Tight as a drum

[Darren Miller]

Check out this lovely installation I found yesterday.

Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

Similar Threads:

• NM Liquid Tight
• Drum trap with cap
• NM Liquid tight conduit installation
• Tight seal on Flex Duct ... Not !!
• NM liquid Tight to EMT connection

[John Arnold]

Structural gutter?!

[Michael Larson]

Check out this lovely installation I found yesterday.

Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

That would be a great place to scan with an IR cam.

[Billy Stephens]

Darren,

Did you get a picture of the bottom of the wall under that gap? Had enough rain & time
passed to show the water damage?

[Darren Miller]

Home was a foreclosure;

Gaps galore; here other beauties; gaps at windows, stairs 'stuccoed' (is that really a word?) around and another downspout.

Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

[Billy Stephens]

Home was a foreclosure;

Gaps galore; here other beauties; gaps at windows, stairs 'stuccoed' (is that really a word?) around and another downspout.

Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

Darren,

I don't think there is a word for it.

Some come to mind but........!!!!

[William Brady]

Hi Daryn,

It is hard to tell but I think you have EIFS and if thats the case you should report the fact that it is treminated inside the EIFS system. And you should say that it is EIFS and let them decide if they want to have it inspected by an EIFS inspector who has the moisture meters to do the job right.

[Rick Hurst]

With those types of openings around a window frame it not going to take a EIFS contractor or a rocket scientist to tell you there's going to be some moisture problem in that wall.

Was this a condo also?

If so, the HOA is probably responsible for the exterior wall although the client is probably responsible for the repairs beyond the wall if damages have occured.

EIFS is the work of Satan a homeowner told me the other day. Nothing but hell with it she said.

rick

[Rick Bunzel]

You don't need vinyl siding - we'll just use stucco! I got a cuzin who will give you a deal!


Regardless of the type of material - this place has major issues. Pull out your moisture meter and start taking readings!

//Rick

[Darren Miller]

It was a two-family house located in a urban area. It looked like a homeowner special or possible a training project (worst I've ever seen).
Yes, it is EFIS and some sections of the insulation was never attached, I was able to pull it about 3/4 inch away from the house.

No need to have it re-inspected, I recommended (and buyer agreed) a complete removal is needed.

Darren
New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

[William Brady]

This may be beating a dead horse but just a suggestion. If this buyer is going to factor in the tear off of the EIFS and the seller goes along and gives up money on the sale then a buyer may want to have a home like this inspected by someone who know what they are doing. I just may be that a complete tearoff is not necessary. A good applicator who know EIFS can work with a home like this and just fix the problem areas. I know there are many but it is worth a shot. A complete tear off cost lots of money and it is probably called for on this house but he or she should look into it before getting someone to just TEAR IT OFFF. They just might get this thing fixed for a lot less money. One thing however, the sub-straight should be moisture tested before anything is done. A tear off is great but you have to have something to put the new siding on. In this case nothing may be left under the EIFS.

[Jerry Peck]

then a buyer may want to have a home like this inspected by someone who know what they are doing.

I suspect that Darren knows what he is doing, and that, even if you are some type of EIFS expert, to suggest you (if that is the implication) or someone else knows better without being there is ... let's just say 'in poor taste'.

I just may be that a complete tearoff is not necessary. A good applicator who know EIFS can work with a home like this and just fix the problem areas.

One thing however, the sub-straight should be moisture tested before anything is done.

If it is as bad as has been presented, and the buyer and seller agree to tear it off, why interfere and suggest leaving a siding which has known problems?

A tear off is great but you have to have something to put the new siding on. In this case nothing may be left under the EIFS.

Precisely why tearing the EIFS off and installing something else is a good idea.

Why entertain notions of saving the seller money when the buyer is the client - not the seller - is also beyond me, but it seems that some HIs think in those terms.

[Scott Patterson]

IMHO and with 178 EIFS litigation cases under my belt since 1999, that is a tear off! Typical botched EIFS installation. I would bet my eye teeth that you won't even find any substrate. It has all turned to mulch!

Jerry said it very well....

