DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Kasdan Simonds Weber & Vaughan LLP | Construction defect lawsuit in Hesperia against HELLER DEVELOPMENT
Subscribe to our news feed
Construction defect lawsuit filed on behalf of 17 homeowners in City of Hesperia against homebuilder HELLER DEVELOPMENT CO.

HESPERIA, CA A construction defect lawsuit has been filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court against homebuilder Heller Development Co. on behalf of 17 homeowners in the City of Hesperia neighborhood of The Magnificent 37. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the homeowners by the law firm of Kasdan, Simonds, Weber & Vaughan LLP.

According to the lawsuit, construction defect problems include:

Windows and patio doors, and their respective systems, allow water to pass beyond, around and through the moisture barriers;

The roof, roofing system, chimney caps and ventilation components allow water to enter the structure and to pass beyond the designed and/or actual moisture barriers;

The foundation system and slab allow water and/or vapor to enter into the structure, causing staining and cracking to the flooring and garage slab, and so as to limit the type of flooring materials typically used;

The hard cape, irrigation system, landscaping system and drainage system are installed so as to cause water and soil erosion, resulting in damage to the residence;

Stucco, brick veneer, exterior walls, including, without limitation, exterior framing, and other exterior finishes and fixtures and the systems of those components and fixtures, including, but not limited to, pot shelves, horizontal surfaces, columns, are installed so as to allow water to pass into the structures and through designed and/or actual moisture barriers;

Site walls, and their associated drainage systems allow water to pass beyond, around and through their designed and/or actual moisture barriers causing damage;

Shower and bath enclosures leak water into interior of walls, flooring systems or the interior of other components.

Other alleged defects include:

Foundations, load bearing components and slabs contain significant cracks and/or significant vertical displacement;

Foundations, load bearing components and slabs and underlying soils are constructed so as to allow chemical deterioration and/or corrosion;

Structure does not materially comply with the design criteria for earthquake and wind load resistance as set forth in the applicable government building codes, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time of original construction;

The structure is not constructed so as to materially comply with the design criteria of the applicable government building codes, regulations, and ordinances for fire protection of the occupants;

The electrical and mechanical systems of the home are installed and/or constructed so as to cause an unreasonable risk of fire.

Excessive cracking of exterior pathways, driveways, hard cape, sidewalks, side walls, patios, stucco, and exterior wall finishes and fixtures, including but not limited to, pot shelves;

Stucco, brick veneer and other exterior wall finishes and fixtures, including, but not limited to, pot shelves, horizontal surfaces, columns contain cracks and separations;

Irrigation systems and drainage do not operate properly causing damage to landscaping and other external improvements;

Untreated wood posts are installed in contact with soil causing decay to wood;

Roofing material is not installed so as to avoid materials falling from roof;

Ceramic tile and tile backing is not installed in a manner that does not allow the tiles to detach.

As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants violations of the standards for residential construction, and the defects and deficiencies described, Plaintiffs have been damaged in that they have been and will be required to incur expenses to correct, replace and reconstruct these defective components within the project, as well as to correct, replace and reconstruct the damage to property resulting there from, and they will be required to incur expenses for related costs such as for relocation, loss of use, substitute housing, and other expenses, at a cost which is presently unknown, but believed to be a sum in excess of $5 million, the lawsuit states.

The Kasdan Simonds law firm has offices in Irvine and Walnut Creek, CA, and in Phoenix, AZ. The firm represents plaintiffs in major construction defect litigation, toxic mold litigation, medical product liability and commercial disputes. For more detailed information on the firm, visit www.kasdansimonds.com.