Hello, we had an offer on our house until the buyer's inspector said that a repair the previous owner's made more than 12 years ago was improper. Apparently the previous owner had water damage to a floor truss where it met the foundation wall, and they retrofitted a new engineered floor truss piece in and installed a support at the end of the retrofit instead of near the foundation wall. The home inspector said it should have been at the foundation wall but then said he is no expert in truss construction or engineered trusses. Our home inspector looked at this wehn we bought the house 12 years ago and didn't see a problem, and we also had the home inspected when we put it on the market so we could address any issues, and that inspector didn't raise this as an issue either. An we haven't had any bounce or sagging in the foor above this repair. Needless to say the buyer backed out, but was his inspector correct? I have pictures but I can't figure out how to insert them here.

He did exactly what he was supposed to do, he made note of an area of possible deficiency. He should have said (and maybe he did) that you should consult a design professional to visit and agree or disagree with his findings and find a solution to the problem. (If there is one).

Thanks for replying. I guess the problem I'm having is 2 inspectors said it was fine and one says its not. And I don't know who to get in to say whether it is a deficiency or not, because I don't know who would be considered an expert in engineered floor trusses. If I knew how to attach pictures I could show you how it was done. Here's my e-mail p_mellon@verizon.net if you reply by e-mail I can send you the photos. Thanks.

I agree with Jay. I don't think there's a way to splice a truss in the way you describe, so if the existing truss had to be cut, the supporting post had to be installed right there to support the part of the truss that remained, and the spliced piece simply spans between the wall and the support post.

Home inspectors have no business passing engineering judgement on such things. Again I agree with Jay, the right thing for an inspector to do would be to simply call attention to the matter and suggest that it be evaluated by a qualified design professional, such as a structural engineer.

Thanks for your reply. Do you know or does anyone know how I can attach pictures of this or a drawing because it sounds like the job was done the way you describe. I understand that inspectors are supposed to note possible deficiencies, but in this instance, we have proved the inspector wrong on a number of things he was definitive about-the worst was he said there was mold on the aluminum backed duct insulation which is what caused the buyer to back out. We had the deposits on the insulation tested by a lab and it's not mold, its some kind of mineral deposit.

You have to find a website like photobucket.com to host the pictures first, then you can link them from here.

Truss fixes are not uncommon, a lot of times we nick the side of one with a toilet drain that can't be moved and we call the truss manufacturer and he tells us what to do and their in-house engineer will send us a sealed drawing for the inspector. The problem here is posting down to the floor without the proper footing below. It's actually not that hard to fix but you have to have a design pro tell you what the fix is.

Yes and no is the simple answer to your question.
Both Jay and Richard are correct.
A home inspector if they follow the rules both of NARI and ASHI which states were generalists.
Meaning that its our job to point out potential issues with a structure.

In your case many factors may be in play here.
1. The first inspector never found the issue
2. The first inspector could not see the issue because of conditions during the inspection.
3. The first inspector forgot to put condition into report.

In any case it must not have been an issue as this repair lasted so long.

Now to your issue.

The contract of sale should have had clauses in it stating that if there was a structual issue that you were not willing to address (fix) then the buyer had the option of backing out.
Also in most contract of sale issues there is a Dollar figure on when a buyer or seller can break the deal. Typically this is around $500 which is much more then what this type of repair would cost.

So what should you do?

First off check your contract of sale. This is assuming there was nothing else that would have given the buyer cold feet.
Get another lawyer that understands realestate law so the next time you have a buyer on the hook they do not get away so easy.
Get an engineer inspection and make the repair if you fear that the next inspector will also raise an issue with this.
Call your prior inspector and ask them to re-visit this condition to see what their opinion was on this problem.
While I also see that this question is fishing for recovery from the inspector because of loss of sale. I am not sure if you had a case for this or not. The most you would be able to recover would be the cost of the inspection.

As far as your recent inspection vs the buyers inspection.

I think your inspector did the right thing, assuming he or she had the tgi joist listed as a issue that could come up. Meaning said that there was apparent repairs done to the beam and that they (although working) did not appear correct.

