Hallmark Homes Group

October 29, Dear [redacted] ***: In response to the complaint submitted against our company, we disagree with the statement by the homeowner that we premeditated any wrong doing or provided him with fraudulent documentsHallmark purchases improved lots from a third party Land DeveloperPrior to our purchase of lot and prior to [redacted] ***’s purchase of the home from Hallmark, the Land Developer submitted a remedial grading plan to [redacted] TownshipThis plan was approved by the Township which is a fairly common practice during site constructionHallmark had no involvement or influence with the design of the grading plansGiven that grading plans often change during construction of developments like these, we make clear in our Agreement of Sale, Section 5(d), that the grading and contour of the lot are to be determined in Seller’s sole discretionIn addition, Section 5(f) also explains that all plans made part of the Agreement are approximate and subject to field variation(We have enclosed copies of the above referenced sections of the Agreement of Sale, initialed by the homeowners, for your review.)Before contracting for the home and prior to settlement of the home, there were four lot walks conducted by Hallmark alongside the homeownersAdditionally, the homeowner’s most likely performed independent lot walks during this time, similar to what most other interested buyers doAt no point prior to settlement being made was there any mention of the grading in the rear yard of the property being an issueIt was only when we staked out the property after settlement that this matter was brought to our attentionWe have had several conversations via email, telephone and in person with the homeowner regarding this matter; however, ultimately the lot condition existed prior to his purchase and our contract covers issues such as thisWhile the homeowner mentioned in his complaint that he would like to have his lot premium refunded there is no justification for this, legal or otherwiseBoth the original and revised grading plan illustrate a rise in elevation in the rear right hand corner of his rear yard (when facing the home from the front)Additionally, [redacted] purchased a premium lot in a cul-de-sac, one of the largest in the community.As noted above, the actual, visible grade condition existed prior to his purchase of the lot, is in accordance with the Township approved remedial grading plan and has not been changed by HallmarkFurthermore, in an effort to mend customer relations, Hallmark has offered to landscape the portion of the hill that is of concern to [redacted] to lessen his upkeepThis offer was flatly rejected [redacted] will accept nothing less than a significant monetary reimbursement, which is not warrantedSince this issue is covered in our contract and an attempt was made to satisfy the homeowner’s complaint, Hallmark is considering this matter closedRespectfully, Richard C Vice President

August 7, Dear *** ***:
In response to the complaint submitted against our company, we disagree with the statement by the homeowner that we premeditated any wrong doing or provided him with a fraudulent contractHallmark purchases improved lots from a third party Land
DeveloperPrior to our purchase of lot *** and prior to *** ***’s purchase of the home from Hallmark, the Land Developer submitted a remedial grading plan to *** *** TownshipThis plan was approved by the Township which is a fairly common practice during site constructionHallmark had no involvement or influence with the design of the grading plansGiven that grading plans often change during construction of developments like these, we make clear in our Agreement of Sale, Section 5(d), that the grading and contour of the lot are to be determined in Seller’s sole discretionIn addition, Section 5(f) also explains that all plans made part of the Agreement are approximate and subject to field variation(We have enclosed copies of the above referenced sections of the Agreement of Sale, initialed by the homeowners, for your review.)Before contracting for the home and prior to settlement of the home, there were four lot walks conducted by Hallmark alongside the homeownersAdditionally, the homeowners most likely performed independent lot walks during this time, similar to what most other interested buyers doAt no point prior to settlement being made was there any mention of the grading in the rear yard of the property being an issueIt was only when we staked out the property after settlement that this matter was brought to our attentionWe have had several conversations via email, telephone and in person with the homeowner regarding this matter; however, ultimately the lot condition existed prior to his purchase and our contract covers issues such as thisWhile the homeowner mentioned in his complaint that he would prefer not to have a “hill,” both the original and revised grading plan do illustrate a rise in elevation in the rear right hand corner of his rear yard (when facing the home from the front), and at this time there will be no grading work done to *** ***’s lotAs noted above, the grade condition existed prior to his purchase of the lot, is in accordance with the remedial grading plan and has not been changed by HallmarkFurthermore, Hallmark has offered to landscape the portion of the hill that is of concern to *** ***This offer was flatly denied and *** *** will accept nothing less than the removal of the hill or monetary reimbursement, both of which are not a possibilitySince this issue is covered in our contract and an attempt was made to satisfy the homeowner’s complaint, Hallmark is considering this matter closedRespectfully,
Richard CVice President Hallmark Homes Group, Inc

