If they bought it as an existing home, and didn't pay for an inspection before buying (some people don't believe it or not) then it is their own fault.

@@idaslapter5987 😆😂🤣 You seriously think a person/couple would be dumb enough buy a house without a safety inspector approval by a loan officer. Yes, I do agree with you that It is the architecture's fault for failing to see housing construction projects to meet the standard criteria and land safety development on base of the house is build on.

@@FTNS743 As a real estate agent, I have seen some stupid buyers that don't want the added expense of having an inspection done.

@@FTNS743 That is not how it works. Inspections are optional to the buyer. AND it doesn't mean a inspector would have even caught this as there was no issue until after 7 years of ownership. And structural engineers are not brought in unless an inspector see something to alert them of an issue. This is a builder issue if still under 10 warranty and if that has passed it will be their issue to deal with financially. Structural issues can happen even if a home is built to code. Grounds shift, concrete cracks. Water intrusions can happen and cause issues. So much can happen and this is why it is the home owners responsibility to maintain and keep an eye out for any issues. During this crazy market so may buyers forgo inspections just to get into a home. It is never advisable but, if you want to get a house this can be something you skip to get your offer accepted by the seller. It's a crazy time in real estate.

Who's the city inspector that looked at that beam and said it was adequate? I can tell it's way too small and I'm not a builder or an inspector.

They didn’t purchase the home new, they could still sue the inspector.

It could sit on the beam, but has to be figured in to the loads, and possibly the floor joists would need to be bulked up for it. Clearly the fireplace, and the stone columns, weren't.

why is the repair cost 100K? can't u just install some support beams in the basement (garage) and be done? that seems off considering you could have a foundation shored up with piers for 100K (and I would think that would be a lot more work than fixing this issue).

@@wasatchm It sounds as those they did a "paste job" to keep it from falling down, but it may even be that the house on the lower level has been pushed down into the foundation and "sank", as you noticed this is built out in the desert, so I wonder how solid the land was with that much weight from the stone fireplace and concrete beams on the 2nd floor. It did say this took 7 years to get this way. I wondered if they will need to deal with the base foundation.

@@wasatchm it has to be to code..... there is no way a run like that can be wood... it should have been steel from the start.

Same with a tree overhanging a house - it doesn't matter how dangerous the tree is the insurance company has no interest in paying to prune or remove the tree.

I wonder if there’s a statute of limitations for situations like this and that’s why they didn’t mention a lawsuit? I live in Texas so I have no idea what the laws are like in Arizona.

@@TexasLadyS Arizona AND Texas are both @freedom fry states. I'm doubting either state even HAS Code, an architect, or licensed builders you can find with assets yhou can sue over.

Wait till they get the home insurance premiums. Its up almost everywhere even without making any claims.

They just need to suck it up and fix it. This is a duilders problem.

Builders & architects DON'T approve plans. Planning departments do. I think your renovation thing is probably exactly what happened.

@@charleswalter2902 The builder is absolutely at fault. THIS is why builders and any contractor for that matter is required to carry General Liability Insurance. But the builder has an obligation to provide a warranty for his product. The OP isn't wrong about the architect or even code enforcement for signing off on this without adequate structural support.

kchicker: Unless it was an add on after the fact. Also done without an approved building permit. People do these things. I've been in the structural inspection biz and have been on a few of them. Call in an unlicensed contractor, have it built, (fireplace/columns) and then when problems arise try to fix the blame on someone else because you can't go after the unlicensed contractor that's across the border counting his money! Did you stop and think why they didn't go after the builder after they had an engineer give them the results? That's the first thing that entered my mind. Now they still aren't. Probably lawyers advice.

Likely a blend of incompetence, idiocy, and corruption. Just goes to show how easy it is for this to happen. I wonder if the previous owners knew about this issue and that’s why they sold this house to the current owners.

It a "red" state things. They believed in "Less Government"!!! They like to give free water in the dessert.

Or, like the tower in south Florida, the owners added more weight than originally designed.

The home wasn't built for them. It was already built when they viewed it. Like she said, she fell in love with the views. So, nothing else mattered. When you use a seller's home inspection, it's still Buyer Beware. Buyers should always use their own home inspector. It looks like the couple is on the hook for their repairs.

@@carolinematusevich889 to be fair they probably bought it cheaper years ago. 2016 housing price is atleast half of what it is now.

Yeah the city!

