My neighbor built a 1900 sq ft granny house and wants to blame they ripped off because that's how they are. No money was ever exchanged between my sister and a husband and wife that run a roofing company on the Central Coast of California.
Who is to blame, they told me it was my sister's fault even though they never paid her. They blamed their mother saying "its our mother's fault because she let us build on her land". My sister never got paid because when she finished the wife crossed out all the numbers and put down "1200" square feet after the wife altered the plans herself. My sister never claimed to have a license, she just got conned by some very bad people.
Now the County wants to know "why is this house almost 1900 square feet"? The wife called me yelling saying "Your sister did our plans, its her fault we are in this problem". The sister blamed her mother by saying "It your fault for letting us build and not telling us not to break the law". I asked the wife "Do you have a general contractors license for roofing?" She said "My husband has it"! They built as owner-builder claiming they had the skills to build their house. Do you think my sister or their mother is liable for their fraud? Thank you for considering this question.
Non Sequitur
Feb 16, 18 5:32 pm
Lawyer up instead of looking for free answers online.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 16, 18 5:41 pm
With that incomprehensible story it must be your fault.
b3tadine[sutures]
Feb 17, 18 12:29 am
I think it's a riddle!
geezertect
Feb 18, 18 11:17 am
Ever hear of Professor Irwin Corey?
tduds
Feb 16, 18 6:24 pm
This is like an ARE question from a night-before-the-exam stress dream.
joseffischer
Feb 20, 18 9:36 am
Amazing comment
wurdan freo
Feb 16, 18 6:43 pm
i blame canada...
whistler
Feb 17, 18 12:22 am
Well, I get calls about once every couple weeks to help out folks in these kind of situations. My solution ...... I just hang up the phone and enjoy a good laugh with the other in the office!
b3tadine[sutures]
Feb 17, 18 12:31 am
It's a riddle. Colonel Mustard, with a candlestick, in the Champagne Room!
joseffischer
Feb 20, 18 9:36 am
I too thought of clue : )
( o Y o )
Feb 17, 18 11:46 am
WTF is a granny house?
Is it like granny panties?
geezertect
Feb 18, 18 11:20 am
Calling Judge Judy. Calling Judge Judy. You're the only one who can figure this thing out.
zonker
Feb 18, 18 3:30 pm
Blame it on Obama and call Judge Jeanine Pirro
x-jla
Feb 19, 18 7:47 pm
granny is to blame!
FarmerJoe93
Feb 19, 18 7:54 pm
Most of you know how outrageous legal fees are, a fact is sixty-plus percent of cases never see a judge because lawsuits are meant to bully you. The house I spoke about, the "granny unit" or "Secondary Dwellings ADU", "mother in-law suite" were suppose to be modest I thought. The question is what happens when someone changes your blueprints and blames you for their demise? All her work was done with a engineer signing off on calcs,(she never claimed to be a architect or professional of your caliber) the client-couple changed her plans and numbers for code evasion and property tax cheating. If someone changed your plans you built, would you be liable? I know a architect who was sued by a client after she changed his work, put in windows that did not have a fire egress. She altered his work and sued him after code enforcement said "this is not a legal house because there's no way to escape a fire from the upstairs". Lawyers are fun until your the person spending $25,000 just to have them get started. $50,000 buys you very little in legal fees these days, I know after spending over $100,000 to get a squatter off my land in Santa Cruz.
Non Sequitur
Feb 19, 18 8:23 pm
More money then brains.
joseffischer
Feb 20, 18 9:40 am
You should post your sister's copies of the plans she provided to the forum, and if possible, post the altered copies. I'd like to see what got changed to add 700 SF to the ADU... Should be as entertaining as the comments.
Gloominati
Feb 20, 18 1:14 pm
I don't think he's saying that the plans were changed to add 700 square feet. I think he's saying that his sister's plans stated 1900 square feet and then the client changed that information. If that's the case then everybody's got some potential liability. The client changed the plans without authorization, and that's the client's problem, if the sister/designer can prove it - but if the sister/designer designed a 1900 square foot house for that site, she's liable because she should have known that was not permittable on that site. California's "granny flat laws" vary in square footage depending on location, but 1200 square feet is the highest I know of in any city/county. If the sister knew she was designing for this particular site, then she should have known the size limit or done the appropriate research to determine it, and should not have provided plans for a 1900 square foot house. If she did not design it for this particular site, and then the client changed the address, then that's a different story. The answer to that should be in the sister/designer's contract. It's illegal to do any design work in CA without a contract, whether one is licensed or not, so the sister presumably has a contract that states the address of the project and what the design services were for. If she doesn't have a contract, she may have a difficult time proving that she didn't design for this site - and she's also likely to be fined for providing services without a contract.
Gloominati
Feb 20, 18 2:57 pm
Who said anything about a verbal contract? I'm saying she either doesn't have a written contract - in which case she's got potential liability AND professional practice problems, or she does have a written contract, in which case it's going to show what address the work was for - and if it's for this specific address then she's potentially liable, but if it was for some other address and the client changed it in the documents then she's not.
California has state-wide "granny flat laws". There's some variation in allowable house size and lot size from place to place, but there's nowhere where a granny flat is allowed to be 1900 sf, so if that's what she drew, she's got some responsibility for that, regardless of what the client did.
proto
Feb 20, 18 1:32 pm
"My neighbor built a 1900 sq ft granny house and wants to blame they ripped off because that's how they are. No money was ever exchanged between my sister and a husband and wife that run a roofing company on the Central Coast of California."