September 21, 2016Dear *** *** ***,We are responding to Complaint ID #*** submitted by *** *** regarding Hallmark Homes GroupHallmark takes all concerns of its homeowners very seriouslyAs a result, we have reviewed our sale, construction and warranty files in connection
with the complaints in order to provide a thorough responseHallmark's file review leads us to the conclusion that Hallmark disputes the claims submitted by *** ***The reasoning for our position is set forth below, as well as supporting documentation attached hereto.*** *** first complains of “damaged garage doors.” The home in question has a three (3) car side entry garage*** *** first reported that two (2) garage panels were damaged on July 5th, four (4) days after Settlement, and after he and his family moved into the homeThe damage reported was strictly cosmetic, i.edents in the panels of the doorsThe garage doors contain no defects and are functioning properlyThe damage reported on July 5th was not reported or listed on the Pre-Settlement Inspection and WalkThrough that occurred with Hallmark and *** *** on June 23th and June 30th (See attached Pre-Settlement Orientation Form signed by Hallmark and *** ***)Per Hallmark's warranty guidelines provided to the homeowner, because this issue was not reported prior to Settlement and prior to moving into the home, the claim for the damaged garage doors was deniedWhen Hallmark advised *** *** of the denial, he was frustrated by the denial and repeatedly contacted Hallmark’s Customer Service and Community Builder stating his disagreementHallmark continued to respond to each email and telephone call*** *** was likewise advised during a conference call on July 29, that Halmark's Community Builder who was present at the Pre-Settlement Walk-Through confirmed that the two (2) garage doors in question were in fact down during the pre-settlement walk, were observed by all parties and no damage was evidentIf the garage doors had in fact been damaged at the time of the Pre-Settlement Walk Through, it would have been readily noticed by those parties involved in the walk through and the damage would have been marked on the Pre-Settlement Orientation FormIt was further explained to *** *** during this call that Hallmark does not benefit from denying a homeowner a reported issue, quite the contraryHallmark wants its homeowners to be happy with their purchaseHallmark's decision to deny the damage to the garage doors was strictly based on the written warranty guidelines set forth in the Builder's Limited Warranty Booklet and the Agreement of Sale, both of which are in *** ***'s possession.We also feel it is also important to note that the homeowners were allowed to have third party appliances, purchased outside of the Hallmark Agreement of Sale, delivered and installed prior to SettlementThis accommodation was provided to *** *** at his request due to a delay by his mortgage company which pushed the original Settlement date from June 30, until July 1, In connection with his request, Hallmark and **and *** *** signed a Hold Harmless Agreement allowing the homeowners access to the home prior to SettlementThe nature of the Hold Harmless Agreement relieved Hallmark of liability for any damages (i.edamages to paint and drywall, walls, doors, garage doors, etc.) to the home after the Pre-Settlement Walk-Through as it is not uncommon for homeowners, movers, etcto cause minor damage while moving into a homeGiven that Settlement had not occurred yet, this is standard protection for Hallmark when Hallmark permits a homeowner to move furniture or appliances into a home prior to their purchase.*** ***'s next complaint concerns the driveway “top coat,” Per Hallmark's Agreement of Sale and the Homeowner's Guide To Purchase (Page 45) given to the homeowners prior to Settlement, Hallmark is contractually required to apply the driveway top coat within six (6) months of Settlement, (i.eon or before January 1, 2017)The application of the timing of the top coat depends upon various factors such as: 1) proper curing of the initial base coat; 2) settlement around the foundation and 3) local weather patternsSince the initial date of this complaint by *** ***, the driveway top coat has been scheduled for the week of October 3, (weather permitting)Hallmark remains well within the six (6) month timeframe for completing the driveway top coat and the timing of the installation of the top coat is strictly related to providing the best industry standards and conditions for the application of the top coat.