[William Brady]

Hi Darren. I hope that you understood what I was saying. Jerry always seem to find something wrong with what most say. I know he has lots of experience but his ego seems to always get in the way. I am sure you know about EIFS you live in New Jersey where lots of it can be found. I was just making a point about something I have seen in the past that worked very nicely for another homeowner I did work for in New Jersey. In there case they wanted to tear off the entire system at some expense only to find that their problem could be fixed without going through all that trouble. There were numerous problems like the ones you reported, the house was probed and it was not a wet as one might think. Areas of the home were repaired and they had a good EIFS system from then on. Sorry if my post came out wrong I did not mean to say you were not capable of inspecting that home.
Just one thing Jerry. You might want to consider that not all home inspectors have your knowledge of EIFS since it is not your everyday siding in a lot of areas. Some do and thats a good thing. SOme do but do not have the testing equiptment to do the job without getting in troulbe with some lawyer over a missed wet spot. Try to take a deep breath, and not get so over the top. It's not always comfortable to post something on this site because you are always quick to make some negative comment.
Lastly, I do like most of your wisdom it is just the style that gets to me.

[Erby Crofutt]

Style, you're accusing Jerry Peck of having style. Since when

Sometimes a guy just can't resist.

[Darren Miller]

Bill,

When I first read your reply, I did take it as a shot at me, but hey, I have thick skin. I re-read it before Jerry's reply and all is well.

Just for the record, here's my macro for EFIS:

"The siding is Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS), also referred to as Synthetic Stucco. Some homes using this material have experienced moisture related problems inside the walls resulting in substantial damage including rot and wood deterioration to the structure. My visual inspection of the siding showed no signs damage or deterioration. This is a visual inspection only. No destructive testing is performed and many times the damage is not visible during a non invasive inspection. I am NOT a certified EFIS inspector; I do recommend you consider a review by a qualified contractor for a more detailed inspection prior to close. There is a company that will inspect and offer a warranty on EFIS."

It's quite clear this installation did not warrant this in the report.

On another note, way back in the late 70's thru the mid 80's during my days as a construction foreman & super, we were installing 'Dryvit' panels on 5 story, 140,000 sq ft office buildings. So I kinda saw first hand back then, that caulking and sealing was the most important step in installation. The second most important is having a drip edge above windows.

I have to go thru my files and get a few pictures I took last year on what can happen without a drip edge.

Darren

[Darren Miller]

Here's an office building I inspected last year. It's difficult to see but the EFIS has a return in the windows. There was no drip cut into the head and water was flowing back into and behind the window (yes, the stains you see are on the inside of the glass.

Darren

[William Brady]

I think I have to start using some of those smiley faces in my writing since it was taken wrong and I did not intend it to be that way. I know the company that does the warranty on EIFS and they have a great practical training program (CD Based) that you would find very interesting. I would love to talk about testing this stuff with you some time. Sealents and flashing are the key to a good system. The manufactures learned all about that some time ago the hard way. On the other hand applicator are still learning. You still hear the following( I have been going it that way for years) SO the EIFS problem goes on mainly due to ego and cost cutting. My opinion it's a great system but it needs to be installed correctly and inspected every so often. I just move to New Mexico from NYC and I do not see it here mostly hard coat in the southwest. To bad since it is a big ticket inspection. Good luck back their on the east coast I hear it's snowing!!!!!!!!

Bill B

[John Carroll]

Not to pile on...but Bill nailed in in his last post on JP.

Agree that at least a partial tearoff is warranted at problem areas. Re-evaluation for further tearoff after seeing the extent of damage would be the most prudent course, along with complete redo of all fenestration areas and implementation of a maintenance program to monitor future developments. Good luck with that one...
All EIFS is not bad, and recommending complete tearoff before determining the extent of damage borders on irresponsibility.

Sheik yer booty!

[Scott Patterson]

Bill B, that hardcoat stucco has just as many if not more problems than EIFS. It is just a different cladding, but it needs the same flashing designs, etc.

Come to think of it most cladding's have similar problems if they are not installed properly!

[Scott Patterson]

Not to pile on...but Bill nailed in in his last post on JP.

All EIFS is not bad, and recommending complete tear off before determining the extent of damage borders on irresponsibility.

Sheik yer booty!

Well that is true. I would say that about 90% of the true EIFS clad homes have problems based on what I have seen over the past eight or so years while I have been inspecting that crap.