I am not following what this is about at all.
If Neighbor? ...um, who cares? local jurisdiction will deal with it
How did sister get involved? ...is sister the neighbor?
(& I responded [sigh])
geezertect
Feb 20, 18 6:10 pm
All good questions. I think (think) this is the scenario: A husband and wife own a roofing company. Acting as their own general contractor, they built a non-conforming house on his or her mother's land, using drawings prepared by the OP's sister. The OP owns the house next door to the new house, which is how the OP's sister was referred or got involved. The OP's sister designed a conforming house but the plans were altered by the roofer/contractor/owner to show the bigger house. They got caught by the building department, and are claiming that the changes made by them are somehow the fault of the sister/designer. God knows why the roofer is blaming his mother as well! Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 20, 18 8:21 pm
Everything you said is spot on, my sister had graduated from high school getting the "National Association of Construction Award for Women". As for contract savy, she was 18 years out of high school attending the church where this couple were the main preachers. Very good question, "Why did they blame their mother"? I asked them, they said "Its Mom's fault because she let us build on her land and did not tell us that a 1900 sq ft is illegal"! I swear to God they said that, its in a letter the creeps sent me. My dumb sister was deeply involved their their religion, that's why she trusted in them.
Non Sequitur
Feb 20, 18 8:52 pm
another reason why religion poisons everything.
geezertect
Feb 20, 18 9:41 pm
Hang on to that letter. Your sister is a dumb (sorry, I mean naive) kid who got mixed up with a couple of flakes who blame everybody in sight, including Mom, when things go wrong. Any judge would see this for what it is.
Wilma Buttfit
Feb 20, 18 1:55 pm
^ what being an architect is really like. My neighbory is buit, so 1900 s.f. and now they are like huh, what we no-no and me sis, she is innocent! I tell you! She is Jesus! Architect: "You realize you aren't making any sense, right? Are you ok?" Architect catches client after they faint from too little oxygen in the brain.
Wilma Buttfit
Feb 20, 18 3:04 pm
Wakes up. "If you were a lawyer, I'd throw $100,000 at you to solve my problem, but you're just an architect." Architect: "Ouch. Well at least buy me a drink. This is going to take some effort."
proto
Feb 20, 18 6:25 pm
ha!
(just the tip...)
JonathanLivingston
Feb 20, 18 7:30 pm
I would tell your sister to ignore them. Fairly simple. Not her problem. She should be happy actually. This is a great lesson for her. much harder after you are licensed. If she was licensed she may have some issues for not having overseen the construction properly. But yeah, they cheeped out and cheated the system. Even if they were to bring a civil suit they would have to prove some kind of damages so any fines levied by the AHJ or the cost to rebuild if it comes to that. But this would be a very tough civil suit because you would have to prove that she willfully or negligently caused the damage. Because she is not licensed its hard to be held negligent to a professional standard you did not agree to. My guess is the liability would fall on the contractors or record, especially if they didn't build to the permit drawings.
But I'm not a lawyer. Also I did this kind of stuff all day in my early years. takes a thick skin to get stiffed and walk away. These are the kind of people who pray on the vulnerable. I like the drug dealing analogy. It's like robbing a hopper. Hope shes stacks that cash. dollar dollar bill ya'll.
geezertect
Feb 20, 18 9:51 pm
Reminds me of the story of the guy who murders both parents in their sleep and then begs for mercy on account of being an orphan.
JonathanLivingston
Feb 21, 18 12:55 am
My toddler just drew an amazing DADU. Gonna build it and if we have any problems we can hold him responsible. Negligent little waddler's been calling himself a designer for a while now. There's nothing to worry about here, sucks ops sister didn't get paid but that will be the end of this as far as she's concerned.
geezertect
Feb 21, 18 8:02 am
The sister was not a "professional". She was an 18 year old kid fresh out of high school. The roofers knew she wasn't a professional when they hired her. They are in the building industry. They know about zoning and permits and all the rest. They hired her because she would be ultra cheap, easy to push around, and they probably never intended to pay her anyway. They are typical bottom feeding pond scum that the construction industry is full of. And if they built this thing without getting permits, you can break out the butter and jam, 'cuz they are toast!
FarmerJoe93
Feb 21, 18 7:15 pm
The County or City provided permits and said "We made a really bad mistake, we should have caught it. Code enforcement said something akin to "We have total immunity even if we screw up"!
Nice to know if Code messes up their immune to their own errors!
"! The wife was doing all the grunt work between the building department and and did her drawings to exceed the legal square feet. They altered her plans and square feet, the Building people gave it a thumbs up! They lied on their property tax numbers, they wrote $75,000 as the cost-basis when actually they spent $350,000. I have a appointment with a real-contract lawyer on Friday, will post his opinion because everyone here deserves to know how this mess plays out.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 21, 18 7:17 pm
They altered my sister's plans by adding in extra square feet and living space. The got the plans approved and changed things during the building process. Code never caught all the added on square feet done after husband and wife tag-team added all the extra illegal square feet.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 21, 18 8:52 pm
They built their house over thirteen years ago, they popped back up in my sister's life when code enforcement demanded "please explain why you have a 1900 square foot ADU"! No money was ever paid to her, the original plans were 1100 square feet. The wife added in 800 square feet herself. My sister never sent them a bill because she realized they were corrupt. A good lesson at the "school of hard knocks"? Do you think she is liable after thirteen years? They run their roofing company out of Costa Rica, husband and wife only came back to the United States to answer charges. I got proof they have lived in Costa Rica and want to get them for Contractor's fraud. They got residency in Costa Rica, charge ten percent of profits to loan out their contractor's license to anyone willing pay to further their Ministry. My sister is now over 30 years old battling cancer, its beyond a nightmare
FarmerJoe93
Feb 21, 18 8:55 pm
I called the California Contractor's board and found out this couple is breaking the law by selling their contractor's license for a fee. Their that stupid, I am curious if I should mention that or just file a complaint because the people paying for his contractor's license will eventually get burned too. I still have a appointment on Friday with some hot shot lawyer, its right out of the book of Hell.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 21, 18 9:32 pm
Thank you Rick for taking your time to answer this, I will pay for her lawyer's fees on Friday because that's the last thing she needs to deal with while going through chemotherapy. Everyone has been so kind, you all are awesome pros!
