White deposits on cement - lawsuit

[Hello]

Does anyone know if this happens only when water leaches it to the air?  Or is this same kind of destruction happening under are home now?

[mallardisme]

I have some information on sulphates and the specific basis of the claims.

My understanding is that this would not be a big issue, if the builders use the correct type of concrete in their building. (Type V, I believe it is). MM did not use that specific type when they built the area.

Sulphates are in the soil, and that is not unusual.

There will be several researched stories coming out on this in the next week or so.


I can't help but wonder if the sulphate erosion may have anything to do with the issues we saw last year regarding the Maricopa Lakes, and the excesive use of water...

[twostep23]

There is a solution that communities in Casa Grande use that takes it off and then you use a sealant to stop it from happening.

This is happening throughout the area not just localized.  They have been dealing with it for many many years.  It's just a matter of doing this process and it lasts longer. 

[Michelle]

I haven't been active on any Maricopa forum for a while -- I didn't even know about this one until a couple of weeks ago!  Someone will have to fill me in on the drama I missed! -- but when this issue resurfaced, I started lurking again to see what others thought about it.  

I have similar damage on my patio:

http://www.altadin.com/images/0324000624.jpg
http://www.altadin.com/images/0324000624a.jpg

It isn't as extensive as Mallard's, but that may be because I had the patio recoated by the builder while it was still under warranty.  

P.S. I'm Chelle and Cellennas elsewhere on teh Maricopa Internets.

[Michelle]

twostep -  We were told by an engineer that sealing the foundation could cost upwards of $20,000.

[twostep23]

Understood but it's all over the Arizona desert not just here in Maricopa.  Got a friend in the valley where her neighbor is doing the same thing.  Part of the cost of living here.

[mallardisme]

Understood but it's all over the Arizona desert not just here in Maricopa.  Got a friend in the valley where her neighbor is doing the same thing.  Part of the cost of living here.

It is a part of the cost of living. What the claim is stating is that it should have been an up front cost of living and the correct materials should have been used and that the developer knew those materials should have been used.

My understanding is that a retro on a house can run between $20,000 and $30,000. It sounds like it is pretty invasive to the home as well, including ripping up the floors.

Yea, it is bad here, but it is a lot worse at a few of my neighbors. I am going to see if I grab some shots over the weekend. One of the theirs actually has a 3 inch hole through the fence from this.

Anyhow, I am still gathering info. More detailed info will be posted. I believe the lawfirm is still accepting persons to be part of this for the next 2 weeks.

I also wonder about the current foreclosed homes. The banks will not do anything in ths claim, nor will they fix the homes, if history is true to itself. That means there are a lot of homes right out of the gate that will fail in about 10 years.

[Fritzydoodle]

This article is a little one sided - it was written by the concrete industry.  But it has good information about what causes the problems.
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_constructiondefect_lawsuits_justice/

But it makes a statement:
. “A supplier has a duty to supply materials that conform to the Building Code, which clearly lays out that concrete used for foundations must be sulfate-resistant if it is exposed to the soil in areas where sulfate levels are high. This means Type V cement and the proper water-to-cement ratio of 0.45.”

The question remains, since these building codes have been in effect since the 1980s, why is it only in recent years that the lawsuits have increased so rapidly? Most of the today's litigation involves jobs that were done in 1990s, according to Ingalsbe. But Kasdan — whose firm also has an office in Concord, Calif., and a just-opened Arizona location — sees the rash of newer cases as a product of shoddy workmanship. “Cost-cutting and lack of care on the part of the architects, the contractors and the supplier are to blame,” he explains. “Suppliers in Southern California routinely use low-quality concrete mixes with a higher water content resulting in low strength, which cuts down on durability. Some people call it ‘junk-crete.’ You don't see this problem in Detroit, for example, where the freeze-thaw factor would never allow for this type of material to pass muster. Most of California and the American Southwest doesn't experience freeze-thaw, so some builders recommend lesser-strength concrete.

This website is a construction defect attorney.  They've got a good explanation of the problems
http://kasdansimonds.com/constructiondefects/sulfate.php


The answer is in the testing of the concrete.  What type was used and what was the water ratio?  

