[WSBARP] architect-engineer referral
Pete Middlebrooks
pete at jcmiddlebrooks.com
Wed Apr 23 21:15:00 PDT 2014
Bryce,
1. As you know, I do a high volume of condominiums (both new
construction and conversions).
2. For years I have used Jeff Samdal (card below) for 64.34.415
(conversion inspections), 64.55 (building enclosure inspections) and
64.34/.38 (reserve studies).
3. There are some real advantages having the same professional do all
required inspections.
4. His reports are quite thorough, divided by major components, with
detailed narrative and colored photographs.
5. As you know, these reports can be quite long, and deficiencies can
be buried.
a. Jeff begins with an “Executive Summary” listing his findings for
each component.
b. You can then either decide to specifically disclose a noted
deficiency (indicating that the condition will not be corrected),
c. Or correct the deficiency and have a “clean” report issued.
<http://www.samdalassoc.com> www.samdalassoc.com
Pete
Because I am in the process of updating a seminar manual regarding all of
the possible condominium related inspection, here are some observations:
1. You mention that you have a triplex conversion. This means that
potentially you may have 5 different inspections:
a. 64.415 architect/engineer structural/mechanical/electrical
inspection;
b. 64.55 “course of construction” building enclosure inspection;
c. 64.55 “post construction” building enclosure inspection (if
“course of construction” inspection not done;
d. 64,34,440 housing code inspection (local option); and
e. 64.34 reserve study inspection.
2. Review 64.55 carefully –
a. Applies to “multi-unit” structures -- a building having 3 or
more “attached dwellings” as defined in 64.55.020
b. If a “course of construction” building enclosure is done,
1) the inspector is supposed to submit his inspection “letter” to
the building department before a C.O. is issued.
2) The “letter” merely states that in the inspector’s opinion the
building enclosure was constructed substantially in accordance with the
building enclosure plans (which may be minimal).
3) A full inspection report is not required, and neither the
“letter” nor a “course of construction” building enclosure inspection
report has to be in the Public Offering Statement.
c. If a “course of construction” building enclosure is Not done,
1) then an inspector is supposed to do a “post construction”
building enclosure inspection (which has inspection requirements that are
different than a “course of construction” inspection).
2) A “post construction” building enclosure inspection does result
in an inspection report.
3) The “post construction” building enclosure inspection report has
to be in the Public Offering Statement.
d. The 64.55 building enclosure requirement can be a real “trap for
the unwary”.
1) Building departments are not always aware of 64.55, and keep
terrible records.
2) For example, a client acquired title by foreclosure to 90% of the
unsold units in a completed project that had been inspected by a county
who issued the final CO’s.
3) The client was not involved with the design and construction of
the project.
4) The client assumed that because the CO’s had been issued, a
course of construction inspection was done.
5) The client did have voluntarily a 64.34.415 architect/engineer
structural/mechanical/electrical inspection done, which however is
different than a 64.55 building enclosure inspection.
6) Then in the midst of construction defect litigation, the
plaintiff’s asserted that a course of construction inspection was not
done.
7) And you could not determine from the building department files
whether an inspection had been done.
3. Frankly, a result of the current litigation approach to
condominium defect resolution is that
a. Qualified inspectors are either unwilling to make the inspections
or are doubling or tripling the fees.
b. They are tired of getting pulled into this defect litigation when
the law is clear that they do not have liability.
c. Plaintiff lawyer assertions to the contrary, the law does not
currently require intrusive testing.
d. To get qualified inspectors to make these inspections, I am
working to get into their inspection proposals and reports clear
provisions as to their lack of personal liability.
4. Lest anyone believes I am over-stating the inspection “mess”,
consider one major component involved with all condominiums – the
“roof”
a. which potentially will involve all 5 of these inspections
b. Same component, and yet 5 different inspections.
5. Here is a matrix table from the seminar manual; it illustrates why
I am thinking of a title “Condominium Statutory Inspections – The
Litigation Lawyer’s Relief Act”:
CONVERSION & NON- CONVERSION INSPECTIONS – CURRENT LAW
Condominiums, Cooperatives, Plat Communities & Miscellaneous Communities
Prepared by James C. (Pete) Middlebrooks
INSPECTIONS – CONVERSIONS [RCW 64.34.415 & .440]
What
Project Type
Dwelling Type
Inspector Qualification
Inspection Standard
Inspector liability
Report Requirement
Structural-Mechanical-Electrical [See Note #1]
a. Condo – Yes
b. Coop, Plat, Misc. - No
a. Detached – Yes
b. Attached (non-stacked) – Yes
c. Attached (stacked) - Yes
Independent, licensed architect or engineer
On-site, reasonably ascertainable, inspector’s judgment
Material inaccuracies or omissions actually known when inspected
POS report required
Building Enclosure [See Note #2]
a. Course of construction [See Note #5]
b. Post-construction [See Note #6]
a. Condo – Yes
b. Coop, Plat, Misc. - No
Only applies to “multiunit residential building” –
[See Note #3]
“Qualified enclosure inspector”
[See Note #4]
On-site, inspector’s judgment (course of & post construction standards
different)
None
a. Course of construction – No POS report required
b. Post-construction ─ POS report required
Housing Code (city/county) – local option
a. Condo – Yes
b. Coop, Plat, Misc. - No
a. Detached – Yes
b. Attached (non-stacked) – Yes
c. Attached (stacked) - Yes
City or county building inspector
On-site, Inspector’s judgment
None
POS report required
INSPECTIONS – BUILDING ENCLOSURE [RCW 64.55.010-.090]
What
Project Type
Dwelling Type
Inspector Qualification
Inspection Standard
Inspector liability
Report Requirement
Building Enclosure [See Note #2]
a. Course of construction [See Note #5]
b. Post-construction [See Note #6]
a. Condo – Yes
b. Coop, Plat, Misc. - Yes
Only applies to “multiunit residential building” –
[See Note #3]
“Qualified enclosure inspector”
[See Note #4]
On-site, inspector’s judgment (course of & post construction standards
different)
None
a. Course of construction – No POS report required
b. Post-construction ─ POS report required
INSPECTIONS – RESERVE STUDY [RCW 64.34. and 64.38.]