Wilma Buttfit
Feb 21, 18 8:04 pm
Owners do have liability too. (5 words, solves all.)
mantaray
Feb 22, 18 12:37 am
Typically and generally, architects have ownership/liability over the drawings they create/stamp. If your sister can prove that she was not involved during construction, was not required to be involved during construction by contract, and could not have been aware of any alterations to her plans, then I believe she should be in the clear. Assuming her actual issues plans are per code, of course. She wouldn't be liable for this building because, simply put, it is not the building she drew, full stop. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but I have been around the block.
joseffischer
Feb 22, 18 10:45 am
Hmm, a bunch more responses since I last posted, especially from RickB.... I'm still waiting to see the two sets of plans (sister's vs altered).
On a side note, having done cheap, under the table, not an architect yet, I'm only 18-22 years old type work back in the day, and having been stiffed from being paid on design and construction work. If ever I receive communication from said stiffs, I act like I've never met them in my life before. If everything was verbal and they didn't pay me, or paid me in cash, why would I take responsibility for whatever work they're claiming I did 13+ years ago. They aren't going to be able to prove I was even involved.
By the time I was doing permit sets for construction, I had also learned enough to have a contract on said permit sets.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 22, 18 4:32 pm
Hi, the plans were drawn in late 2004-2005 and look nothing like her copies because they altered them greatly. Instead of using storage space all was converted to living spaces. Exoslider windows were replaced solid pane windows leaving no egress. They were too stupid to realize a fire might break out leaving them no place to escape. She's on morphine with a anti-nausea meds so if I those terms are spelled wrong sorry.
I know everyone wondered why no verbal or written contract was ever created. They promised to pay her $2.50 per square foot, she never thought the lead Church Elder would attack her because she decided to go to college. No contract because she trusted them, thought they were really good God fearing Christians. When the code legal plans were done they stopped talking to her. All requests for payment got ignored so she figured "its wrong for Christians to sue each other" and decided to get ripped off. After the legal plans were in their hands, that's when the wife(She had some home design experience) made a mess of these nasty plans. I hired someone to pull up any projects done by this roofing company over the last two years. A Costa Rica professional is pulling up their Costa Rica residency paperwork. They got two different men using the husband's roofing contractor's license out of a Van and El Camino. Can you imagine the blame their gonna do when one of the guys messes up a roofing job? Its sick we are even talking about this topic, its because their afraid of being called "crooks" by their religious organization. He is a bringing in leaders from New York to see the church he helped build in Costa Rica, showing God's work. Thank you all again, its such a crazy mess over fraud done back in 2004-2005.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 22, 18 4:39 pm
legal appointment at 2 pm, lawyer recommended at least two hours plus a retainer to start. How can anyone get in a mess where its gonna cost more to defend against fraud than the plans would have costed them. I still am confused how someone can get in trouble for plans that someone altered and lied about. Their mother called me, their suing their mother for fraud too. One of the neighbors called the local tax accessing agency, time to reassess their house because it was taxed at 1100 square feet plus missing "school fees" and penalties. Their mother had the never to ask me "can you ask your attorney if I am in trouble for not stopping their building fraud"? Their mother said "My daughter gave me the cost-basis, I put it down because I trusted she would not lie to tax officials". Amazing, suing your own mother because they do not want their church to know about their building fraud.
Bloopox
Feb 22, 18 4:55 pm
Are you certain that these neighbors are suing your sister? It sounds like they're just threatening you. Ordinarily a design professional should contact their insurer at the first hint or threat of a lawsuit. But in this particular instance I'm not at all convinced from what you've written that they're really going to file a lawsuit. It sounds more like they're trying to feel you out as to whether you can be scared, pestered, and manipulated into some kind of settlement to make them go away and leave your sister alone.
Most likely they realize full well that they've got no case for several reasons: it doesn't sound like they had a contract with your sister in the first place and even if they did they waived it by altering the plans and not paying her, and too much time has passed. I wouldn't have let them know you have a lawyer - I'd just ignore them and not involve a lawyer unless/until they really file a case.
If they're really so worried about their church finding out, maybe point out to them that suing anybody is going to create a public record of their actions in this matter.