As for "Tear Off's" I have a rule of thumb when I give a tear off recommendation. If I find more than one third of the wall/substrate with moisture, with missing or improperly installed flashing or wet interior dry walls, flooring etc I recommend that all of the crap needs to be removed. This is the only way to properly correct the problems.

If it is a polyiso based system like a Sprint wall system it is like an egg shell, and many don't even have substrate walls! For about three years many homes were built with only polyiso board for the substrate. This is a tear off as it really has no repair options that will last very long.

[Shannon Guinn]

Darren, love that Sheik Yerbouti avatar!

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry always seem to find something wrong with what most say.

Only when someone says something wrong or is incorrect, then I feel justified in correcting it, and, being as Darren's first read was the same as mine ...

I know he has lots of experience but his ego seems to always get in the way.

Believe or not, there is no ego here, you guys know lost of stuff I know little or nothing about. However, in addition to admitting there there is tons of stuff I know nothing about, I feel a need to correct incorrect posts about which others might know nothing about, least they believe incorrect information is correct.

EIFS is one of those things I know little about, having a client agree with my recommendation and having others (usually it was agents) try to tell us a way to 'save money and get it patched instead of replaced' when it is in my client's best interest to get it replaced, that I know a lot about.

Having other home inspector's suggest that the client save money by patching instead of replacing ... that ... I just plain do not understand that mentality. To me, my client's best interest take precedence of saving the seller money (of which I have no concern with - if my buyer can get extra tens of thousands of dollars from the seller, that's great ... *I* just don't see a problem with that.

[John C Ritter]

This may be beating a dead horse but just a suggestion. If this buyer is going to factor in the tear off of the EIFS and the seller goes along and gives up money on the sale then a buyer may want to have a home like this inspected by someone who know what they are doing. It just may be that a complete tearoff is not necessary

I think you guys really didn't catch the scenario William Brady was contemplating... After the client has gotten satisfaction from the seller, he may find it to be in his best interest to look into remediating the problem... and consult an EIFS expert to evaluate the feasibility of that option.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and in the client's best interests.

[Darren Miller]

Shannon;

Why thank you!!

I'm a BIG FZ fan; from Freak-Out to well, the last DVD I got was called "Halloween". I used to go to all his halloween concerts in NYC at the Pallidium.

His music never gets old!


Darren

[Rolland Pruner]

May I suggest:

NEVER-NEVER recommend complete removal of anything!!

ALWAYS-ALWAYS recommend having an applicable contractor evalute and repair as needed.




From Rolland Pruner

[William Brady]

Thank you Mr. Ritter that was my point.

Bill B

[Darren Miller]

May I suggest:

NEVER-NEVER recommend complete removal of anything!!

ALWAYS-ALWAYS recommend having an applicable contractor evalute and repair as needed.




From Rolland Pruner

This is where we disagree!!!

Some no brainer examples include a roof that's shot (how can that be repaired?). If the roof is shot, why call for a re-evaluation?

How about a furnace that is completely rusted out...

I recommend total replacement of decks & entry steps all the time. There are many times a poorly installed deck cannot be repaired. A classic example is a page out of a recent inspection I did. The deck was old and installed by the homeowner who didn't know what he was doing......

Gentlemen, we are hired to DED (detect, evaluate, direct). Defering to a 'qualified' tradeperson ALL the time is, in my opinion, short-changing your client.

Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

[Scott Patterson]

May I suggest:

NEVER-NEVER recommend complete removal of anything!!

ALWAYS-ALWAYS recommend having an applicable contractor evalute and repair as needed.

From Rolland Pruner

This is poor advice. More and more home inspectors get into trouble by not taking a stance and saying that something needs replacing when it is broken, worn out or installed improperly. Saying further evaluation and repairs as needed is a "soft sell" and tends to not express the urgency in the situation.

Granted it is a scary thing to do when you put your name and reputation on the line by taking a stance, but that is what we are paid to do. We are the expert at the time, even if you don't think so. As home inspectors we need to be able to call out an item that is toast and it's replacement is needed. The HI schools and franchise trainers do not teach this, they tend to take the route of the soft sell approach. The ability to do this is something that comes over time to a home inspector.

With EIFS it is a not brainier. If the damaged areas are not removed you can't make a proper repair. If the damage is so extensive it needs to be torn off.