What
Project Type
Dwelling Type
Inspector Qualification
Inspection Standard
Inspector liability
Report Requirement
Reserve Study Components (useful life/replacement cost)
[See Note #7]
a. Condo – Yes
b. Coop, Plat, Misc. - Yes
a. Detached – Yes
b. Attached (non-stacked) – Yes
c. Attached (stacked) - Yes
"Reserve study professional" [See Note #8]
Visual, inspector’s judgment
None
POS report required
NOTES - CONVERSION & NON- CONVERSION INSPECTIONS – CURRENT LAW
NOTE #1: “Structural-Mechanical-Electrical” = Structural components and
mechanical & electrical installations material to the use and enjoyment
of the condominium.
NOTE #2: “Building Enclosure” = That part of any building, above or
below grade, that physically separates the outside or exterior environment
from interior environments and which weatherproofs, waterproofs, or
otherwise protects the building or its components from water or moisture
intrusion. Interior environments consist of both heated and unheated
enclosed spaces. The building enclosure includes, but is not limited to,
that portion of roofs, walls, balcony support columns, decks, windows,
doors, vents, and other penetrations through exterior walls, which
waterproof, weatherproof, or otherwise protect the building or its
components from water or moisture intrusion
NOTE #3: “Multiunit Residential Building” = 3 or more units; each
attached to another dwelling unit by a wall, floor, or ceiling that
separates heated living spaces; a garage is not a “heated” living space.
NOTE #4: “Qualified enclosure inspector” = independent person with
substantial/verifiable training/experience in building enclosure
design/construction.
NOTE #5: “Course of Construction Inspection” = shall include, at a
minimum, . . . Water penetration resistance testing of a representative
sample of windows and window installations. Such tests shall be conducted
according to industry standards. Where appropriate, tests shall be
conducted with an induced air pressure difference across the window and
window installation. Additional testing is not required if the same
assembly has previously been tested in situ within the previous two years
in the project under construction by the builder, by another member of the
construction team such as an architect or engineer, or by an independent
testing laboratory..
NOTE #6: “Post-Construction Inspection” = (a) Includes such intrusive or
other testing, such as the removal of siding or other building enclosure
materials, that the inspector believes, in his or her professional
judgment, is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the building
enclosure was constructed; (b) Evaluates, to the extent reasonably
ascertainable and in the professional judgment of the inspector, the
present condition of the building enclosure including whether such
condition has adversely affected or will adversely affect the performance
of the building enclosure to waterproof, weatherproof, or otherwise
protect the building or its components from water or moisture intrusion.
["Adversely affect" = must be more than technical and must be significant
to a reasonable person; not required to prove that the breach renders the
unit or common element uninhabitable or unfit for its intended purpose];
(c) Includes recommendations for repairs to the building enclosure that,
in the professional judgment of the qualified building inspector, are
necessary to: (i) Repair a design or construction defect in the building
enclosure that results in the failure of the building enclosure to perform
its intended function and allows unintended water penetration not caused
by flooding; and (ii) repair damage caused by such a defect that has an
adverse effect as provided in RCW 64.34.445(7); Identifies: (i) The extent
of the inspection performed pursuant to this section; (ii) The information
obtained as a result of that inspection; and (iii) The manner in which
any repairs required by this section were performed, the scope of those
repairs, and the names of the persons performing those repairs..
NOTE #7: “Reserve Study Components” = Components with less than 30
years useful life, the replacement cost of which is infrequent,
significant and impracticable to include in an annual budget.
NOTE #8: "Reserve Study Professional" = independent person suitably
qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to
prepare a reserve study per RCW 64.34 & 64.38.
Law Office of James C. Middlebrooks
Pete Middlebrooks (Attorney)
3050 Belmonte Lane, Everett, WA 98201
Email: <mailto:Pete at jcmiddlebrooks.com> Pete at jcmiddlebrooks.com
Pete Tel.: 425-252-2693
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail message (and any attachments
accompanying it) may contain confidential information, including
information protected by attorney-client privilege. The information is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Delivery of this
message to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended to
waive any privilege or otherwise detract from the confidentiality of the
message. If you are not the intended recipient, or if this message has
been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce,
distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission, rather, please
promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of
the message and its attachments, if any.
From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.
com] On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:15 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] architect-engineer referral
I am doing a condo conversion and I need an inspection pursuant to
64.34.415 by architect or engineer, do any of you have any referrals to do
such work? The property is a triplex in Tacoma area.
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and
may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this
matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we hereby
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including attachments, if any) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any matter addressed herein.
Bryce H. Dille
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
P.O. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Voice: 253.848.3513
Fax: 253.845.4941
bryced at cdb-law.com
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium
Development
Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing
Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator
Estate and Trust Planning & Administration, Including Planning for
Business Succession
Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments
Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
<mailto:webmaster at wsbarppt.com> webmaster at wsbarppt.com
- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list.
Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents.
===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com
- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list.
Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 62613 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20140423/5ecfc063/winmail.dat>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list