- 27 -
epoxy into the cracks. Respondent attempts to minimize the fact
that Lewis said that the foundation was not sound, that the house
appeared to be rolling off its foundation, and that a foundation
should be replaced if it has more than 20 cracks. The foundation
in petitioner's home had 25 cracks after the earthquake.
Petitioner points out that Lewis worked for CMA, which had been
retained by the Homeowners' Association. These facts lead us to
give Lewis’ opinion less weight.
Lewis and Graham said that the first floor of petitioner's
home was not level when it was built. We disagree. Hise
testified that the floors were level when he inspected the house.
Barrett had to rehang several of the doors, which shows that the
Graham & Kellam report erred in stating that all of the doors fit
and were plumb. Halpin concluded that the earthquake caused
petitioner's floors to be out of level. We agree.
Halpin believed that an epoxy injection would be
insufficient and that the foundation needed to be replaced.
Graham is a structural engineer and is better qualified to
evaluate the foundation than Halpin. While Halpin’s overall
testimony was credible, he is not an engineer and is less
knowledgeable about foundations than Graham.
Respondent questions whether Hise did a thorough
investigation for his $200 fee. Respondent says that Hise failed
to adequately inspect the foundation and report on its condition.
Respondent’s criticism of Hise is at best speculative.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011