When I do an inspection I look into the age of things and put into prospective what I see. If I saw a 12 year old repair even though it did not appear correct but it was working. I would say so. I would advise my client that this condition although working could fail if conditions above that rely on its support changes in any way. However I would stress that at the time of the inspection nothing appeard to be contributing to a possible failure of this area. But monitor it for change.

The bottom line is the buyer did not want the house. It could have been for many other reasons that they did not state. They may have used that issue as cause.

[URL=http://s421.photobucket.com/albums/pp295/pamellon/?albumview=slideshow ]pictures of truss and support[/URL]

Jay, thanks for the tip on sharing the pictures. The business card you see attached to the repaired area is actually from when we had the home inspected in 1996. Our inspector attached his card to areas he looked at so we would be sure he hadn't missed something. He noted the repair in his report and said it was fine.

To HCC: Thank you for your reply as well. As for going after the buyer's inspector, we have no intention of doing that. However, we now have to disclose his report to any other buyers which is why we are going through and addressing all issues raised. As to the buyer who walked away, under PA law, all they lose for breaking the contract is their deposit, and because this is a relo for us, the contract of sale was with our relo company and it is their policy to always refund deposits regardless of whether the buyer has a legal right to walk away or not. Unfortunately in this market, buyer's are expecting perfection at rock bottom prices. After the fact we found out this buyer has walked away from 2 other contracts before ours. Each time he negotiates a price, then gets in an inspector and trys to use the inspection report to negotiate a substantially lower price. In our case he asked for a further $37000 concession based on this issue and a wish list of other items that weren't even listed as deficiencies on the inspection report.

Looking at the pictures, the member that was cut appears to be a girder, and not a truss. What the girder supports is a mystery, because it is running parallel to the trusses, or so it appears. It also appears that whoever put in the support post also attempted to pour an above-the-floor footing for the post. Whether the footing is sufficient is a question that can't be answered without knowing what load the post supports.

This is definitely a job for a structural engineer to sort out, and at the end, he or she should give you a letter of opinion about the adequacy of steps that were taken. Yes, it all appears to be working, and it could well work for the lifetime of the house, but in order to deal with disclosure laws, I think you'll need an engineer's letter, which should trump any of the inspectors' opinions.

Thanks. I have a friend who is an architect so I'll see if she can recommend an engineer for me near Malvern PA.

Who told you that you have to disclose any of these issues?

Its no ones business why someone else backed out of your deal. In fact the home inspection results are only the property of the person that had this done. If YOUR inspection found something wrong then YOU would need to disclose this issue. But their inspection results are not your concern. So do not say anything to anyone. All you’re obligated to say is the deal fell through.

In addition the contract was with the relo company and the buyer you should not even be any part of this. So again why would you disclose anything to anyone? If the relo company feels that they need to do this then fine. Let them. Your deal is done with them and they agreed to pay you a set amount for the home.

Now because this is a relo deal, why are you worried about anything with the house? The relo company does their inspection. They find issues and then price the home accordingly. Once that happens you either except the deal or re-negotiate what you want for the home. The Relo company is the buyer as far as your concerned. Whoever they get into the home to buy it is their problem. Not yours. You already had a deal with them, or should have. They cannot come back later and say we sold it for less. How else would you relocate? In essence they purchased the home from you. You should not even be in the house at this point.

The fact that the buyer is using the home inspection as part of the deal is very common. People do this all the time. And as far as them asking for everything?. They do this as they never know what you will say yes to. In other words, if they do not ask, you will never say no. Many folks feel like fixing everything for their buyer.

Now as far as the structural issues. Richard is correct on this, Again, The photos only tell us that we need more information about the reason for this girder that appears to been placed after the fact. My guess it was done by someone who did not understand how to properly repair this type I joist or truss above.

It appears that they sistered both sides of the truss with the 2x8 joists and clamped them to the sides of the entire truss. Nailed the bottom cord to the truss so it would not slip down then supported the entire thing with the jack. These type of truss hang on the top plate. My guess is that the metal plates that hold these together were failing and they did this to keep the truss from pulling apart on the bottom. Poor repair no matter how you look at it. But again. It has worked for all these years so why would it be an issue now?