Contractor. I seriously doubt this building was ever seen by an architect or engineer.

@@thatjeff7550 Whoever made the plans or the builder could be sued but it only within so many years of construction.

Sometimes the fireplace has cosmetic changes done to it after the fact. The customer might have wanted heavier stone instead of veneer around it, and instead of being 5' high, now they want the heavy stone to go up to the ceiling. This is pretty common and the structure is not considered.

@@levthelion As a former Union carpenter on custom home builds, we always ran changes past the owners rep and changed the plans with detailed "as built" drawing and materials lists. This allowed the Architect to voice concerns and gave the Engineer the specific materials used in the change.

Injustices? LOL keep thinking everyone else is to blame for you being poor. These couples are morons who aren't suing the builder.

You could tell with her Botox lips

You make a lot of assumptions.

Someone blew it. If the building is built as designed, the builder is off the hook. If the builder cut corners and put in a weaker beam than the architect and engineer specced, it's on the builder. And in all cases, the building inspector should have caught a heavy load on a wooden beam. Yet, probably is immune unless they took a payoff that can be proved.

There should have been a block wall built under the beam during initial construction and that block wall should be steel re-enforced and grouted with concrete or steel posts should be placed there and one post connected to the other so on. However the insurance companies do not want to give out money, they are a sham!

" If the house actually collapse, then the insurance company will pay up" Not at this point. The insurance policy clearly refers to a "sudden and unexpected" event. Now that the issue has been found, a collapse will not be covered. And the prior claims will prove it.

All of these things would have been pointed out by a home inspector, which they obviously didn't use when they placed their bid for the home. Yet, they appear wealthy enough to afford paying for one. They sound like very entitled people. They'll lose any civil case they'll file on this matter, and are likely to be countersued to pay for the legal costs of all other parties. When a home is poorly built, it doesn't take 7 years to finally notice it. In a liberal state, they MIGHT have a case. But not here.

@@bobmazzi7435 They obviously didn't hire an inspector. Any inspector would have noticed at least one of these major construction issues. So, everyone is off the hook, except for the home owners. Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

I'm surprised that the insurance company hasn't cancelled the insurance... the house should be condemned until it's made livable.

Odd how folks think sometimes I suppose.....

It's a used home so the building inspector could have caught this as well.

@@gillsmoke What if he is a retard? Like building inspectors need qualifications anymore.....

They owned the house over 5 years I.E. they alone are responsible......builders most likely did have a beam or two thier...5 years of ownership they had plenty of time to remove some and try an insurance scam....p.s. no collapse no collapse insurance RETARDS ARE PREVENTING THE INSURANCE TO KICK IN

click bait!

Why don’t they get some guys to knock it down and remove it, after reinforcing the floor first.

@@sct4040 That may be part of the repair. Still very expensive.

Who says?

@@WHSmith-zk2ox Whatever the details, masonry should not be supported by wood structure. It's a common code requirement--it could be based on engineering fact---IDK.

@@pcatful So you say........ What is coded as engineering fact today was fiction yesterday...... Those pesky codes.... What the world needs today is more code breakers that know what they are talking about.... Or so it would seem...... I think those kinds of people are called Mavericks, or engineers, or inventors.... Imagine that...

Yup! And the city inspector who approved ot as is

They are 2nd owner - they screwed. Builder probably out of business , if not, go to bankruptcy

@@bennym1956 They would have been better off just to have never tried to fix it and just let the house fall in under its own weight. It would have collapsed quickly if they had left it alone. At least if it fell in they could have collected an insurance settlement

...though, did the owner add more 'stuff' to cause this? We are all assuming improper inspections etc. Homeowners are notorious for adding additions and "improvements" over time.

@@aday1637 good question, something that would come out in a lawsuit. Maybe why they don't sound like they've properly filed one yet. Most would NEVER go this many years without figuring out who's truly at fault and holding them responsible. So your question makes me wonder if they did add some or all of that stuff and are now butt-hurt because their structure can't handle it.

No engineer would approve that. How did it get past inspection or was it an illegal renovation?

@@morninboy True, no self respecting engineer would. I have known people in the biz tho who liked to say "if I can't see it from my backyard"... Back in the day, we would sometimes walk jobs that were SOOOOOO out of spec you'd swear no engineer had ever looked at the plans. Like rebuild the whole multi-story bldg bad. Also there is the possibility it was an after-market job, as others have suggested. Who knows...