Bloopox
Feb 22, 18 7:39 pm
You're missing my point. I know she's not an architect and this has nothing to do with insurance. People with insurance call their insurers because the insurers supply the lawyers. The point is that in this case I think the brother of the designer is being played, and that he really doesn't have a reason to waste any time or money on an attorney at this point. If an actual lawsuit materializes then he should involve a lawyer - but I don't think one will. The neighbors know they have no case and they also don't want any public record of this fiasco. It's more than likely an empty threat - just an extortion attempt. If he just ignores them they're more likely to give up than to actually sue his sister.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 22, 18 4:53 pm
Lawyer said to "hold off on posting the plans because their so insane they sued their mother and father last year to force them to buy their property before code enforcement caught up with the situation. The daughter wrote a letter claiming "dad is faking his dementia and does not have Alzheimer, he's preventing us from our Crusade in Costa Rica". The daughter's lawyer demanded that the father with "howling dementia" be rolled in to Mediation on a stretcher via ambulance. The mother said "I will share all the letters proving everything you've written if you help with legal fees". The mother is tired of being sued, they are looking for anyone to sue because their crooks. Their mother said they had to do a telephone mediation with the father screaming causing inconvenience for his litigious daughter. This is out of Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil, make's a solid case for people thinking about atheism.
Non Sequitur
Feb 22, 18 4:55 pm
Please contact Netflix or Amazon Prime.... I want a 10-part big budget series based on your story. Utterly fascinating.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 22, 18 5:01 pm
Its right out of a Reverse "Weekend at Bernies", when I post the lawsuits should I contact Netflix or Amazon Prime? If only this was BS, sorry but people are this wicked.
FarmerJoe93
Feb 22, 18 4:57 pm
Enough shared, its too much.
Bloopox
Feb 22, 18 5:03 pm
I would agree with that. If this is real and any lawsuit does happen, you shouldn't be sharing anything at all because it's all discoverable. Definitely don't share the house plans, and don't share any more about your sister's involvement in this, past poor judgement, etc.
joseffischer
Feb 22, 18 9:14 pm
Meh, you're no fun Bloopox. It's not like sharing the plans would do damage.
A) He's sharing them, not his sister, so it doesn't effect her B) Whatever plans did get permitted are already discoverable C) Obviously the sister would want her unaltered plans to be part of the case, since they'd show the original work compared to the permitted work. D) As far as I can tell, none of us are lawyers. None of our advice therefore matters. Now if we get to see the shared plans, then we can make comments on whether or not the alterations were in good taste!
Bloopox
Feb 22, 18 9:44 pm
It isn't so much the plans that are going to cause potential problems - it's his associated commentary. I know that one of the things attorneys do when they get plans and other image files is do an image search online to see what else comes up in relation to them. If he posts the plans here and the neighbors' lawyer later get them as exhibits in a case, they'll google them and this whole thread will come up - in which he's already said some things about his sister and her involvement in this that are
problematic.
Bloopox
Feb 22, 18 9:48 pm
Everybody seems to focus on whether or not she has any liability as a designer - but a bigger issue for her may be whether she was aware of, or even complicit in, the apparent tax fraud, and there's no statute of limitation on intentional tax
fraud.
Bloopox
Feb 22, 18 10:30 pm
Yes Richard, everybody gets that. It's been said 20 times in this thread. That's why I said, everybody is focusing on that. The much bigger problem here is the tax fraud - that's the whole reason that the neighbors are looking for others to scapegoat. There is no expiration on deliberate tax fraud. If the designer knew that the owners were committing this fraud, or worse yet if she knowingly helped to commit it or conceal it, those are felonies, and they may well be trying to throw her under the bus for their fraud. The brother isn't helping the situation, in that some of what he's posted here could be construed to mean she did know what they were up to all along.
Bloopox
Feb 23, 18 12:10 am
He said she never billed them 13 years ago because she knew they were corrupt. That's discoverable and can be used to support an assertion that she is complicit. He should stop posting about this, here and elsewhere.
Bloopox
Feb 23, 18 1:31 am
Its not a conspiracy theory - it's what happens in court. I work as an expert witness, so I spend a lot of time in lawyers' conference rooms and courtrooms. You need to understand that what "any good attorney" tries to do is counteracted by any other good attorney. Construction related cases tend to have multiple parties, sometimes 8 or 10 attorneys involved, and only one comes out the winner, if anyone really wins at all. Tax fraud results in an ever-expanding net cast for anyone that can be vaguely implicated. The best thing this guy can do for his sister is shut up. Stop talking to these neighbors and their mother, stop posting online, just stop leaving a trail of discoverable admissions.
joseffischer
Feb 24, 18 2:23 pm
Anything the brother says that his sister says on a forum is heresay. He wasn't there, he has no idea what his sister did or did not do. Corrupt doesn't equal I know about tax fraud happening and am complicit. Sure, lawyers can try things, but I don't see it holding up. By your definition, we're all liable for tax fraud because we've heard about this and are not immediately reporting it to the govt.
Bloopox
Feb 24, 18 6:42 pm
No, I'm not saying that what the brother says can be used directly. I'm saying that the collective body of what he's posted is discoverable, and can be used to lead to additional identifying information and incriminating evidence. It's not too difficult from what he's said to find identifying info and a lot more to this story.
I'm saying he should stop posting publicly.
Bloopox
Feb 24, 18 9:05 pm
I guess I need to be more direct about this since it doesn't seem that I'm being understood: From information that the OP posted here I was able to find additional information, and what I found more than suggests that the story is not entirely as reported here. Get it now? It's not what is stated here that is the problem, in and of itself. It's that from what was stated here it is possible to find additional information that is more directly problematic. In my opinion the OP should request that the thread be deleted.
Bloopox
Feb 24, 18 10:21 pm
Making it easy to connect the dots is what I'm advising preventing, so it would be pretty hypocritical to help others do exactly that. Suffice it to say there is more information here than there should be.