[Michelle]

twostep - This particular "cost of living" should have been incurred at the time that the foundation was poured.  From what I've read, the cement paste used by the Maricopa Meadows builders was not up to building code for the level of sulfates in the soil.  If that is true, then the fault -- and, therefore, the obligation -- lies entirely with the builders.

The damage, once it occurs, is permanent and irreversible.  Sealing the foundation can only prolong the life of the home; not save it.  The only true "repair" is to tear down and rebuild it correctly.  How can this possibly be construed as a "cost of living"?  Using appropriate building materials and increasing the base cost accordingly?  Yes.  Absolutely.  Rebuilding a house 15 years after it was was built?  No.  

If this everything we're reading and being told is true, then my personal feeling is that the Maricopa Meadows will never fully recover.  Many of the homes here are bank owned and vacant.  Others are recent foreclosures that were purchased at auction for a fraction of their original values and are now low-income rentals.  The banks and investment owners are not going to throw good money after bad by spending $20,000 to $30,000 to seal the foundations of homes that are worth less than three times the cost of repairs.  In another 10 years or so, they will become structurally unsound and unlivable.

As for original owners such as myself, who have held onto their homes through the worst of the recession?  Well, I am now over $100,000 upside down in a home that I can't afford to repair and certainly can't sell.  (Even if I could somehow find a buyer who was willing to take on the foundation issues, no bank will approve a loan against a house that won't outlive its mortgage.)  My financial advisor is advising me to cut my losses and run.  My credit will eventually recover.  My house -- sadly -- won't.  One way or another, this will ruin me.  It's just a question of taking the loss now, or 10 years from now when the walls come crumbling down.

It really seems like a lose/lose situation to me.

[Michelle]

I know how you feel, azdentalgirl.  I am the original owner, but I bought my home to live in.  This news has been devestating.  

I'd suggest contacting the attorney directly:

John Chaix, of the Law Offices of John Chaix
3001 East Camelback Road, Suite 130
Phoenix, AZ 85016
(602) 235-9399
john@chaixlaw.com

Another e-mail address given (that you might have better luck with?) was sandra@chaixlaw.com.  I assume she's an associate or assistant of some kind.  

[Desert Dweller]

Something to keep in mind about class action lawsuits in case you don't already know this:  The attorneys in these actions represent the "class" which can be hundreds or even thousands of people.  When there is a settlement, 1) the attorney gets paid first and 2) whatever is left is divided amongst those in the "class".  So, in a lawsuit that nets two million dollars with five thousand people entitled to a settlement, the attorney gets the first third, or one million dollars for his work.  Those entitled divide two million netting about four hundred dollars each.

One of the reasons these suits is even initiated is not because somebody done somebody wrong and the lawyer's gonna set it right, the lawyer brings suit to generate work for his firm.  They don't take on cases that they don't think they will win because they wouldn't get paid.  Also, the individual parties don't have the resources to take on the suit themselves, so this is the only money they're going to see anyway.

Many of these builders/contractors are long gone, and the ones that aren't have changed LLC's six times by now to avoid suits just such as these.

[Michelle]

This actually isn't a class action suit, although the phrase has certainly been bandied about (not so much here as on other forums).  The attorney is representing everyone who signs on individually rather than as a class.

[Sam]

Something to keep in mind about class action lawsuits in case you don't already know this:  The attorneys in these actions represent the "class" which can be hundreds or even thousands of people.  When there is a settlement, 1) the attorney gets paid first and 2) whatever is left is divided amongst those in the "class".  So, in a lawsuit that nets two million dollars with five thousand people entitled to a settlement, the attorney gets the first third, or one million dollars for his work.  Those entitled divide two million netting about four hundred dollars each.

I would definitely want you as my counsel... You just managed to get $3M out of a $2M lawsuit there!    

[Desert Dweller]

That's a lawyer trick

The judgment is for three million dollars.  The typical fee for an attorney is one third, which comes to him first.  That leaves two million for everyone else.

[Hello]

I hope that we will keep this post as a non-fiction post without the normal banter from member.  This is important to some of us and it would be nice to keep it that way.