SE needed or not? - InspectionNews

John Stephenson · #1 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 06:40 PM

..............

Jerry McCarthy · #2 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 06:42 PM

You betcha.

Bruce Breedlove · #3 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 06:55 PM

Yeah, I would say a SE is warranted in this case.

I have always called that piece in the 3rd pic a "bird box".

James Duffin · #4 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 08:19 PM

Isn't that stone just cosmetic and not structural? It could fall off the house and not make a difference it seems.

Eric Barker · #5 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007, 05:10 AM

I gotta agree with James. That looks to be cultured stone mounted on substrate. I don't think that the rake return separation is related. The correlations just aren't there. I would not go the SE route. My money is on a cosmetic condition.

wayne soper · #6 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007, 06:27 AM

Was any framing cut in the attic above because it looks like the corner of the foundation settled which is common but it seems that the framing has pushed the upper corner out which would go along with mabey a cut collar tie or rafter

Jerry Peck · #7 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Duffin

Isn't that stone just cosmetic and not structural? It could fall off the house and not make a difference it seems.

Except that *something* is moving, allowing movement of that stone, which is causing the cracking.

Thom Walker · #8 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007, 07:22 AM

You didn't indicate if you could see the framing members inside the garage and around the door. It's doubtful you could get to the connections of the rafters at the top plates. You probably can't see what has happened to the substrate beneath that open crack as a result of water penetration. I would call for the SE opinion in this case.