Bloopox
Feb 24, 18 11:09 pm
My comments intended for the OP - who will understand what I'm getting at, I suspect.
Bloopox
Feb 25, 18 12:11 am
Sure, he could try that. I don't see what the point would be - I'm not falsely accusing him of anything - I'm bringing to his attention a probably unintended over sharing of information, that I believe he'll understand from what I said, even though you don't. There's no obligation on my part to expand on this for your sake. I'm not sure why you're getting all accusatory Rick, about advice that isn't directed to you in the first place, but I'm tired of reading it so you're going on permanent ignore.
Steeplechase
Feb 22, 18 7:41 pm
“How can anyone get in a mess where its gonna cost more to defend against fraud than the plans would have costed them“
That’s the whole con. They want you to be so afraid of the legal costs that you cave and give them money.
Did the attorney explain why he thinks they have a case despite the amount of time that has elapsed?
Steeplechase
Feb 22, 18 11:35 pm
The attorney asked for retainer. If there is no case then there should be no future work for the attorney.
geezertect
Feb 24, 18 10:34 pm
"you have a case" is lawyerese for "I need some billable hours".
joseffischer
Feb 22, 18 9:18 pm
My guess on the next installment/episode, we learn that the attorney is a deacon at the church, and is in on it!
FarmerJoe93
Feb 26, 18 6:07 pm
I spoke with a Contract lawyer he said they might try to take it to court, expect to pay $10,000 to $25,000 fighting bogus charges even though ten years is SOL. I turned in their roofing business certified letter, fax through UPS store plus two phone calls. Got their trucks on video, a private investigator out of Miami is $950 to get copies of their Panama Retiree application.
My neighbor built a 1900 sq ft granny house and wants to blame they ripped off because that's how they are. No money was ever exchanged between my sister and a husband and wife that run a roofing company on the Central Coast of California.
Who is to blame, they told me it was my sister's fault even though they never paid her. They blamed their mother saying "its our mother's fault because she let us build on her land". My sister never got paid because when she finished the wife crossed out all the numbers and put down "1200" square feet after the wife altered the plans herself. My sister never claimed to have a license, she just got conned by some very bad people.
Now the County wants to know "why is this house almost 1900 square feet"? The wife called me yelling saying "Your sister did our plans, its her fault we are in this problem". The sister blamed her mother by saying "It your fault for letting us build and not telling us not to break the law". I asked the wife "Do you have a general contractors license for roofing?" She said "My husband has it"! They built as owner-builder claiming they had the skills to build their house. Do you think my sister or their mother is liable for their fraud? Thank you for considering this question.
Lawyer up instead of looking for free answers online.
With that incomprehensible story it must be your fault.
I think it's a riddle!
Ever hear of Professor Irwin Corey?
This is like an ARE question from a night-before-the-exam stress dream.
Amazing comment
i blame canada...
Well, I get calls about once every couple weeks to help out folks in these kind of situations. My solution ...... I just hang up the phone and enjoy a good laugh with the other in the office!
It's a riddle. Colonel Mustard, with a candlestick, in the Champagne Room!
I too thought of clue : )
WTF is a granny house?
Is it like granny panties?
Calling Judge Judy. Calling Judge Judy. You're the only one who can figure this thing out.
Blame it on Obama and call Judge Jeanine Pirro
granny is to blame!
Most of you know how outrageous legal fees are, a fact is sixty-plus percent of cases never see a judge because lawsuits are meant to bully you. The house I spoke about, the "granny unit" or "Secondary Dwellings ADU", "mother in-law suite" were suppose to be modest I thought. The question is what happens when someone changes your blueprints and blames you for their demise? All her work was done with a engineer signing off on calcs,(she never claimed to be a architect or professional of your caliber) the client-couple changed her plans and numbers for code evasion and property tax cheating. If someone changed your plans you built, would you be liable? I know a architect who was sued by a client after she changed his work, put in windows that did not have a fire egress. She altered his work and sued him after code enforcement said "this is not a legal house because there's no way to escape a fire from the upstairs". Lawyers are fun until your the person spending $25,000 just to have them get started. $50,000 buys you very little in legal fees these days, I know after spending over $100,000 to get a squatter off my land in Santa Cruz.
More money then brains.
You should post your sister's copies of the plans she provided to the forum, and if possible, post the altered copies. I'd like to see what got changed to add 700 SF to the ADU... Should be as entertaining as the comments.
I don't think he's saying that the plans were changed to add 700 square feet. I think he's saying that his sister's plans stated 1900 square feet and then the client changed that information. If that's the case then everybody's got some potential liability. The client changed the plans without authorization, and that's the client's problem, if the sister/designer can prove it - but if the sister/designer designed a 1900 square foot house for that site, she's liable because she should have known that was not permittable on that site. California's "granny flat laws" vary in square footage depending on location, but 1200 square feet is the highest I know of in any city/county. If the sister knew she was designing for this particular site, then she should have known the size limit or done the appropriate research to determine it, and should not have provided plans for a 1900 square foot house. If she did not design it for this particular site, and then the client changed the address, then that's a different story. The answer to that should be in the sister/designer's contract. It's illegal to do any design work in CA without a contract, whether one is licensed or not, so the sister presumably has a contract that states the address of the project and what the design services were for. If she doesn't have a contract, she may have a difficult time proving that she didn't design for this site - and she's also likely to be fined for providing services without a contract.
