Tryon Daily Bulletin, Thurs., Apr.
Dream House Near
Columbus Became
Nightmare For
Spartanburg Couple
Jack and Janice Farrell
thought they were building their
dream home when they started
construction on their new house
in Polk County in the summer
of 1991.
By fall of that year they
began to suspect that the dream
was not all it had seemed, and
by winter they could see that it
was turning into a full-fledged
nightmare.
The young Spartanburg
couple had searched for the
ideal piece of land for several
years and finally settled on five
wooded acres just outside of
Columbus.
"We had dreamed about own
ing a piece of land just like this
one, even prayed about it,"
Janice Farrell says. They had
plans drawn up by residential
designer Barbara Ricci who had
several local contractors bid on
them.
The Farrells eventually chose
Bittle Construction Co. because
John Bittle had responded
quickly and efficiently with a
reasonable estimate. The Far
rells were careful to check with
previous customers to see if
they were satisfied with their
finished homes. They got
glowing reports from several.
Construction began in August
and the Farrells spent weekends
watching their dream take
shape. But soon they began to
notice things that bothered
them.
They say that expensive Pella
windows were left out in the
weather with minimal covering
and that the contractor
attempted to replace the furnace
they'd requested with an out
dated, less-efficient model.
Then Barbara Ricci began to
show them basic construction
techniques that she felt were not
correct and were, in her opin
ion, violations of the N.C.
Building Code.
"As I went to the job site and
saw these problems, I was sur
prised and shocked that the
work was not up to par because
I was used to seeing good work
from the builders here in Polk
County," Ms. Ricci asserts. "I
told Mr. Bittle's foreman and
then Mr. Bittle himself, but
nothing was corrected."
She says she wanted to give
Bittle the opportunity to remedy
things before she spoke to the
owners, but he wouldn t coop
erate. "I finally realized I d
have to call the Farrells and teU
them," Ricci says.
Ricci said she met with the
couple and Mr. Bittle several
times after that to discuss
needed corrections, but she says
the contractor did not follow
through.
With the next county inspec
tion drawing near, Ricci and the
Farrells each spoke with the
Polk County Building Inspec
tor's Office to ask that special
attention be paid to several
problems they felt were code
violations. They say Randolph
McDaniel, who was Chief
Inspector at the time, expressed
appreciation to them for raising
the red flag on those items. He
said those things would be
double checked on inspection.
To their surprise, the Farrells
received a call from Bittle after
county inspector Fred Seelow
had been there the next day. He
informed them that the house
not only met code, it exceeded
it. When a call to Mr. Seelow
verified that the house had
indeed passed with flying col
ors, they were shocked and
puzzled. How could a trained
mspector have overlooked such
obvious flaws? they wondered.
At this point the Farrells
viewed a North Carolina Public
Television documentary entitled
"Crumbling Dreams". As they
watched, they began to suspect
that their predicament was not
unique to them or to Polk
County. The film documented
stories similar to their own that
were being played out all over
North Carolina. The list of
disgruntled homeowners was
long and discouraging, but the
video also put the Farrells in
contact with North Carolina
Homeowner's Association
President Jim Parker. He had
some shocking news for them.
"We learned that North Caro
lina is very lax with their resi
dential contractors," Janice
Farrell says. "They are not
required to be licensed at all
unless the homes they are
building are valued at over
$45,000. Even when they are
licensed, they don't have to be
bonded, and they're only
required to take a short open-
book test to get that license."
A check with Mark Selph
Secretary-Treasurer of the
North Carolina Licensing Board
for General Contractor's, proved
this correct with the exception
Of the opo"-^ 1 ^ Si-
« E^oS
Sih Stales " oi
100 contractors 1 0 ? 1 .
licenses in Florida, 57 in Virgi-
S and 37 in South Carolina in
19 Mark Selph admits that only 5
out of 16,000 contractors in
North Carolina lost their license
in 1990, but says that you can t
make comparisons between
states because statutes differ so
widely. He adds that the Board
has only two field investigators
to handle complaints against its
16,000 licensed contractors.
Jim Parker asserts that this
compares unfavorably with
other states.
In spite of this news, Jack and
Janice Farrell were not daunted.
With the guidance of the North
Carolina Homeowner's Asso
ciation, they say they took steps
to resolve their situation. The
couple immediately began to
document in photos and on
video tape everything they felt
might be a building code viola
tion in their house.
The next step they took was to
halt construction and hire
Southeastern Architects, an
independent engineering firm,
to inspect the house. Southeas
tern's report detailed 22 prob
lems in such areas as chimney,
roof, deck and foundation con
struction and truss installation.
In addition, the couple asked
George Birmingham, a private
building consultant with almost
50 years experience as a
builder, to evaluate their situa
tion. Birmingham spent hours
inspecting the house and his
verdict was not good. He
enumerated close to 50 prob
lems in his final report includ
ing missing or faulty foundation
P ie r s and f° 0,in g s . improperly
installed shingles, improper
ma™ )nst ^ la, >°n, sloppy
finers nry and m,sma,ched flue
He concluded his eight nape
report with the common Pa8 T
am amazed they V - 1
Mt this far^X ^
™» ^i th ^ XS^I
^S;^ house
workmanship." mple °f Poor
Subsequent inspections by
Westinghouse Environmental
Geotechnical Services con-
firmed much of George Bir
mingham's findings and founo
particular fault with the foun
dation. The Westinghouse
summary reads in part: "It is our
opinion that these discrepancies
represent poor construction
practices and adversely affect
the soundness of the foundation
system." The report concludes:
"Because of the overall poor
foundation construction prac
tice, it will be very difficult to
correct all foundation con
cerns."
Armed with this evidence, the
couple filed a formal complaint
against Mr. Bittle with the
North Carolina Licensing Board
for General Contractors. In a
return letter from the Board,
they learned that allegations of
fraud are difficult to prove
unless an action has been
brought in court.
So the Farrells then filed a
suit in civil court in Polk
County, charging John Bittle
with breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary relationship,
and unfair and deceptive trade
practices.
Durham attorney Robert
Chambers says, "Mr. Bittle has
not lived up to his responsibility
to properly supervise the work
of his subcontractors on the
Farrell's house. He not only
failed to meet the plans and
specifications of this custom-
designed home, but according
to the reports of engineers, he
failed to even meet minimum
N.C. building codes." He adds
that a builder may have a good
reputation, but his work is no
better than that of the subcon-
tra ctors he hir es for each job.
-’he ^ree engineering
2f e , s I" h ^ d ’ the cou Ple met
with John Bittle, his engineer
h? d / n i a,t xJ ney at 016 hou “ site
in early March. The Farrells
f a a z hat the builder refused to
S e r . es P. 0nsi bdity for problems
if !h«e was only one
ner of the house out of
alignment. 01
view 3 K^ 110 ^ inter-
Fanells m e Said ’ " The
refused to me 3 le,ter and
correct things 11 ^ b° back 31111
leered to J r e VOlun ~
^.my ^Xh^ ny,hin8
filed a^S in ck f arrel1 also
lormal complaint against
(Continued
on Next Page)