the checks.

Thank you for all the detailed responses. Some additional info:

No sump pit/pump was installed. Not sure what a “footing drain” is, but definitely no type of perimeter drain (since there was no sump pit). There was typical exterior wall waterproofing.

Foundation is concrete.

All contracts with GC and Architect were minimal agreements on terms. They were separate, though they frequently do work together. Both are friends and I have doubts about their integrity and openness with me. I recognize and accept that lack of contract detail means greatly diminished recourse possibilities for me. And I’m not looking to get legal advice or seek damages, etc. Just looking for insight/experiences and an understanding of what went wrong.

This was a residential build in MA.

Believe it’s a water table issue and not perched (from my recent learning). Soil is sandy and there is no rock in the area either visible or during excavation.

sounds like I need to investigate exactly what drainage systems were or were not installed. I have a foundation plan from the permit that I will re-examine. And of course can talk to the GC and architect about what they remember.

No soil testing that I know of, but will ask. This was built on the same small lot after demoing the existing home and foundation, so might not have been needed?

The GC is a friend and helped out during the first flood we had. I believe the water level surprised him as much as us. I don’t think there was any winking on his side. The foundation sub I don’t know/trust so I don’t know if he was just trying to save some work thinking he’d likely get away with it unnoticed.

Thanks bry911, just getting some general thoughts, not pursuing legal action at this time. Most likely, if I think the GC bears some responsibility, I feel better about looking to him to help remedy (which I think he would do). I don’t want to press him if I determine it was really all my fault.

Thanks all!

Foundation drain should be shown on foundation drawing but may be shown on wall sections. Did architect stamp/sign drawings?

You must have some foundation drains...I can't imagine any builder not putting in footer drains.

I had a flood in the cellar of my brand-new home too. Mine was caused when some brilliant mind crushed the footer drain as they were back-filling the foundation. We were unaware it was crushed until an extremely heavy rain event moved through (remnants of a hurricane) - and I woke up to several inches of standing water in my basement.

When we all realized the footer drain was not draining water....they started digging backward from there. I about cried watching all that nice new landscaping coming out, and the nice deep ruts the backhoe was leaving in my nice newly- sodded lawn.

Fortunately the crushed section was only about 8 feet back from the drain, and the GC covered all the expenses.

Well...there may be several different conditions actually at work in this situation...or not. It's hard to tell from the OP's description. Perhaps these definitions will help.

Water table is defined as: "...The water table is the upper surface of the zone of saturation. The zone of saturation is where the pores and fractures of the ground are permanently saturated with water..."

Groundwater: "...Groundwater is the water found underground in the cracks and spaces in soil, sand and rock. It is stored in and moves slowly through geologic formations of soil..."

Sources of water: the main sources of water are groundwater, surface water and rainwater (including melted snow).

Water table level change: water seeping down from the land surface adds to the ground water and is called recharge water. ... Heavy rains or melting snow may increase recharge and cause the water table to rise. An extended period of dry weather may decrease recharge and cause the water table to fall. The opposite may be true during seasonal or abnormal periods of extended rain or snow. And changes in subsurface acquifers and ground water patterns may also affect the water table level without prior warning.

The point here and in similar situations, however, is that any and every below grade habitable space should always include proper waterproofing (not damp proofing) and perimeter drains. Sumps and water-actuated sump pumps are always a good idea. But these take time, cost money and require proper due diligence.

Every experienced architect, designer and builder should know and understand this. The question in this situation is why the general contractor and foundation sub-contractor told the OP nothing would ever be needed.

"The buyer hires the GC who in turn hires appropriate experts "

It is my understanding that this was not a design-build project and that both the architect and the builder were working for the owner independently. Be careful not to arbitrarly shift responsibility for design decisions from the architect to the GC. Its the architect who would determine if foundation drainage and/or waterproofing was appropriate and show it in the contract documents. The GC should not be expected to provide a warranty for work he was not contracted to do.

Of course, we haven't seen the design documents or the contracts but from what we've been told, it would be the owner's architect who made the mistake.

RES - true we don't have sufficient info, but surely you agree this isn't the owner's responsibility?

Just some comments on the latest trend of this thread.

It would be difficult for a contractor to use the contract to remove his duty of due care. You generally can't take money from someone for something you are an expert in while simultaneously removing your responsibility as an expert.

If you pay an attorney there is an expectation that he will provide responsible legal advice, he can't escape that expectation just by saying I was doing what the client wanted. You may do something against his advice, but he can't subjugate his expertise to your desires. The same thing goes for anyone you pay money to. A contractor can't take money as a contractor and not exercise the due care a contractor is legally required to. I don't care what the contractor puts in the contract.