Who said anything about a verbal contract? I'm saying she either doesn't have a written contract - in which case she's got potential liability AND professional practice problems, or she does have a written contract, in which case it's going to show what address the work was for - and if it's for this specific address then she's potentially liable, but if it was for some other address and the client changed it in the documents then she's not.
California has state-wide "granny flat laws". There's some variation in allowable house size and lot size from place to place, but there's nowhere where a granny flat is allowed to be 1900 sf, so if that's what she drew, she's got some responsibility for that, regardless of what the client did.
"My neighbor built a 1900 sq ft granny house and wants to blame they ripped off because that's how they are. No money was ever exchanged between my sister and a husband and wife that run a roofing company on the Central Coast of California."
I am not following what this is about at all.
If Neighbor? ...um, who cares? local jurisdiction will deal with it
How did sister get involved? ...is sister the neighbor?
(& I responded [sigh])
All good questions. I think (think) this is the scenario: A husband and wife own a roofing company. Acting as their own general contractor, they built a non-conforming house on his or her mother's land, using drawings prepared by the OP's sister. The OP owns the house next door to the new house, which is how the OP's sister was referred or got involved. The OP's sister designed a conforming house but the plans were altered by the roofer/contractor/owner to show the bigger house. They got caught by the building department, and are claiming that the changes made by them are somehow the fault of the sister/designer. God knows why the roofer is blaming his mother as well! Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
Everything you said is spot on, my sister had graduated from high school getting the "National Association of Construction Award for Women". As for contract savy, she was 18 years out of high school attending the church where this couple were the main preachers. Very good question, "Why did they blame their mother"? I asked them, they said "Its Mom's fault because she let us build on her land and did not tell us that a 1900 sq ft is illegal"! I swear to God they said that, its in a letter the creeps sent me. My dumb sister was deeply involved their their religion, that's why she trusted in them.
another reason why religion poisons everything.
Hang on to that letter. Your sister is a dumb (sorry, I mean naive) kid who got mixed up with a couple of flakes who blame everybody in sight, including Mom, when things go wrong. Any judge would see this for what it is.
^ what being an architect is really like. My neighbory is buit, so 1900 s.f. and now they are like huh, what we no-no and me sis, she is innocent! I tell you! She is Jesus! Architect: "You realize you aren't making any sense, right? Are you ok?" Architect catches client after they faint from too little oxygen in the brain.
Wakes up. "If you were a lawyer, I'd throw $100,000 at you to solve my problem, but you're just an architect." Architect: "Ouch. Well at least buy me a drink. This is going to take some effort."
ha!
(just the tip...)
I would tell your sister to ignore them. Fairly simple. Not her problem. She should be happy actually. This is a great lesson for her. much harder after you are licensed. If she was licensed she may have some issues for not having overseen the construction properly. But yeah, they cheeped out and cheated the system. Even if they were to bring a civil suit they would have to prove some kind of damages so any fines levied by the AHJ or the cost to rebuild if it comes to that. But this would be a very tough civil suit because you would have to prove that she willfully or negligently caused the damage. Because she is not licensed its hard to be held negligent to a professional standard you did not agree to. My guess is the liability would fall on the contractors or record, especially if they didn't build to the permit drawings.
But I'm not a lawyer. Also I did this kind of stuff all day in my early years. takes a thick skin to get stiffed and walk away. These are the kind of people who pray on the vulnerable. I like the drug dealing analogy. It's like robbing a hopper. Hope shes stacks that cash. dollar dollar bill ya'll.
Reminds me of the story of the guy who murders both parents in their sleep and then begs for mercy on account of being an orphan.
My toddler just drew an amazing DADU. Gonna build it and if we have any problems we can hold him responsible. Negligent little waddler's been calling himself a designer for a while now. There's nothing to worry about here, sucks ops sister didn't get paid but that will be the end of this as far as she's concerned.
The sister was not a "professional". She was an 18 year old kid fresh out of high school. The roofers knew she wasn't a professional when they hired her. They are in the building industry. They know about zoning and permits and all the rest. They hired her because she would be ultra cheap, easy to push around, and they probably never intended to pay her anyway. They are typical bottom feeding pond scum that the construction industry is full of. And if they built this thing without getting permits, you can break out the butter and jam, 'cuz they are toast!
The County or City provided permits and said "We made a really bad mistake, we should have caught it. Code enforcement said something akin to "We have total immunity even if we screw up"! Nice to know if Code messes up their immune to their own errors! "! The wife was doing all the grunt work between the building department and and did her drawings to exceed the legal square feet. They altered her plans and square feet, the Building people gave it a thumbs up! They lied on their property tax numbers, they wrote $75,000 as the cost-basis when actually they spent $350,000. I have a appointment with a real-contract lawyer on Friday, will post his opinion because everyone here deserves to know how this mess plays out.
They altered my sister's plans by adding in extra square feet and living space. The got the plans approved and changed things during the building process. Code never caught all the added on square feet done after husband and wife tag-team added all the extra illegal square feet.
