|
|
|
|
'It would be less expensive ... to start over'
By Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff, 4/29/01 FRANKLIN -- When Edward and Mary Bobka moved into their Toll Brothers home on Winthrop Drive four years ago this month, the first thing they noticed was the builder's clumsy attempt to fill in a major crack in the foundation. In the bright, airy rooms upstairs, the couple found the walls were bowed, and the floors warped. The master bedroom floor had a high ridge in the middle, making it possible for two balls to roll downhill in opposite directions. Later, the couple discovered that construction workers had left construction debris, dirt and even moldy and rotten food in the home's ducting system. So they complained. And got nowhere, even after Robert I. Toll, the company's chief executive, reassured them, writing, "I have passed your letter on to senior management and have been assured that you will be treated fairly." Yet two weeks later, Toll's project manager for the development, John D. Sargent, dismissed the Bobkas' complaint about water in the basement with the cracked foundation. In a letter, he blamed the problem on "condensation of water vapor." Other problems? Not its fault, was Toll's reply. When the Bobkas discovered a sloppily applied mortar joint over their front door, the project manager, Mary Bobka said, told her: "This is the first time we've built this model. So you'll have to accept that." For another 18 months, the Bobkas waited for the problems to be fixed. But warranty or not, Toll sidestepped their complaints, the couple said. The foundation cracks worsened, suggesting serious structural flaws. Mary Bobka developed an ulcer, which she attributes to Toll's efforts to wear her down by turning aside her complaints. Once when she complained, Mary Bobka said in an interview, a Toll official told her: "You got this home cheap. You'll make a lot of money when you sell it." In mid-1998, her hopes soared when Raymond A. Arcario became the latest of several Toll project managers assigned to the subdivision. Arcario was appalled at the home's flaws. "I'm sorry for your home," she quoted Arcario as saying, "They (Toll) will do what I want to fix it, or I'll find another job." But Arcario, who won high praise from other homeowners for addressing their complaints, resigned from the company shortly thereafter. In December, 1998, the town's new building commissioner, Matthias J. Mulvey, cited Toll for 16 separate violations of the state building code at the Bobka home. He ordered Toll to remedy the defects, one of which would have required the outside sheathing of he house to be replaced. Finally, the Bobkas had Toll's attention. It moved into action. The company appealed Mulvey's findings to the state. Four months later, the state Board of Building Regulations and Standards upheld the violations and ordered the defects fixed. But in May, 1999, Toll sent its own consultant, the former state building commissioner, Charles J. Dinezio, to the house. Dinezio's report minimized the extent of the damage. So in July, 1999, Toll's senior project manager, Thomas P. Armitage, wrote the Bobkas a detailed letter, saying some of the flaws did not exist and others were not Toll's responsibility. A month later, the Bobkas sought out their own expert, turning to Walter Blair Adams, an architect, licensed construction supervisor and former building commissioner in Newton. His report confirmed that the house had serious settling problems; and that the cardboard-like sheathing, Thermo-ply, that Toll used instead of plywood for the structural integrity of the house's walls, was improperly applied. Such sheathing is supposed to protect homes from wind movement. But Adams said in a recent interview that the Bobka house was so poorly constructed that it "could suffer catastrophic damage in the event of a hurricane. It could collapse." Still, nothing was done. So just over a year ago, the Bobkas retained George R. Smith, a builder from Wrentham who Toll has hired in the past to fix other houses with serious structural defects. Smith, in his report, endorsed the conclusions of both Adams and Mulvey. His estimate to rectify the code violations and do other repairs that resulted from poor workmanship: $258,391 -- for a home that, with land, cost the Bobkas just $330,243. A year and a half after Mulvey cited Toll for the code violations, and more than a year after the state upheld them, the Bobkas presented the Adams report and Smith estimate to David A. Roche, the Franklin building commissioner. Roche pressed Toll and state officials to join him on a visit to the home. Last fall, Skip Kelleher, Toll's regional vice president, walked through the home and looked at the damage. After seeing some of the flaws, Kelleher said, according to Adams, "What did these bozos do?" Kelleher, through a Toll spokesman, denied making the remark. But Mary Bobka also recalls Kelleher telling her that even million dollar homes have crooked walls. Contractor Smith had determined that the walls were "out of plumb" in 66 places, with differences in some cases 1 3/4 inches within an eight-foot span. When Toll asked Smith to consider fixing some -- but not all -- of the flaws, the Bobkas had had enough. Toll's offer, she said, "was totally unacceptable. We want this house out of our lives." For almost four years, she said in a January interview, "I've only put one picture up on the walls. I have never decorated my house. It wouldn't make sense given its condition." Weary of the battle, the Bobkas hired Boston attorney Anthony S. Summers. In January, Summers wrote Toll a letter demanding that they repurchase the house for what it would fetch without the flaws. Otherwise, he said, he would sue Toll for fraud and seek triple damages under the state consumer protection law. In February, Toll capitulated. On March 27, Toll became the owner of 14 Winthrop Drive. The Bobkas have moved back to California. What will become of the house? Based on past experience, Toll will make repairs and sell it to someone else. But Adams, the expert, has a different prescription: "It would be less expensive to tear it down and start over. While you might fix it for the $258,000, you are likely to find further problems and the repairs will damage parts of the house that are now okay." |
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Co. |
