|
|
|
|
'A seventh-grade shop project gone wrong'
By Sacha Pfeiffer, Globe Staff, 4/29/01 Steve and Nancy Norman's lawyer has a ready description for the house they own in Brentwood Glen, a Toll Brothers subdivision in Brentwood, Tennessee, a suburb of Nashville: "a seventh-grade shop project gone wrong." That was hardly the vision the Normans had in mind when they decided, confidently and enthusiastically, to buy a Toll home two years ago for nearly $400,000. The company's marketing material and sales video thoroughly impressed the couple. And Steve Norman, a masonry contractor, thought his industry know-how would ensure that construction went smoothly. But according to a lawsuit the Normans filed against Toll, construction was anything but smooth. Shortly after signing a sales agreement, Norman said, "we started having some surprises," including sloppy work by subcontractors and construction that differed from plans filed with the city -- sometimes in violation of code requirements -- including missing support beams and a too-small room. The Normans said they also encountered a raft of cosmetic flaws: scratched hardwood floors, chipped shutters, a cracked driveway and uneven chair rails. And after moving into the house, they hired a home inspector who traced water-stain damage to a leaky chimney, apparently caused by improperly installed flashing. The inspector also found that the brick front on the house had no functioning weep holes, which allow any water trapped behind the brick to drain out. Without weep holes, trapped water can lead to mold, fungus, and rot, which can damage wood framing. Asked by the Globe about its masonry practices, Toll said that it follows building code requirements. In Tennessee, the code requires working weep holes and flashing behind them. Yet despite repeated appeals to Toll, the Normans said, many of the problems went uncorrected. In the case of the leak, two Toll officials -- a regional manager and the company's president -- accused the couple of pouring water on their bedroom floor, according to the couple. Toll has denied the accusation. At one point, the local building department refused to issue any additional building permits or conduct any additional inspections at the subdivision until Toll satisfied the city's concerns about missing support beams in the Normans' home. Shortly before they were scheduled to close, the Normans said, their punch list of unfinished business still contained nearly 100 items. Among the incomplete work were items as basic as missing doors, improperly installed drywall and unpainted walls, they said. They also feared that the house might have serious structural defects. "The house was totally messed up," recalled Steve Norman, who said the house would have been livable only "if we wanted to string plastic over the openings and have Toll come in and sand and drywall and paint" after they moved in. Which, the couple said, is what happened. Their house was in this condition, he noted, despite Toll's boast that its "unique two-step pre-settlement orientation program" means that home owners "can entertain guests the night you move in." Meanwhile, Toll had already missed the home's delivery date by nearly two months, forcing the Normans to store their furniture and live in a hotel at their own expense, with their two teenage children while they waited for their house to be completed. The Normans closed on the house in December, 1999, despite the unresolved problems, but only after Toll threatened to keep their deposit and sell the house to another buyer -- and only after Toll signed a "reservation of rights" that the Normans believed allowed them to retain the right to sue the company if problems persisted. "Their strategies are to intimidate buyers," Jean Harrison, the Normans' lawyer, said of Toll. "They just want to beat them down, to shut them up." Last year, the Normans did sue Toll, for allegedly failing to deliver the house it promised. But a judge ruled earlier this month that the Normans's contract with Toll requires them to arbitrate the dispute. Harrison has appealed the ruling. Asked about the Normans, Toll answered in writing: "We always strive to deal fairly and respectfully with each and every one of our homeowners. From time to time, disputes arise that are incapable of amicable resolution and result in a third-party mediation or arbitration." In the meantime, the Normans continue to prod Toll to fix outstanding problems. A blue tarp covers their leaky chimney, which still leaks. And their disappointment in the quality of their home is eclipsed only by their disappointment in Toll. "What probably caused us to suffer most is we really bought into their scenario," said Steve Norman. "We bought into their annual report, their financial strength, their prior history ... We believed in their video, we believed they would work with us ... We felt we would get a good product." In response to Globe inquiries, Toll added that it has "worked with the Normans in good faith to address their concerns with the construction of their home" and noted that company officials "stand ready to meet with the Normans and their counsel at any time to resolve the remaining issues." Toll also said the Normans filed their suit "only after Toll had completed all of the work it had promised to complete," save for two minor items that were scheduled for completion. And it said the Normans declined its offers to meet to resolve remaining issues, a charge the Normans deny. "We felt like we were sold a reputation that looks really good on the outside, and that has a lot of name-brand things," said Steve Norman. "But when you dig further and dig deeper, it isn't really like that." |
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Co. |