They built their house over thirteen years ago, they popped back up in my sister's life when code enforcement demanded "please explain why you have a 1900 square foot ADU"! No money was ever paid to her, the original plans were 1100 square feet. The wife added in 800 square feet herself. My sister never sent them a bill because she realized they were corrupt. A good lesson at the "school of hard knocks"? Do you think she is liable after thirteen years? They run their roofing company out of Costa Rica, husband and wife only came back to the United States to answer charges. I got proof they have lived in Costa Rica and want to get them for Contractor's fraud. They got residency in Costa Rica, charge ten percent of profits to loan out their contractor's license to anyone willing pay to further their Ministry. My sister is now over 30 years old battling cancer, its beyond a nightmare
I called the California Contractor's board and found out this couple is breaking the law by selling their contractor's license for a fee. Their that stupid, I am curious if I should mention that or just file a complaint because the people paying for his contractor's license will eventually get burned too. I still have a appointment on Friday with some hot shot lawyer, its right out of the book of Hell.
Thank you Rick for taking your time to answer this, I will pay for her lawyer's fees on Friday because that's the last thing she needs to deal with while going through chemotherapy. Everyone has been so kind, you all are awesome pros!
Owners do have liability too. (5 words, solves all.)
Typically and generally, architects have ownership/liability over the drawings they create/stamp. If your sister can prove that she was not involved during construction, was not required to be involved during construction by contract, and could not have been aware of any alterations to her plans, then I believe she should be in the clear. Assuming her actual issues plans are per code, of course. She wouldn't be liable for this building because, simply put, it is not the building she drew, full stop. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but I have been around the block.
Hmm, a bunch more responses since I last posted, especially from RickB.... I'm still waiting to see the two sets of plans (sister's vs altered).
On a side note, having done cheap, under the table, not an architect yet, I'm only 18-22 years old type work back in the day, and having been stiffed from being paid on design and construction work. If ever I receive communication from said stiffs, I act like I've never met them in my life before. If everything was verbal and they didn't pay me, or paid me in cash, why would I take responsibility for whatever work they're claiming I did 13+ years ago. They aren't going to be able to prove I was even involved.
By the time I was doing permit sets for construction, I had also learned enough to have a contract on said permit sets.
Hi, the plans were drawn in late 2004-2005 and look nothing like her copies because they altered them greatly. Instead of using storage space all was converted to living spaces. Exoslider windows were replaced solid pane windows leaving no egress. They were too stupid to realize a fire might break out leaving them no place to escape. She's on morphine with a anti-nausea meds so if I those terms are spelled wrong sorry.
I know everyone wondered why no verbal or written contract was ever created. They promised to pay her $2.50 per square foot, she never thought the lead Church Elder would attack her because she decided to go to college. No contract because she trusted them, thought they were really good God fearing Christians. When the code legal plans were done they stopped talking to her. All requests for payment got ignored so she figured "its wrong for Christians to sue each other" and decided to get ripped off. After the legal plans were in their hands, that's when the wife(She had some home design experience) made a mess of these nasty plans. I hired someone to pull up any projects done by this roofing company over the last two years. A Costa Rica professional is pulling up their Costa Rica residency paperwork. They got two different men using the husband's roofing contractor's license out of a Van and El Camino. Can you imagine the blame their gonna do when one of the guys messes up a roofing job? Its sick we are even talking about this topic, its because their afraid of being called "crooks" by their religious organization. He is a bringing in leaders from New York to see the church he helped build in Costa Rica, showing God's work. Thank you all again, its such a crazy mess over fraud done back in 2004-2005.
legal appointment at 2 pm, lawyer recommended at least two hours plus a retainer to start. How can anyone get in a mess where its gonna cost more to defend against fraud than the plans would have costed them. I still am confused how someone can get in trouble for plans that someone altered and lied about. Their mother called me, their suing their mother for fraud too. One of the neighbors called the local tax accessing agency, time to reassess their house because it was taxed at 1100 square feet plus missing "school fees" and penalties. Their mother had the never to ask me "can you ask your attorney if I am in trouble for not stopping their building fraud"? Their mother said "My daughter gave me the cost-basis, I put it down because I trusted she would not lie to tax officials". Amazing, suing your own mother because they do not want their church to know about their building fraud.
Are you certain that these neighbors are suing your sister? It sounds like they're just threatening you. Ordinarily a design professional should contact their insurer at the first hint or threat of a lawsuit. But in this particular instance I'm not at all convinced from what you've written that they're really going to file a lawsuit. It sounds more like they're trying to feel you out as to whether you can be scared, pestered, and manipulated into some kind of settlement to make them go away and leave your sister alone.
Most likely they realize full well that they've got no case for several reasons: it doesn't sound like they had a contract with your sister in the first place and even if they did they waived it by altering the plans and not paying her, and too much time has passed. I wouldn't have let them know you have a lawyer - I'd just ignore them and not involve a lawyer unless/until they really file a case.
If they're really so worried about their church finding out, maybe point out to them that suing anybody is going to create a public record of their actions in this matter.
You're missing my point. I know she's not an architect and this has nothing to do with insurance. People with insurance call their insurers because the insurers supply the lawyers. The point is that in this case I think the brother of the designer is being played, and that he really doesn't have a reason to waste any time or money on an attorney at this point. If an actual lawsuit materializes then he should involve a lawyer - but I don't think one will. The neighbors know they have no case and they also don't want any public record of this fiasco. It's more than likely an empty threat - just an extortion attempt. If he just ignores them they're more likely to give up than to actually sue his sister.
Lawyer said to "hold off on posting the plans because their so insane they sued their mother and father last year to force them to buy their property before code enforcement caught up with the situation. The daughter wrote a letter claiming "dad is faking his dementia and does not have Alzheimer, he's preventing us from our Crusade in Costa Rica". The daughter's lawyer demanded that the father with "howling dementia" be rolled in to Mediation on a stretcher via ambulance. The mother said "I will share all the letters proving everything you've written if you help with legal fees". The mother is tired of being sued, they are looking for anyone to sue because their crooks. Their mother said they had to do a telephone mediation with the father screaming causing inconvenience for his litigious daughter. This is out of Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil, make's a solid case for people thinking about atheism.