Fault isn't forever. Lot of things go into the determination of fault and how long it passes done the chain of title from original owner to the present. Aside from the intervening contractual barriers they may face (acceptance, waiver, due diligence, etc.) there may be statutes of limitation.

It's called sistering.....

@@michaeljarosz4062 Right! that's it!

i bet shes a feminist

No….fake news at work!

reporters never ask the proper questions.. they just want a sexy 30 second soundbite.

"Arizona's Family" are dumbed down asses! Smith-Mundt Modernization Act 🎬 2012 made these Pressitutes of False and/or Partial Truths Propaganda for Profit-Seas! Were "too stupid" to understand what's really going on and who's to Blame Game!

Oh please, grow up. It’s mediocre journalism, not “fake” news. Words matter. Fake news would mean the house doesn’t exist and the entire story is fabricated … which for your simpleton brain means made up.

Really, its a matter of jacking and replacing undersized beam. I've done this type work with great success and it's not all that expensive if they locate the right contractor. Such is life.

Nope. They didn't hire a building inspector. It's all on them.

Plans have to be submitted to the city/county and is supposed to undergo code and engineering inspection before a permit is even issued.

I suspect they used the OSB I beams, which are trash. The beam probably got wet and started collapsing.

that beam was to small for the span existing.. even without the load of the fireplace.. it looked to be at 20~30 feet.. that's way to long for 3 unsupported 2x8s nailed together

To say nothing of the fact that present-day lumber is harvested from very young trees, meaning less strength and rot resistance.

You can always track them down and ask if they want to be reasonable, or eat your gun. governmetn is the problem, not the solution.

Good luck on an update!

They're usually LLC's and just declare bankruptcy, so you'll never get anything out of them. Home inspectors have a bond, in most states an inspection is required by the bank before they approve loan application, that is one avenue open to them. They need to find a way of torching the house now, that's the only way an insurance claim will bail them out now.

There will be, and I can fix those too.... It is in the 50k price I quoted... I know this problem like the back of my hand.......

...if there ARE issues. 1 & many are not =. MONKEY is an appropriate name for you. No disrespect to monkeys.

there are foundation issues

Im guessing it was privately designed. Someone purchased the land and designed their own home. They "knew an architect", maybe "a friend" who drew up the plans to the best of their "experience". If land evaluations/testing weren't done, there is problem #1. If the architect was new to the field that is problem #2. If the original plans were altered placing the garage under the house, that is problem #3. If builders'crew were brought in from the outside of nurseries, that is problem #4. If this was built to flip, the owner may have paid off the inspector, problem #5. Real estate sales inspector should have caught the blatant issue (unsupported fireplace & columns) but..... It sure makes me think the garage wasn't originally under the house. An architect creates many pages in a set of house plans. Each plan is signed off by an engineer...electrical engineer, plumbing engineer, structural engineer, etc etc etc.... Skip the specialist's stamp of approval and the results are this house. Ultimately it is: The architect, the inspector and finally the builder who are at fault.

@@SledDog5678 good luck pinning anything on the inspector. City or independent. Garage beam was covered with drywall like everything else. At least at final inspection. Prior to that if it was built per plan and the city or county inspector wasn’t smart enough to see the structural deficiencies at the strap and shear inspection or even at the frame inspection. All they’ll say is it was built per plan. And if that’s the case it should have been discovered by the plan checkers prior to the permit being issued. The homeowner should sue everyone involved including the builders subcontractors and anyone else they can. I agree the architect has responsibility but the structural engineers that signed off on this are the ones holding the bag. But like I said the homeowner should include everyone in a lawsuit and let the court sort the responsible parties out by their limitations of liability. They have a horrible mess on their hands in every way possible on this one.

And there needs to be a feral zebra on your couch at the time of collapse. This is a horror story.

Sarcass much

Cant sue the city....

Thank you - had to scroll way down to find someone with that suspicion. There is a reason no one is talking about the original builder.

Is this an example of that? 😅😂🤣😅😂😂😂 😉

@@WHSmith-zk2ox No, the exact opposite.