*** ***s third complaint concerns the tile installed in the wacloset for Bedroom #This area received tile solely because it takes access from the bathroom and not from inside Bedroom #This is the standard plan design for house plan selected by the homeowners, plans which were included as part of the Agreement of Sale and plans which were communicated to the homeowners by the sales department during the construction process prior to SettlementHallmark did not approve the homeowners' request to remove the tile after it was installed because it is the standard material in possible wet conditions and because it was part of the plans and selections for the homeAlthough available during the construction process, the homeowners did not request any custom changes to this area during their selection processAccordingly, no changes will be made to this floor.*** ***'s fourth complaint alleges that Hallmark “ignored" his preference to hold off on some of the repairsThis allegation is wholly without meritAfter *** ***'s meeting with a Hallmark representative, service requests were issued to three (3) different subcontractorsEach subcontractor was requested to contact the homeowners directly via telephone in order to schedule an appointment when the homeowners were availableIf in fact a subcontractor did not contact the homeowner prior to arriving at the home, it was not known to Hallmark and the homeowner could have requested the subcontractor return on a different date for the reasons he providedTo confirm, this issue was never reported to Hallmark prior to receiving this Revdex.com complaint noticeAdditionally, in reference to Hallmark's customer service timeframes, attached is email correspondence between Hallmark and the homeownersYou will note that we have responded to numerous emails within reasonable timeframesIt is also equally important to note that our Customer Service Department was closed (except for emergencies) July 4" through 8thAs a result, the homeowner was contacted on July 11, and a meeting was set up with a Hallmark Representative for July 13, Although the homeowner was not pleased with the timing of two of the Subcontractors, a few of the issues the homeowner reported were addressed within two (2) business days after the July 13, meetingAdditionally, a follow up email was sent on July 15" confirming the repairs that were agreed upon and providing possible dates for work to be completedWhile the homeowner responded via email, the responses were related only to the garage doors, and no confirmation on availability for repairs was provided at that timeAs a result, on July 22, Hallmark sent another email restating its denial for damage to the garage doors and again requested his availability for the approved repairs Hallmark previously attempted to scheduleOnce again, the homeowner responded only with respect to the garage doorsA follow up email was sent to the homeowner on July 26, and a conference call with the Hallmark Community Builder and homeowner occurred on July 29, During this conversation, while Hallmark attempted to review the circumstances surrounding the Pre-Settlement Walk Through, warranty guidelines, Hold Harmless Agreement, and Settlement, *** *** needlessly used derogatory language and insulted the company owners and StaffThe call was therefore ended without resolutionDespite Hallmark's attempts to do so, no additional repair dates have been scheduled as of the date of this letter.Hallmark believes that it has communicated with the homeowner on a professional and timely basis and that Hallmark has approved repairs where warrantedOnce *** *** responds to our previous requests to Schedule the remaining repair work, Hallmark will execute the approved repairs that were agreed upon during the July 13, meetingHallmark will not remove the tile from the closet designated for Bedroom #as it is not a construction defect and also will not replace/repair the two (2) dented garage door panels because they were not identified or reported to Hallmark prior to Settlement in accordance with the warranty guidelines.Should you have any questions or require additional information, please let us know.Respectfully,Customer Service

