What does your contract say?

Nothing either way about it at all. His claim is because the permits are in his name he has control.

I'd fire that SOB so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. After I cut his locks off. I'd have all my paperwork in hand for when he called the police.

Nothing either way about it at all. His claim is because the permits are in his name he has control

In the US the owner is responsible for all permitting. Typically permits issued to a contractor are done so in an agency capacity. So I would argue that the permits are ultimately your responsibility and thus they are your permits drawn in his name. However, that doesn't really matter, the idea that a GC who pulls permits can lock you out of your property is ridiculous on its face, he could then constructively evict you, and I assure you he can't do that.

Unbelievable. Instead of feeling excited to get moved into your new home this builder has made it seem like a violation to be in the home you legally own. I would wonder if he's trying to hide something. How did the house look last time you were in it?

I wonder what would happen if you showed up with the police and all your documentation.

Seriously though, you need to speak to a construction lawyer NOW.

Everything looked fine, but I plan to have a full home inspection done before accepting it. I agree with the comments here, it doesn’t seem logical he could legally lock me out but I’m not an attorney to know for sure.

I'm with CP. Get a lawyer now. I have no idea what sort of legal right he has -- can't imagine one -- but get that lawyer.

Also let your bank know so he doesn't file for anymore draws.

That’s disturbing. Is there a back story? Is it just you needs to have him there when you visit for safety? Or are you really locked out? Was there a disagreement? I would show up with cops if truly locked out.

I'm guessing there's a lot more going on here. I would want to know why the contractor won't let you in the house. The reasons could be quite legitimate, safety or finishes that need to cure. Or, this is the latest in a troubled relationship between builder and client.

I had a builder do the exact same thing to me a few years ago. I owned the land and hired him to GC and construct the house. He tried to lock me out too, allegedly for "liability" concerns.

It resolved itself when he became clear I was having none of it. My land, my house, my money paying you. He wasn't happy but he gave me the code to the locks.

No. This is the advantage to owning the land and having the construction loan in your name. I would probably fire him on the spot when he didn't give me a code or a key. And/Or call the cops and ask them to please remove the lock from MY home...don't want to get in trouble for destroying someone else's property. :) We are all curious what transpired to this though.

Of course, it's ridiculous to be barred from your own property. But don't take for granted that the local constabulary will jump to assist you without a Court Order. "This is a civil matter sir! If you don't leave the property immediately, you will be restrained and arrested and charged if necessary."

Maybe tell him that the money is in your name and for every day that you are locked out of your property you will deduct $1,000. Might get his attention! Might really get his attention if your lawyer writes a letter!

Put up a big fence and lock him out of the property so he can't get to the house!

All crazy ideas aside ... talk to a lawyer and put a stop to this.

Ohhhh, I love Chispa's fence idea!!!

I'm trying to imagine what happened to the relationship - one that has presumably been going on for months - that the contractor would do something so drastic. Good luck.

Wow - that's really ugly.

CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY NOW.

A few hundred dollars to know your right and secure an attorney if you need something in the future will be WELL worthwhile. Simply knowing your rights, and now to handle your GC will be priceless. An attorney will help you be firm, and polite and help you AVOID further problems by escalating the situation. There also may be VERY SPECIFIC ACTIONS that you SHOULD TAKE to protect yourself, or in dealing with your GC going forward.

Do this tomorrow morning - first thing.

I'm totally with you ... my land /my business /my right to be there any time I please.

However, confrontation with your GC can only hurt you. Flies and honey, you know. Give yourself a couple days to calm down over the situation, then call and say that you want to talk about a compromise.

Don't turn nasty ... until you've exhausted all other possibilities.

Though, yeah, I like the fence idea.

'm totally with you ... my land /my business /my right to be there any time I please.

However, confrontation with your GC can only hurt you. Flies and honey, you know. Give yourself a couple days to calm down over the situation, then call and say that you want to talk about a compromise.

Don't turn nasty ... until you've exhausted all other possibilities.

Though, yeah, I like the fence idea.

I normally do agree with you but in this case I have to totally disagree. A lot can happen in a few days and NO ONE who owns their land should be locked out of their home.

What needs to happen is the OP again needs to have a meeting with a construction lawyer.

He has no rights. Technically you can cut the locks and if he feels he was not compensated properly has the right to mechanical liens. But before you take the action I would try to work this out.

Outrageous!!!! What's is his %&#$& problem? I would sue him and after you win, charge him all of your lawyers fees!!!!! It's 'your' home....period!!!!! He's trying to scam you!!

Thanks everyone! I have had the same thoughts as many of you. Yes, the tensions have risen lately and ultimately led to this. We’re meeting tonight in person to work things out. But we have also reached out to an attorney in case it goes that direction.

So my advice is to attempt to avoid escalation and absolutely avoid litigation unless there is no other option. I can't see any circumstance where your contractor is correct, but the actual value of being right is determined by the cost to get your contractor to agree. If you spend a fortune in time, effort and money to make him see the light, it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Personally, I would be super nice, stroke his ego and yet not give an inch. I would simply say, "I am very happy with where we are at, and this can't have been the easiest build, but we are not comfortable being locked out, so what can we do about that?"