Note: This is not to say that the contractor didn't exercise due care as I am not in that area, but in my area any basement that isn't waterproof would be a very tough sell for due care. I suspect the OP is really going to need to talk to someone with local construction expertise to know that one for sure.

Furthermore, there is this idea that goes right along with due care called promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance). In this case detrimental reliance looks something like this: (1) The contractor made a claim "never have to worry about water," (2) It is reasonable that the OP would rely on that claim, (3) the contractor knew, or should have known, when the claim was made that it could be relied on, (4) the OP did rely on that claim.

An expert, who should know when something might be a problem, tells you it isn't going to be a problem, and it turns out there is a problem.... Well he has a problem too.

Serious question for the smart people (you know who you are, ha ha) -

Isn't it basically common sense (aside from whether it's "code") to put footer drains in when you build on a cellar?

I can't wrap my head around someone who reportedly builds houses for a living building a home on a basement and not putting in a footer drain. But I've only ever owned houses in New York (and now a vacation home in Delaware) - and every one of those homes had cellars with footer drains.

So help edumacate me. Are there places where cellars don't need footer drains?

@RES

I really can't tell if you are missing my point or just making a different one, but in either case I will say this. Liability and responsibility are different things. If the contractor/builder should have known better, then he is liable. If he believes the architect should be ultimately responsible then he can take that up with (or sue) the architect.

I accept your expertise that the architect should have known better, but that doesn't indemnify the builder in any way. In this case I would go after the builder because of the additional detrimental reliance case.

I don't know how far you would get based on an oral observation on a construction site unless you could prove the owner deleted the drainage system because of the comment.

Farther than you would get with the architect...

And... You would only need demonstrate that but for the comment the OP would have investigated further.

But we don't yet know who had responsibility for the design of the building or if there were any details on the contract documents. Not much to go on here.

I am not going to repeat my earlier post. I will say that once every couple of months someone who has no legal experience, tries to hold a contract up as the word of god. It is very difficult to write an enforceable contract to exempt you from a relationship that exists in fact.

In short, I stand by my first comment. If the OP wants to know who is liable for this, then the OP is going to need to seek legal advice in their area. Don't be tempted to read the contract and believe it is enforceable just because someone on the internet gives their opinion on contract law.

Foundation drains are like seatbelts in cars. Cheap insurance against catastrophe. Chances are you'll never need it. But, when you do, you really need it.

My impression was that the OP is more interested learning what went wrong than seeing someone. Unfortunately, there's not enough information to be sure but one of the possibilities is an unclear division of design responsibility.

My impression was that the OP is more interested in a basement that doesn't leak. If the OP was interested in academic discourse on construction omissions and errors, then I apologize for not participating in that activity.

However, if the OP is looking for a solution to their current problem, then I submit that knowing who might reasonably be held liable has value in, and out of, court.

I have resigned myself to participation in this discussion, which I would like to be removed from. This is a real, rather than academic, issue for someone, and the things you say have real monetary consequences. I am happy that you are helping the OP understand what went wrong, but your saying, "Unless that work was specified and the builder ignored it, the builder should be in the clear," is not correct and could have real consequences on the OP's decision.

RES

I have already described the options for fixing the basement. Rather than worrying about liability the OP should ask both the builder and the architect if they would be willing to contribute to the cost of the repair. I suspect all three parties bear some responsibility for this oversight.

Let me remind you of your earlier post.

RES

I wouldn't bother with the contractor.

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

My only advice has been to seek qualified legal advice. At no time have I ever advised the OP to seek remedy against only a single party, including the contractor. I have taken issue with your consistently saying the builder/contractor bears no responsibility and my posts have been in response to that.

I submit that knowing who is liable is important even in negotiations that will never see any real action. Knowing when to accept a $5,000 settlement versus a $50,000 settlement is important, and the OP should spend a few hundred dollars on legal counsel rather than take your advice here. That includes the most recent advice to seek collection from both.

---

It is OK to be a great architect and not know anything about tort law. In fact, I would question your ability as an architect if you were, in fact, an expert on tort law. So I don't understand why we needed to continue this discussion until you got from "I wouldn't bother with the contractor," to "the OP should ask both the builder and the architect if they would be willing to contribute..."

ETA: I don't always see attorneys as the best option. Working out a problem before there are real damages without an attorney is always a good thing. However, once damages have occurred information is king.

You got plenty of good advise I will just stick my 2 cents in. Contractor is not responsible here, can't blame the homeowner also here but some leg work should have been done on his part.