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
While MrC*** makes some accurate and true statements, the key points are notFirst, we never stated that we were provided a fraudulent contract (though I would say that the clauses brought up by MrC*** are questionable in their intent)We were convinced to sign a contract by fraudulent means (fraud inducement)Those are completely different thingsTo be shown information on what our property was going to look like when that wasn't really the case is illegalAt that point what the contract states makes no differenceYou legally can't assist someone in making a purchase or signing a contract with information, hence the inducementFurther, regardless of whether the hill was there at the time of construction or not doesn't mean it should have been expectedThere should be no reason why we would have expected grading to be complete for an area with no houses built yetFinally, and this is being brief, the "hill" on the original grading plan compared to the revised grading plan are substantially different and not how MrC*** makes it seemI would like to avoid, in every possible way, taking this disagreement to courtI would hope that Hallmark feels the same as they have to realize that they have committed an illegal act, but even more importantly to me, are being extremely unethical
Regards,
*** ***

October 29, 2014
Dear [redacted]:
In response to the complaint submitted against our company, we disagree with the statement by the homeowner that we premeditated any wrong doing or provided him with fraudulent documents. Hallmark purchases improved lots from a third party Land...

Developer. Prior to our purchase of lot 277 and prior to [redacted]’s purchase of the home from Hallmark, the Land Developer submitted a remedial grading plan to [redacted] Township. This plan was approved by the Township which is a fairly common practice during site construction. Hallmark had no involvement or influence with the design of the grading plans. Given that grading plans often change during construction of developments like these, we make clear in our Agreement of Sale, Section 5(d), that the grading and contour of the lot are to be determined in Seller’s sole discretion. In addition, Section 5(f) also explains that all plans made part of the Agreement are approximate and subject to field variation. (We have enclosed copies of the above referenced sections of the Agreement of Sale, initialed by the homeowners, for your review.)Before contracting for the home and prior to settlement of the home, there were four lot walks conducted by Hallmark alongside the homeowners. Additionally, the homeowner’s most likely performed independent lot walks during this time, similar to what most other interested buyers do. At no point prior to settlement being made was there any mention of the grading in the rear yard of the property being an issue. It was only when we staked out the property after settlement that this matter was brought to our attention.
We have had several conversations via email, telephone and in person with the homeowner regarding this matter; however, ultimately the lot condition existed prior to his purchase and our contract covers issues such as this. While the homeowner mentioned in his complaint that he would like to have his lot premium refunded there is no justification for this, legal or otherwise. Both the original and revised grading plan illustrate a rise in elevation in the rear right hand corner of his rear yard (when facing the home from the front). Additionally, [redacted] purchased a premium lot in a cul-de-sac, one of the largest in the community.As noted above, the actual, visible grade condition existed prior to his purchase of the lot, is in accordance with the Township approved remedial grading plan and has not been changed by Hallmark. Furthermore, in an effort to mend customer relations, Hallmark has offered to landscape the portion of the hill that is of concern to [redacted] to lessen his upkeep. This offer was flatly rejected. [redacted] will accept nothing less than a significant monetary reimbursement, which is not warranted. Since this issue is covered in our contract and an attempt was made to satisfy the homeowner’s complaint, Hallmark is considering this matter closed.
Respectfully,
Richard C
Vice President

August 25, 2014Dear [redacted]:
Thank you for forwarding [redacted]’s response to our position regarding his complaints.
While Hallmark regrets that [redacted] disagrees with our position, we maintain that he was in fact treated fairly, ethically, and legally. Hallmark adamantly denies the allegations set forth in [redacted]'s response; particularly any suggestion that Hallmark committed fraud or fraud in the inducement relating to the purchase of his home. We find such accusations to be without fact or merit. We have been honest, forthright and upfront with [redacted] regarding this entire matter, which is clearly covered in the Agreement of Sale between Hallmark and [redacted]. We have met [redacted] at his home and exchanged several communications, both written and verbal, regarding his concerns. We have offered to provide him with services, at our cost, outside of his warranty, as a show of good faith and attempt to remedy our customer relationship. Unfortunately, [redacted] has flatly denied our offer. As stated previously, all of [redacted]’s complaints are covered under the written terms of his Agreement of Sale and his demanded compensation is not required by the Agreement of Sale nor warranted under any circumstance.
We wish [redacted] the best and we regret that we were not able to meet his expectations with regards to his complaints. Nevertheless, we will continue to address any additional warranty concerns he has with his new home fairly and promptly and in accordance with the terms of our Agreement of Sale.
Respectfully,
Richard C.Vice President Hallmark Homes Group, Inc.

Review: While searching for a new home to purchase my wife and I considered new construction. We went to the Hallmark Homes office in the [redacted] development in [redacted], PA to look over lots, floorplans, and pricing. The sales agent sat down with us to discuss what we were looking for. We told him we really wanted a fairly level lot and we showed him a lot we were seriously looking at on the plot plans he provided. He recommended against this lot because it was going to have a large retaining wall in the backyard. Instead he pointed us to another lot that had a deposit for a long time. He reviewed the plot plan with elevations listed and showed us the 2ft increments and confirmed that the lot was going to be somewhat flat with a slight slope of a few feet over 30' of yard. After looking at this plot plan and the elevation with his help we decided to sign the contract and build. When we finally moved in about 6 months later there were no property stakes so we were not sure where our property ended but saw a huge hill in the back yard. We assumed our property ended at the base of the hill since the plans we were shown had no hill on our property. Three months later the builder staked our property out and we realized we had a problem. This huge 15 feet high hill was ours. When we complained we were told that our contract stated that they can make changes to our grading if need be. We found out from our neighbor who built before us that the grading plan was done before we signed the contract. We argued that this was obviously premeditated. Then they argued that the contract states we can't use the plot plan as a guide of what to expect the land to look like. They then offered us a ground covering on the hill so we didn't have to mow it. They showed us the wrong plans and helped inform our decision to buy the lot based on old and false information. Now they are hiding behind a contract with clauses that don't even allow a buyer to know what they are getting.Desired Settlement: We would like for the grading to be changed to reflect what we originally expected and were shown to help convince us that this was the property for us. This would give us the useable yard we wanted for our family. At the very least we would like our $10,000 lot premium back.