As an inspector, I would have had a whole lot more issues with what I saw in the photos.
1. Rust on the plates of the truss. This is a sign that the basement/crawl area is suffering from lots of water. Not a good thing as the truss plates could fail.
2. As far as the mold issue. The white material that the inspector thought was mold is corrosion from the ducts due to the excessive moisture in the area. This can result in mold.
3. The white powder on the walls is moisture. Now you may never have seen water in the area, but this my friend is water that is stuck behind the cement block walls, waiting for the chance to find a hole in the wall and leak in. These are all reasons of concern for a buyer. I also think I saw a loose wire in one of the photos as well. This should be secured.

The way it works with the relo company is we are given an opportunity to sell the house first, and in fact we are required to try to sell it first for a set number of days. If we are successful, then after the inspection contingency clears, the relo company buys the house from us at the buyer's offer price and they in turn close with the buyer. In addition, the relo company gives us a small bonus because they don't have to take the house into inventory. If we are not successful after a certain length of time then we have the option to sell it to the relo company at their offer which is based on an appraisal that assumes they will have to market the home empty and they will have to aggressively price it to sell it within 120 days (the max time they want to carry a home in inventory)-those assumptions together with other factors (such as the fact that they don't want to take the house into inventory so they want to encourage you to take buyer offers over their offer) combine into a low offer from the relo company.

As for disclosure, under PA law a seller is required to keep their disclosure up to date and report any issues they become aware of-that includes inspection reports from buyers if those inspections are sent to them. As the buyer sent us a copy of the inspection report, we are required to disclose. Under the relo contract, because we were given a copy we are also required to send a copy to the relo company-and they and the realtor agree that we are all required to disclose it so a copy goes with our standard seller's disclosure package.

As for your assessment that we are getting alot of water. I've just ordered a moisture meter to check, but we believe the items you mentioned as indicative of water, predate our ownership and that there is no current/on-going water issue. The previous owners did have wet basement/crawlspace issues because originally the house didn't have gutters. They installed the gutters and installed a french drain and sump pumps when they made the repair that prompted my original post. Except when we've tested it to make sure it still works, we haven't heard this sump go on. We've also had quite alot of rain in our area over the last week and I have gone into the crawl space to check the area and have not seen or felt any water on the walls, floor or in the pump. So we'll see what the moisture meter shows.

Keep us posted on the moisture issue. But again why are you going through the process of testing for water when you are selling the home. Would you not have to disclose that also.

also if you have an engineer check out the repair to the joist. let us know what he or hse finds out.

Good luck on the relo

We're testing the moisture because the inspector also pointed out the old water stains on the wall and 'suspected' mold on the insulation around the duct work and concluded that there must be an ongoing water issue. We were tld that before coming to that conclusion and making comments about mold, the inspector should have used a moisture meter. Mold needs moisture to grow-so no moisture, no mold. And no moisture also proves the water stains are old, not current or on-going. While we wait for the moisture meter to arrive in the mail, we decided to use the time honored low tech method-taping 12 by 12 inch pieces of aluminum foil to the walls. Checked after several hours as recommended by "This Old House" and the foil was dry on both sides. So we expect the moisture meter to support our position that there is no water (or mold) issue in the crawlspace which we'll be happy to disclose.

Your going way beyond what you need to do. Which is nothing. The more research you do the more disclosure you need. Regardless of what you find. The next buyer will test again as they will not belive your findings even if they are correct.

Also do not be fooled about no moisture no mold.
If you had moisture in the basement in the past. Most likely you do have some form of mold. Just because its not viable at this time. (living) it is just as much a concern.

As far as moisture on the walls with the foil method. This is a good indication of moisture within a living area such as a basement. But do not rely on this in your case. Reason being that the current weather conditions may not reveal moisture or the current crawl/basement area may be too cool to allow for condensing of the mosture on the back side of the foil.

Personally I would not do anything other then perhaps clean and paint the walls with a good cement paint. Not water proofing paint. Just to make it look clean again. Be sure to rid the area of all spiders and small bugs. A sure sign of moisture in this type of area.
Make the area more inviting to view. This lowers the concerns of the future buyers, regardless of what the inspection reveals.

Was the rotted piece cut out and replaced or was a new joist installed next to the existing, rotted one? I'm having a hard time visualizing the exact fix that was implemented.