Dominion Homes Problems and Opinions

In 2004, two weeks after my first child was born, Dominion Homes asked me to take down an documentation and opinion site I had set up or they would sue me for illegal use of their Service Mark.  I promptly complied with this in July of 2004.

I had originally created that site to help my wife and I document for our buyers agent and Dominion Homes the problems we were encountering during our 2000-2001 build process.  I then kept the site up through 2004 as we continued to have problems with our Dominion Home relating to issues we brought up during our warrant period that had still not been addressed.

Now in 2010/2011 we have discovered a MAJOR problem with our home.  The stucco, which we pointed out to Dominion Homes had a potential problem as early as 2001, is cracking extensively.

Dominion Homes said they could not address the issue until I had an engineer come and look at the problem.  I had an engineer come during the spring of 2011 to our house and perform extensive testing and they determined that the stucco had been improperly installed.

You can read the original engineers reports here and after Dominion Homes rejected that report you can read the engineers rebuttal here.  The second report is more concise and is a pretty quick read.

Excerpt from the original report about my Dominion Homes stucco problem conclussion (See the full report here):

The water/moisture intrusion into the south wall of the subject home (master bathroom and garage) was likely caused by deficiencies in the water management system for the exterior stucco wall system, in particular, the water- resistant barrier. Note that all wall systems are supposed to be designed to allow for some penetration of moisture; the key is that the penetrating water is managed within a wall and is moved back out of the wall system. In the case of stucco, a properly designed and installed water-resistant barrier between the stucco and the OSB, along with proper flashings at openings and openings at the bottom of the stucco would constitute a water management system. The deficiencies observed in the water management system allowed any water/moisture entering through cracks in the stucco finish to intrude into the exterior wall system and affect the wooden wall construction members (OSB sheathing and wall studs) and cause water-damage and probable visible mold growth.    Evidence to support this conclusion follows:

• Destructive testing observations.
• Review of pertinent Ohio Building Code requirements and stucco industry best practices.
• Location and patterning of the cracks in the stucco on the south side of the home.
• Discoloration/staining along the cracks throughout the wall suggested that moisture intrusion was likely occurring along these locations.
• Moderate and high initial moisture levels to the south exterior OSB sheathing.
• Water-staining locations and patterns along the interface between the exterior OSB sheathing and wooden top plate above the garage door on the south wall of the garage.
• Patterning of the probable visible mold growth to the exterior OSB wall sheathing in the garage and within the destructive testing area in the south wall of the master bathroom.
• Water infiltration testing which produced water entry through the exterior stucco finish at the location of the destructive testing.
• Information obtained from the homeowners. Remediation of this situation will likely require the removal of the stucco wall finishes back to and including the OSB sheathing.

Read the full report here.

Excerpt from the engineers response report when Dominion Homes rejected the findings of the first report (see the full report here):

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED BY DOMINION HOMES CUSTOMER CARE:

Issues raised by Dominion Homes Customer Care are reproduced, and then addressed, in the text that follows. The responses are based on  inspections performed on April 14 and April 27, 2011, our report dated May 3, 2011, and additional information researched from online and from the 1999 Ohio Residential Code For One, Two and Three Family Dwellings.

Issue: We cannot concur with the findings or assertion the underlayment was inadequate, as the author of your report has referenced and cited an inapplicable code...
Our homes are built in accordance with the Ohio Residential Code, which in section 703 under the heading of “exterior covering” does not in fact call for two layers of paper.

Response: The scope of work for this inspection was to determine the cause and origin of the water entry into the interior portions at the south end of the home, particularly the second floor master bathroom.
The 2002 Ohio Building Code, along with recommendations from stucco industry best practices, was referenced in regards to the proper integration of a weather-resistant system for an exterior stucco wall system. The references cited appeared to be in agreement that two layers of a weather-resistant barrier (particularly Grade D building paper) were needed as an underlayment between the exterior stucco and wood sheathing in order to adequately protect the sheathing and interior portions of the home from water/moisture intrusion. Further, destructive testing of the south wall of the master bathroom revealed one layer of an apparent building paper between the exterior OSB sheathing (which contained moderate to heavy water-staining and probable visible mold growth) and the stucco wall assembly. This building paper was water stained, heavily rippled in appearance, and was brittle and easily crumbled when manipulated by hand. The appearance and condition of the paper appeared inadequate to provide a proper barrier against water/moisture from coming into contact with the exterior sheathing (see Figures 2 and 3).

According to the email from Dominion Homes, the subject residence was built in accordance with the Ohio Residential Code and was permitted in 2000. Therefore, the 1999 Ohio Residential Code for One, Two, and Three Family Dwellings was reviewed for requirements pertaining to exterior coverings. The pertinent code language is reproduced below:  (See the full report here)