Business

Response:

August 7, 2014Dear [redacted]:In response to the complaint submitted against our company, we disagree with the statement by the homeowner that we premeditated any wrong doing or provided him with a fraudulent contract. Hallmark purchases improved lots from a third party Land Developer. Prior to our purchase of lot [redacted] and prior to [redacted]’s purchase of the home from Hallmark, the Land Developer submitted a remedial grading plan to [redacted] Township. This plan was approved by the Township which is a fairly common practice during site construction. Hallmark had no involvement or influence with the design of the grading plans. Given that grading plans often change during construction of developments like these, we make clear in our Agreement of Sale, Section 5(d), that the grading and contour of the lot are to be determined in Seller’s sole discretion. In addition, Section 5(f) also explains that all plans made part of the Agreement are approximate and subject to field variation. (We have enclosed copies of the above referenced sections of the Agreement of Sale, initialed by the homeowners, for your review.)Before contracting for the home and prior to settlement of the home, there were four lot walks conducted by Hallmark alongside the homeowners. Additionally, the homeowners most likely performed independent lot walks during this time, similar to what most other interested buyers do. At no point prior to settlement being made was there any mention of the grading in the rear yard of the property being an issue. It was only when we staked out the property after settlement that this matter was brought to our attention.We have had several conversations via email, telephone and in person with the homeowner regarding this matter; however, ultimately the lot condition existed prior to his purchase and our contract covers issues such as this. While the homeowner mentioned in his complaint that he would prefer not to have a “hill,” both the original and revised grading plan do illustrate a rise in elevation in the rear right hand corner of his rear yard (when facing the home from the front), and at this time there will be no grading work done to [redacted]’s lot.As noted above, the grade condition existed prior to his purchase of the lot, is in accordance with the remedial grading plan and has not been changed by Hallmark. Furthermore, Hallmark has offered to landscape the portion of the hill that is of concern to [redacted]. This offer was flatly denied and [redacted] will accept nothing less than the removal of the hill or monetary reimbursement, both of which are not a possibility. Since this issue is covered in our contract and an attempt was made to satisfy the homeowner’s complaint, Hallmark is considering this matter closed.Respectfully,Richard C.Vice President Hallmark Homes Group, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

While Mr. C[redacted] makes some accurate and true statements, the key points are not. First, we never stated that we were provided a fraudulent contract (though I would say that the clauses brought up by Mr. C[redacted] are questionable in their intent). We were convinced to sign a contract by fraudulent means (fraud inducement). Those are completely different things. To be shown information on what our property was going to look like when that wasn't really the case is illegal. At that point what the contract states makes no difference. You legally can't assist someone in making a purchase or signing a contract with false information, hence the inducement. Further, regardless of whether the hill was there at the time of construction or not doesn't mean it should have been expected. There should be no reason why we would have expected grading to be complete for an area with no houses built yet. Finally, and this is being brief, the "hill" on the original grading plan compared to the revised grading plan are substantially different and not how Mr. C[redacted] makes it seem. I would like to avoid, in every possible way, taking this disagreement to court. I would hope that Hallmark feels the same as they have to realize that they have committed an illegal act, but even more importantly to me, are being extremely unethical.