[Jerry Peck]

May I suggest:

NEVER-NEVER recommend complete removal of anything!!

ALWAYS-ALWAYS recommend having an applicable contractor evalute and repair as needed.




From Rolland Pruner

VERY BAD ADVICE!

If it needs replacement - write it up as needing replacement.

NEVER (okay ... in VERY RARE cases) is there a need to recommend 'further evaluation' - that is what we get paid to do, ANY contractor who comes in to make a repair *must first evaluate it* before deciding what they need to do - *WE* (HIs) do not need to tell them to do so.

When calling for 'further evaluation' (which is the typical words used to say what Rolland said) you open yourself up for performing a disservice to your client.

Example: Roof is shot and needs replacement - you call for 'further evaluation' by a roofer and the roofer comes back and says 'Oh, there are a few more years left in that roof', your client then asks you 'I though you said it was shot and needed replacement?', you respond 'It is, that's why I said that', client responds 'Well, *YOU* called for 'further evaluation' by a roofer and *THE ROOFER* said the seller does not need to replace it' ...

Guys, when you do that - *YOU* are no longer in a position to dispute what the roofer says ... because *YOU* deferred to that roofer.

[William Brady]

My take on saying tear it off is this. I for one would not recommend it or say it that way. Instead I think it is better to say "Coming to the end of it's useful life" I have some boiler plate that explains what the statement means. I for one do not want to be the an inspector that goes beyond what is acceptable ie: quoting building codes. It is nice to know the code but it is another thing to bring it into an inspection, and put referances to it in writing. I know I will get heat about this from some but it works for me.
I want to do a good job for my client but I also want to stay in business. Being too technical gets everyone's under ware real tight. I do not cater to Realtors (years ago I was one)only my client. However there is more than that involved in any real estate transaction. As a business man I need to take it all into consideration, I think.
Tell me another side of this please and can we keep it to the tear off issue. Or how saying tear it off could affect the whole transaction and your reputation.

[Jerry Peck]

I want to do a good job for my client but I also want to stay in business.

I believe that applies to all of us.

Being too technical gets everyone's under ware real tight.

I never really cared if someone's underwear got too tight, in fact, I was probably the one giving the the wedgie.

As a business man I need to take it all into consideration, I think.

To me, being a businessman meant that I looked out for the interests of my clients, and THAT kept me in business.

Tell me another side of this please and can we keep it to the tear off issue. Or how saying tear it off could affect the whole transaction and your reputation.

As the professional being hired to give your professional opinion, it is your *obligation* to tell your client that it needs to be torn of, if you think it does need it.

It is *the only thing* your client can use to address the issue, which may mean 'tear it off and replace it', 'repair what can be repaired', or 'just give me some money to take care of it' - none of which is our decision to make, but without giving the client the our true opinion and calling a POS "a POS", they (our client) has not bargaining power with regards to their contract, and lacking that, we (the HI) are simply then working for the seller in helping force that POS onto the buyer.

The buyer cannot make a proper and wise decision is the HI holds back and soft-sells the problems. That is what real estate agents do. Home inspectors should be there exposing those problems in a manner in which their client (the buyer) can understand the gravity of the issues and in a way such that their client can use that information for the clients best interests ... whether that be 'Running Away' or simply negotiating the best and greatest compensation for those issues to allow them (the client) to address those issues in a way which is acceptable to them (the client).

Take away the strong wording and your client has less power to negotiate with.

That is definitely not in the best interests of your client.

[Darren Miller]

Hey Bill,

When you reference code and give the code section (and you're right), who can argue with you?

Darren

[neal lewis]

I think it is better to say "Coming to the end of it's useful life" I have some boiler plate that explains what the statement means.

Why would you need a boilerplate to explain what your statement actually means?

[Billy Stephens]

May I suggest:

NEVER-NEVER recommend complete removal of anything!!

ALWAYS-ALWAYS recommend having an applicable contractor evalute and repair as needed.




From Rolland Pruner

Thank you Mr. Ritter that was my point.

Bill B

My take on saying tear it off is this. I for one would not recommend it or say it that way. Instead I think it is better to .
.
"Coming to the end of it's useful life" .

There is a Huge Differance between DOA and End Of Service Life!