The builder was hired as a professional and every builder knows when you're dealing with basements first thing you have to do is to find out the soil condition in the area, you can get that information in the township engineering department, etc they will tell you.

In general the minute you find out what soil type (that is pretty much the first thing you want to know) you have in the area you will know the steps you have to make to put a good foundation.

As an example in the area/s where I build there are 3 types of soil, it's a sand mixed with gravel... loam or bedrock...

When dealing with shale or bedrock prior to designing my foundation and the depth of it, I always do a soil test to find out the depth of the water table because you want your basement floor elevation to be a min 12" above the water level. Last few homes I built my foundations could only go 3' deep.

A few other builders in the area didn't do a soil test probably they didn't know the area ( when you doing spot building in most cases you will never know because its not a requirement, they have nothing but moisture and water issues especially when you get lots of rain, they have the sump pumps and dehumidifiers constantly running in some cases 24/7. You would drive by in the summer time and you will see the water discharging into the street.( was an old requirement the sump pumps had to be tied into the drain which ran to the curb).

If you dealing with a subdivision, engineering departments in most jurisdictions especially if there are known poor soil conditions will ask for a soil test report and a prepared drainage as-built plan for the property, in many cases you will have to tie all the gutter systems into the storm sewer or detention basin, etc.

Good luck

Just for clarification...

I am using the term contractor to refer to the G.C. or builder. I doubt the OP has standing against the sub-contractor.

I'm not a lawyer but since 1971 I've been the primary or assistant project architect or owner's rep for countless construction disputes some involving hundreds of thousands of dollars and far more complicated than the OP's problem. To my knowledge, in none of them was the intervention of lawyers needed.

Well I have been a lawyer for 15 minutes or so and ran capital project development for a petroleum company and eventually for a country. I can tell you for sure having been in a few contractor disputes, that the lawyers were always involved.

Involving a lawyer doesn't mean going to court and suing someone. It means being fully informed. The advice to work out a problem that could amount to a significant amount of money without seeking legal advice from someone who doesn't have a vested interest is simply good advice.

Frankly, you may well be a great architect, but you suck at dispute resolution. You would have the OP go to someone who has a vested interest in paying less rather than spend a couple of hundred dollars or less to loop in their attorney.

ETA: Just to be clear, the OP has noted a question about a diminished value claim, a detrimental reliance cause, and stated that they had concerns about the integrity of the architect and builder. Your advice is to work it out with the architect, the one with questionable integrity...

ETA2: RES deleted the referenced post...

I will not tolerate repeated abuse. If the OP wants my opinion he can message me privately.

"...We heard from the GC and the foundation subcontractor after they dug the basement that based on the soil and location we'd "never have to worry about water"..."

I dunno...seems to me there's some dual responsibility here, based on the OP's comments...

As for the "architect"...we don't know if it was a licensed architect or not, since posters throw around the term "architect" frequently in postings without really knowing what an architect is/isn't...we don't know what foundation details were or weren't shown on the drawings...we don't know anything about the requirements for foundations by the local jurisdiction...we don't know anything about the experience of the GC and foundation subcontractor, such as were they new to the area, or had they been building in the area for generations...we don't know much of anything about this critical part of situation...

All we do know, for sure, is the OP's comments above.

I can only guess that if it was a requirement it was installed because they had to pass back-fill inspection and slab inspection prior before basement floor was poured.

Unless they live someplace where there is no code adoption and the builder does what they want. Unfortunately such places still exist and after the house is built they come only to do a final inspection just to make sure they have the house on their lot and not on someone else property.

Applicable code section for this project (MA):

The OP is using the existence of a sump pump to determine the existence of foundation drainage, when the system could exist as a gravity drain. Gravity drains are pretty common in my area, but might be exceedingly rare in MA. I really don't know that, but if it is as standard as you are presenting it seems likely that it exists in some form.

We built a basement in southern CA, an area in perpetual drought. The most important aspect of that basement, after earthquake design, was water management. We have a sump pump and drainage all around the basement.

I can't imagine anyone building a house in MA, today, without any foundation water management.

We are finally getting some rain here in southern CA! It is supposed to rain all week. The basement will be checked daily to make sure there is no failure in the drains. No issues so far after 7 years. This area can go from drought to flash flooding, so well designed drainage systems are very important.

Thanks all for the comments. I expected that it probably wasn't a clear cut answer with all the potential legal, moral and simple relationship aspects. All of your thoughtful insight and discussion was exactly what I was looking for to help me frame my discussions with all parties going forward. Your time is much appreciated!