Regards,

Business

Response:

August 25, 2014Dear [redacted]:Thank you for forwarding [redacted]’s response to our position regarding his complaints.While Hallmark regrets that [redacted] disagrees with our position, we maintain that he was in fact treated fairly, ethically, and legally. Hallmark adamantly denies the allegations set forth in [redacted]'s response; particularly any suggestion that Hallmark committed fraud or fraud in the inducement relating to the purchase of his home. We find such accusations to be without fact or merit. We have been honest, forthright and upfront with [redacted] regarding this entire matter, which is clearly covered in the Agreement of Sale between Hallmark and [redacted]. We have met [redacted] at his home and exchanged several communications, both written and verbal, regarding his concerns. We have offered to provide him with services, at our cost, outside of his warranty, as a show of good faith and attempt to remedy our customer relationship. Unfortunately, [redacted] has flatly denied our offer. As stated previously, all of [redacted]’s complaints are covered under the written terms of his Agreement of Sale and his demanded compensation is not required by the Agreement of Sale nor warranted under any circumstance.We wish [redacted] the best and we regret that we were not able to meet his expectations with regards to his complaints. Nevertheless, we will continue to address any additional warranty concerns he has with his new home fairly and promptly and in accordance with the terms of our Agreement of Sale.Respectfully,Richard C.Vice President Hallmark Homes Group, Inc.

Review: We approved a plot plan for our new construction home with Hallmark Homes Group in 2013 during the contract signing process, however the plan was revised prior to construction without our knowledge or approval. The changes to the plot plan significantly reduced the useable property in the back portion of the property by enlarging and shifting a berm which originally only occupied a portion of the property. Besides the lose of space, we are now responsible for maintaining this area which is essentially a very steep hill.By knowingly using an outdated and inaccurate plan (making the lot seem more appealing than it truly is), Hallmark engaged in immoral and unethical sales practices. We purchased in this particular development based on the property we chose and paid a $10,000 lot premium.Desired Settlement: We have made numerous attempts to resolve these issue with Hallmark Homes Group, however they have been non-responsive to our requests with the exception of one option. The option offered would remedy the maintenance concerns of the hill in the form of a ground cover, however this does not resolve the issue of the unusable property which we paid a premium for and it also does not address the overall look and feel of the property. We are requesting that the lot premium of $10,000 be refunded.

Business

Response:

October 29, 2014Dear [redacted]:In response to the complaint submitted against our company, we disagree with the statement by the homeowner that we premeditated any wrong doing or provided him with fraudulent documents. Hallmark purchases improved lots from a third party Land Developer. Prior to our purchase of lot 277 and prior to [redacted]’s purchase of the home from Hallmark, the Land Developer submitted a remedial grading plan to [redacted] Township. This plan was approved by the Township which is a fairly common practice during site construction. Hallmark had no involvement or influence with the design of the grading plans. Given that grading plans often change during construction of developments like these, we make clear in our Agreement of Sale, Section 5(d), that the grading and contour of the lot are to be determined in Seller’s sole discretion. In addition, Section 5(f) also explains that all plans made part of the Agreement are approximate and subject to field variation. (We have enclosed copies of the above referenced sections of the Agreement of Sale, initialed by the homeowners, for your review.)Before contracting for the home and prior to settlement of the home, there were four lot walks conducted by Hallmark alongside the homeowners. Additionally, the homeowner’s most likely performed independent lot walks during this time, similar to what most other interested buyers do. At no point prior to settlement being made was there any mention of the grading in the rear yard of the property being an issue. It was only when we staked out the property after settlement that this matter was brought to our attention.We have had several conversations via email, telephone and in person with the homeowner regarding this matter; however, ultimately the lot condition existed prior to his purchase and our contract covers issues such as this. While the homeowner mentioned in his complaint that he would like to have his lot premium refunded there is no justification for this, legal or otherwise. Both the original and revised grading plan illustrate a rise in elevation in the rear right hand corner of his rear yard (when facing the home from the front). Additionally, [redacted] purchased a premium lot in a cul-de-sac, one of the largest in the community.As noted above, the actual, visible grade condition existed prior to his purchase of the lot, is in accordance with the Township approved remedial grading plan and has not been changed by Hallmark. Furthermore, in an effort to mend customer relations, Hallmark has offered to landscape the portion of the hill that is of concern to [redacted] to lessen his upkeep. This offer was flatly rejected. [redacted] will accept nothing less than a significant monetary reimbursement, which is not warranted. Since this issue is covered in our contract and an attempt was made to satisfy the homeowner’s complaint, Hallmark is considering this matter closed.Respectfully,Richard CVice President