@@WHSmith-zk2ox an example of someone who cheated or dropped out

@@blockygamer6684 Horse crap. Perhaps they weren't paying attention, or did the all American thing and got cheap to pocket some extra loot... Who knows? Me, I didn't have the opportunity to finish high school. Actually never even saw the need to.... However, I developed a significant and engineered construction technology for which I wrote my own application discussion, did my own drawings and submitted to the U.S.P.T.O. for which I was granted a patent for... A technology that is so significant in fact that Arizona would be chomping at the bit to utilize if all those "educated" jack wads running the show had any sense.. And my architectural rendition utilizing this technology is flawless..... What is it you may ask? It is a technology that would allow for the construction and instillation of one linear mile per day of a superior southern border protection barrier that is based on a concrete format that can cost 1/3rd to 1/2 less than what is currently being forced on the taxpayer by the United States Army Corp of Engineers and for which can be in place at the production value of 1 linear mile per day..... People with some sort of degree don't necessarily impress me.... I know better, seen better, hell, I have even done better... So save your snark, wit, and sarcasm for someone else that would either be impressed, or fooled by your line of horse crap.... Oh, and did I cheat? Damn straight I did..... And for a damned good effect and a damned good reason.... So enjoy playing by the rules while life fuks over on you..... Because everyone else is doing it....... Thank you very much.....

Red Iron is the way to go

​@@tommitchell8425 You mean painted, mild steel??

3 story home...good lord. Not needed. 3 flights of steps? I have seen townhome styled builds like that. They're dreadful!!!! I bet accidents from falling down steps goes up 3X in a home like that. :D

Chump change for them.

@@jazziez6467 How do you know that?

Only if they have $100k for fixing the problems, without ruining their retirement plan

Yeah I would get an equity line credit to fix it!

Their favorite place/home in the entire world statement tells us most likely they have multiple houses in many locations around the world or visit regularly scenic places across the globe. To do that you must have a pretty good life. Not a reason why you wouldn't file an insurance claim instead of spending your cash but they have it to spend if need be. Move everything out and then let it colap[see then rebuild it properly with the insurance money.

I'm a contractor and am often shocked when I hear what people charge for work. Case in point... we're doing a garage fix on Friday that will cost me about $1500 for material and labor. The insurance company gave the client $7600. Another contractor bid the job for $12,500! - I told my client, "how about I do it for what your insurance company is giving you, and I'll give you the deductible back"

Where do you get a crane, steel beam, drill, engineer, and team of skilled workers for less than $2000? You fkin LIAR

@@barnandhome Yea, government wanted me to buy a storm shelter for thousands when I pointed out all I need is $500 to replace my furnace that was crushed so I can melt some steal and make one. There was metal laying around everywhere for the taking.

That sounds awful and it’s absolute insanity how insurance companies are allowed to operate.

Sorry for your experience but this is not an insurance problem, it’s a builder and inspector problem.

I agree the key event is when the heavy fire place was added. Was it original or added afterwards? It’s lack of load transfer to footings at foundation is a code violation.

exactly.

😂😂😂 Building inspector, you’re funny

Could have been a soil settling issue that exacerbated a design and materials issue that was on the edge of being trouble. I recall my parents builder in the 70’s who would create lots and leave them for a full year to settle before building. Not an option these days.

No, you don't stack stone on wood framing. Everyone knows that, or should.

@@Jack_Russell_Brown That light beam in the garage looks like it was undersized to carry any load across that span.

Make sure the house collapses on that cactus, then fire & brimbstone will hail down on everyone involved. It's protected you know. LOL

Someone wrote it was eight years in Arizona. It's ten years in California.

Don't matter! You can't hide issues like this and expect a ''statute of limitations'' to cover you. Sue the builder and designer, Now!

@@michaelreyes8182 Agreed that's an option. A statute of limitations is law however, so the suit in a court of law would be more difficult. I don't think we know from the report how old the house is. They had it 7 years. They may have bought it from a previous owner.

Everyone is so positive it's the builders fault. The beam also looked like it might have water damage.

@helidude Everyone jumps to conclusions, they have no idea what happened! People add stuff all the time without permits.

With most of these BS stories where some losers run to the media with their sob story to get sympathy from idiots in order to cajole a settlement from an insurance company on something not covered.... something is almost certainly not being said.

Good point… I had not considered this past winter’s amount of rain. Indeed a possible culprit

NOT STABALIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is called a bandaide

Something tells me you don't know what you are talking about. The weight of beams is minuscule compared to the total loading of a structure.

@@markthebuilder9837 Read the part about "the Foundation not being adequate to support the weight of the budling" again for the first time.