So, it is now four and a half months after we closed on the house and the contractor just informed my husband today that he is going to sue us. My husband told him to go ahead and try. We met with our lawyer this past week after the contractor started calling again (he needs more money since he didn't pay all the suppliers and they are now placing liens against him and are going after him criminally). The lawyer reviewed our contract and says that since the contractor signed the Contractor Affidavit (stating that he has been paid in full and has no rights to any more payments, liens, materials, etc). AND because he never produced change orders for the changes in question, we should be off the hook. Of course, we will see what his lawyer says about all of this. We are prepared to countersue if necessary. We have had cracks in walls that keep re-appearing after the contractor has come back to fix them multiple times. Hired a structural engineer this week and he showed me that the foundation was not done correctly. Basically, we are going to have to jack up a portion of the foundation and install more beams. Additionally, discovered that he did not do the soil compaction to the specs in the contract nor the envelope of the house. We have discovered multiple breaches of contract (did not use spec'd materials but instead used cheaper materials and charged higher price, etc). This is turning into a nightmare. Have you ever heard of a contractor winning a court case over overages for which there was NO change orders and that were not brought to the owner's attention until AFTER the closing?

Ouch. Assumings facts are as presented, neither side held to the contract during the build. Of course, a lot depends on the type of contract and just how specific it was in detail. It would appear that there was poor planning and a lack of oversight during the build (such as the need for another furnace determined *after* installation), payment for which should have been covered in the contracted details, as well as what sounds to be disregard for the contract -- "wrong" shower door installed by builder but buyer did not follow up on correction. A lot of the counter-claims are dependent entirely on the contract. If neither the contract nor the agreed-upon specs list specified model #xyz shower door, then the builder is not required to provide that model. A change-order would have clarified the requirement and the payment. If there is no change-order, the implication is that the builder appropriately provided a shower door as stated in the contract, but not a particular model# because none was stated. If the specification *was* covered, then it seems to become a case of the builder not abiding by contract. And so on, right down the list. So, yes, I join with others in thinking a lawyer is needed to protect the buyer's interests while clarifying the actual status of the charges. Builder can list and claim all the "up-grades" he wants to, but if they weren't specified in the contract or in a signed change-order it is likely to be viewed that he made the changes on his own cognizance and the buyer is not responsible for payment over the contracted amount; this applies to everything that was not specifically stated in the contract -- including re-painting. It would be nice to adhere to word-of-mouth-and-a-handshake, but it's rarely realistic or sensible to do so -- and if handshakes were thought to be realistically binding, there would never have been a contract in the first place. Without having written word, signed in agreement by all concerned parties, we are looking at a situation of he said/she said/I said/you said and the clarification, justification, and solution of the disagreement will most often involve legal staff. For those who consider it justified criticism to say that many GW posters leap to advising litigeous solutions, please consider that "good" builds don't need such solutions; and that "bad" or problematic builds all too often DO need the direct advice of a person knowledgeable of the laws of the OP's area -- which the GW posters realize may differ from their own area.

@trescool - the way you figure out "who pays" will come down to the CONTRACT you have....and whether or not it SPECIFICALLY calls for floor leveling/furring out the joists, etc. And then the next place you can LEAN on (legally) would be the specific language regarding the tile install. This is where the words, "To NTCA Reference Manual Guidelines" will come in handy. These TWO statements in your contract (please pull out your contract to see what it says) will save your bacon. I would wait to see what the GC (and not his subordinate) says. If they offer the redo but are sticky on who pays, then this is going to get UGLY. If they offer the redo with a 50/50 split, then you have room to negotiate. I'm sorry to say but your project became the COMPANY'S learning curve for who NOT TO HIRE and how NOT to work - especially if they want to keep earning awards. I would push the "awards" point - quite heavily. Because the people who gave out the awards may not KNOW about the lowering of standards for this Company, you can use that as leverage (but only as a last resort - before it gets REALLY ugly). You could mention that you would be happy to UP DATE the award-givers regarding your project to see if this is common practice for the Company in question.

I have had too many experiences of contractors or other professionals doing crappy work. Stopping payment on a check is the equivalent of not paying until the job is done satisfactorily--isnt that why we initially pay a deposit? I don't have a lot of experience with this stuff so I dont know what is standard and what I should expect--that's why I'm asking these questions here. I hire professionals assuming they know better than I do. But things didnt look right to me. Every web site I looked at indicated that the stove should be level with the counter, so I figured that was a standard any contractor should know. Same with the tile questions.