Please contact Netflix or Amazon Prime.... I want a 10-part big budget series based on your story. Utterly fascinating.
Its right out of a Reverse "Weekend at Bernies", when I post the lawsuits should I contact Netflix or Amazon Prime? If only this was BS, sorry but people are this wicked.
Enough shared, its too much.
I would agree with that. If this is real and any lawsuit does happen, you shouldn't be sharing anything at all because it's all discoverable. Definitely don't share the house plans, and don't share any more about your sister's involvement in this, past poor judgement, etc.
Meh, you're no fun Bloopox. It's not like sharing the plans would do damage.
A) He's sharing them, not his sister, so it doesn't effect her
B) Whatever plans did get permitted are already discoverable
C) Obviously the sister would want her unaltered plans to be part of the case, since they'd show the original work compared to the permitted work.
D) As far as I can tell, none of us are lawyers. None of our advice therefore matters. Now if we get to see the shared plans, then we can make comments on whether or not the alterations were in good taste!
It isn't so much the plans that are going to cause potential problems - it's his associated commentary. I know that one of the things attorneys do when they get plans and other image files is do an image search online to see what else comes up in relation to them. If he posts the plans here and the neighbors' lawyer later get them as exhibits in a case, they'll google them and this whole thread will come up - in which he's already said some things about his sister and her involvement in this that are
problematic.
Everybody seems to focus on whether or not she has any liability as a designer - but a bigger issue for her may be whether she was aware of, or even complicit in, the apparent tax fraud, and there's no statute of limitation on intentional tax
fraud.
Yes Richard, everybody gets that. It's been said 20 times in this thread. That's why I said, everybody is focusing on that. The much bigger problem here is the tax fraud - that's the whole reason that the neighbors are looking for others to scapegoat. There is no expiration on deliberate tax fraud. If the designer knew that the owners were committing this fraud, or worse yet if she knowingly helped to commit it or conceal it, those are felonies, and they may well be trying to throw her under the bus for their fraud. The brother isn't helping the situation, in that some of what he's posted here could be construed to mean she did know what they were up to all along.
He said she never billed them 13 years ago because she knew they were corrupt. That's discoverable and can be used to support an assertion that she is complicit. He should stop posting about this, here and elsewhere.
Its not a conspiracy theory - it's what happens in court. I work as an expert witness, so I spend a lot of time in lawyers' conference rooms and courtrooms. You need to understand that what "any good attorney" tries to do is counteracted by any other good attorney. Construction related cases tend to have multiple parties, sometimes 8 or 10 attorneys involved, and only one comes out the winner, if anyone really wins at all. Tax fraud results in an ever-expanding net cast for anyone that can be vaguely implicated. The best thing this guy can do for his sister is shut up. Stop talking to these neighbors and their mother, stop posting online, just stop leaving a trail of discoverable admissions.
Anything the brother says that his sister says on a forum is heresay. He wasn't there, he has no idea what his sister did or did not do. Corrupt doesn't equal I know about tax fraud happening and am complicit. Sure, lawyers can try things, but I don't see it holding up. By your definition, we're all liable for tax fraud because we've heard about this and are not immediately reporting it to the govt.
No, I'm not saying that what the brother says can be used directly. I'm saying that the collective body of what he's posted is discoverable, and can be used to lead to additional identifying information and incriminating evidence. It's not too difficult from what he's said to find identifying info and a lot more to this story.
I'm saying he should stop posting publicly.
I guess I need to be more direct about this since it doesn't seem that I'm being understood: From information that the OP posted here I was able to find additional information, and what I found more than suggests that the story is not entirely as reported here. Get it now? It's not what is stated here that is the problem, in and of itself. It's that from what was stated here it is possible to find additional information that is more directly problematic. In my opinion the OP should request that the thread be deleted.
Making it easy to connect the dots is what I'm advising preventing, so it would be pretty hypocritical to help others do exactly that. Suffice it to say there is more information here than there should be.
My comments intended for the OP - who will understand what I'm getting at, I suspect.
Sure, he could try that. I don't see what the point would be - I'm not falsely accusing him of anything - I'm bringing to his attention a probably unintended over sharing of information, that I believe he'll understand from what I said, even though you don't. There's no obligation on my part to expand on this for your sake. I'm not sure why you're getting all accusatory Rick, about advice that isn't directed to you in the first place, but I'm tired of reading it so you're going on permanent ignore.
“How can anyone get in a mess where its gonna cost more to defend against fraud than the plans would have costed them“
That’s the whole con. They want you to be so afraid of the legal costs that you cave and give them money.
Did the attorney explain why he thinks they have a case despite the amount of time that has elapsed?
The attorney asked for retainer. If there is no case then there should be no future work for the attorney.
"you have a case" is lawyerese for "I need some billable hours".
My guess on the next installment/episode, we learn that the attorney is a deacon at the church, and is in on it!
I spoke with a Contract lawyer he said they might try to take it to court, expect to pay $10,000 to $25,000 fighting bogus charges even though ten years is SOL. I turned in their roofing business certified letter, fax through UPS store plus two phone calls. Got their trucks on video, a private investigator out of Miami is $950 to get copies of their Panama Retiree application.