Then I would keep saying, "we understand, but are not comfortable with that" until he storms out, or I get what I want. If I had to threaten escalation, I would do it without actually threatening escalation... e.g. "I hate to go to attorneys with this thing, I guess I will if I have to, but we both know paying attorneys is a waste of good money for both of us."

Good luck.

I agree with Ann upthread that there has to be mnore to the story. I am not doubting the op but there are 3 sides to every story.

Milkworkman, there is. But on a thread like this is not the place to explain the novel’s worth of details. I was just looking for a bottom line answer if he was legally allowed as he claims to lock me out. I’ve searched for this answer on law websites with no luck so far and thought I’d just try asking here. Thanks!

No, unless you agreed in writing.

The short answer is no. If there is an issue over payment, he can file mechanical liens on the property but, in my state, he’d have to personally sue you (successfullay, that is) to enforce the liens/force a sale of the property/get paid.

Obviously, trying to reach an amicable solution would be the goal. I’m sure you know that.

If there are genuine safety concerns such as a temporary staircase that isn’t even fastened well, he absolutely can ban you and everyone else from the area. He can also demand that you wear steel toed boots, goggles, and a hard hat. That’s what you are paying him to do. To not have an insurance claim.

But, snit throwing and wholesale banning? Not if you own the property.

Yeah I'm wondering if it's just for safety reasons? My husband and grandfather in law are building our house, and my GFIL is the GC and VERY safety conscious because he's been burned before (his business was sued when someone trespassed on a property he was the GC on and fell).

While he hasn't locked us out yet, it wouldn't surprise me if there were stages in the build where he might. I take his concerns seriously and trust him.

If it's not for safety/liability reasons though, then I agree that's not right.

No safety concerns, if that was the argument then I’d be ok with it. Since I carry the insurance I wouldn’t want to be sued either if someone came in to snoop and got hurt. The inside is 99% done.

@GreenDesigns

OP: I own the land ... and THE INSURANCE during the build is in my name.

I suspect It is NOT about the safety [not sure if builder risk is in OP name, or GC liability].

=

Could be OP that nitpicking and/or distracting the subs, could be a dispute about money, could be OP is working on the projects [like doing electrical wiring that could fail the inspection], could be personalities. Whatever the issue is they need to work it out.

Just to be clear - my advice to have a consultation with an attorney is one made to AVOID any sort of litigation. Construction attorneys deal with this kind of problem for a living and, IMO, work hard to resolve issues before they get out of hand.

Knowing what you SHOULD say / can say / what's important to stress, and knowing you have some backing should it come to that - is well worth the investment.

I DO NOT recommend threatening or even telling the GC you have consulted with an attorney. In fact - I would specifically NOT mention it or throw around the "I'll see you in court" nonsense. But having backup, that knows the law and may even know things about the GC / the industry that can be valuable - is a good investment.

> Just to be clear - my advice to have a consultation with an attorney is one made to AVOID any sort of litigation.

Most US judges are corrupt, render absurd judgements, hide facts, miscites, lie to protect dirty companies.

=

>Ok. To calm speculation. the quick and dirty story:

>" He told us we can do upgrades with subcontractors ".. He went over budget on his costs ...

> I said: could be a dispute about money, could be OP is working on the projects ...

It was both.

> and is demanding we resign an updated contract because of our “unauthorized upgrades” and to adjust price accordingly.

Do NOT offer any consideration until the end [final payment]. Any consideration could be looked at as acceptance of a new deal. Some issues may have to be negotiated. But I would reduce the 3rd party contracts.

I think it might be a good idea under the circumstances to change your name to a pseudonym and change your avatar to something non-identifying.

If “small changes” were added outside the scope of work outlined in the original contract, that would require a Change Order, for which there is usually a fee on top of the cost of the additional work. Look through the original contract and see if there is any language regarding Change Order.

Just to be clear - my advice to have a consultation with an attorney is one made to AVOID any sort of litigation.

As was mine. :) But it pays to know your options.

Your side deals with the subs may have impacted the GC's costs so it might be fair to pay him some reasonable compensation.

I advise my clients against these kinds of arrangements since they muddy the chain of responsibility. Anyone can buy a double oven at Home Depot and save the contractors markup. But, the contractor gets paid to make sure the oven fits the cabinet, that it arrives on time for the project, that the wiring is in place etc. If one of these details goes wrong, who's job is it to fix it now?

Changes are NEVER EVER done directly with the subs. NEVER. It all goes through the GC, and he gets his 25% on top of the change. Plus a change order fee in many cases. You going outside the contract will definitely have negative repercussions to your bottom line price. You owe him his markup on every side deal that you cut. Every single one. He is in the strong position on this. Take another look at your contingency fund, and cut him that check. He is owed it.

"You owe him his markup on every side deal that you cut. Every single one. He is in the strong position on this."

Uhmm, not necessarily...

Unfortunately, the law is a lot more complicated than you seem to believe. Regardless of what the contract says, a builder can't profit from conditions that he allowed to exist without objection. If the builder was well aware of side deals and didn't act appropriately, he can't act appropriately now. It is just an unjust enrichment action.

You can't "run up the tab" on a customer by letting them believe deals are not being added to the total cost and then hit them with a bill that they were unaware they were creating. That is why change orders exist and the builder would be responsible for initiating a change order the moment he became aware of the side deals.

Any updates?