Robbins Contracting

Robbins Contracting has proposed a settlement that has been accepted by the [redacted] Both parties are mutually satisfied with settlement, which is in the process of being executed

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The business’s most salient point in its response is “To date, Robbins Contracting has executed the contract as it is written and has built the home per plan and to the specifications.”
While the business did in fact advertise, contract, plan and design specification to deliver a walkout basement construction, it has failed to execute accordinglyWhether this was due to deception or incompetence is not my concernMy sole concern is obtaining the return of my disabled son’s trust monies ($291,352.17) with 8% interest plus legal fees
Only certain properties have the necessary elevations to accommodate a basement walkoutThere is a premium price for walkout lots
Finding a walkout lot for a new construction within our constraints for our disabled son (within town, walk to bus, pool, etc) in *** was challengingThus our interest when we saw the marketing flyer at the lot at *** *** (pls see attachment “*** *** *** Hard Copy flyer.pdf” )
Note the the banner headline on the flyer: “Walkout Basement“And it is mentioned again in the flyer’s details
Moving on through the business’s response, there are two comments with which I must categorically disagree:
I.“Furthermore, this design [subterranean basement exit] was intentional and planned on since the time the contract was signed.”
II.“In order to avoid additional garage steps and front entry steps for your son’s benefit, we compromised by allowing for two steps up out of the back patio.”
I would like to rebut both of the business claims as follows:
IThe business is asserting that the current subterranean basement walkup was planned and intentional since the time the contract was signed at the *** *** office on February 17, with my wife ***, son *** and our broker *** *** presentHowever, none of the contract specifications reflect thisThey all show a level walkoutAdditionally, a change to a walkup was never discussed ( and it would have been a firebomb comment! ) As stated in the contract, changes must be captured and basically approved by both partiesNo post-contract change order nor contract specification show a subterranean basement walkup exit with sloping concrete flooring and floor drain as the business claimsAll specifications clearly show a level basement walkoutI have attached two documents from the contract that clearly reflect this (pls see attached *** *** A-Plan Elevations.pdf and Contract Elevation of Walkout.jpg)
My wife took this attached photograph during the September 2, meetingI have to give *** Robbins credit for trying to offer different solutions to remedy the inherent problems (flooding, icing, etc) of a subterranean basement walkup(pls see attached “Photo of subterranean walkout *** ***.jpg”)
Our first written communication concerning a walkup fix occurred shortly after our Sept 2, meeting when *** sent us a followup drawing of the discussed “best solution”It shows an earthen berm around the subterranean basement exit encased in concrete, with steps, and an angled floor draining to a floor drainAs I expressed concern at our Sept meeting over the walkup flooding during any precipitation ( and we’ve experienced decades of Colorado ice and snow, especially in the shade!) , *** suggested either a sump (with optional electric pump) beneath the slab or in the yard*** stressed that the drain would have to be cleaned out and maintained to prevent floodingWe also chatted about in-concrete heating in the slab to prevent dangerous ice buildupPlease see attached “best solution” we received from *** after the Sept 2, meeting (pls see attached “Fixing underground walkout proposal.pdf”)
At no time did the business imply or state they would pay for this fix
And again, if this was “this design [subterranean basement exit] was intentional and planned on since the time the contract was signed” , then why was this walkup “fix” only first mentioned in August 2014? And if the business felt the walkup had been spec’ed and communicated since contract signing, why didn’t *** respond to my Sept email as such? ( pls see attached “Gmail - *** ***_Walkout_Sept 2014.pdf” ) After I received his short “call me” emailed response, it became apparent to me the business was not working in good faithAt this point I asked our broker *** *** to represent us going forward as I felt the business was being deceptive(note: In good faith, I had still paid the Sept invoice from the business)
Please note that if need be, our broker *** *** is willing to submit sworn testimony to the same effect concerning ***’s comments Sept
And I have to ponder why during the past months of extensive exchange of correspondence between myself and the business’s attorney, I repeatedly quoted ***’s Sept statement of “‘I never considered this a walkout lot...”Now months after a correction would have been timely and expected, suddenly this newest revelation of less indicting words, “never considered this a great walkout lot.”
Regardless, this “best solution” is a failure to deliver in any scenario, but it becomes even more unworkable when the house is being constructed for an individual with disabilities
IIAs to the business’s claim that “we compromised by allowing for two steps up out of the back patio”, it is impossible to prove a negativeThis never happenedNeverThe business was extremely disciplined in maintaining all change orders within BuilderTrend
The ONLY change order regarding elevation was requested by the business on April 25, (after the foundation was poured) to delete the side garage doorSimple put, it had become too expensive for them to buildThe business explained that to deliver it would require a more expensive than planned concrete landing, grading and additional stepsDespite this additional expense being owned by the business, we agreed to the business’s requested change order(please see attachment Apricot garage door change order 1.pdf )
So if the business claims it made these substantial changes with the front and garage steps impacting the basement walkout, where is that change order? It doesn’t exist as this was never discussed
There are other aspects of the business’s response that puzzle meHow could raising the foundation 6” cause the walkout to go subterranean ? And raising the foundation 6” caused the reduction of the front steps from contracted steps to steps ?
If it comes to it, I will hire a professional engineer to refute the business’s assertions because they make no sense to me
EVENTS SINCE Sept 2, 2014:
In the time SINCE the Sept 2, meeting, I spent time and money on researching this situation on my son’s behalf
I obtained copies of the *** *** *** subdivision plat (where *** *** is located) from the city of ***The *** *** *** subdivision plat shows quite plainly the difference between a walkout and garden levelIt also states the requirement for a 2% minimum slope from the walkout to the back of the property(please see attached “city's definition of walk out.pdf” and “city's definition of garden level.pdf”)
These further strengthen the case that Robbins either willingly or through error failed to provide the walk out construction at *** *** as contractedAs defined by the subdivision plat, walkouts are to be to be ground level
My research with the city of *** also revealed a *** Land Surveying Inc certification dated April 21, showing the top of foundation was built to the Robbins' specifications.( please see attached “*** Land Surveying Certificate.PDF” )
Following up on this, I contacted *** Land Surveying Inc on October 28, *** *** stated that the lowest “top” point of the *** *** foundation (assuming this is the basement exit) was shot at
The lot plat submitted by the Robbins’ shows the northwest corner elevation at
A inch drop over ~20-feet would not satisfy the required 2% drainage grade
To my layman’s eye, it appears the business had information in April that a walkout could not be built as contractedNo communication from the business concerning this too low foundation was shared until four months later in August 2014!
It is important to note that we have had an experienced, well established broker and owner of *** *** realty, *** ***, working on our behalf* was present at all meetings with the business on every significant event discussed hereIf I am required to provide additional evidence to support my position, he will be able to collaborate a significant portion of my pointsThank you
While I apologize for the length of my response, this dispute does involve a significant amount of money from my son’s trustAs I work remote in *** and spend nominal time in Colorado, I wanted to hopefully provide a conclusive case to support my position
Again, I ask for an immediate refund of trust monies with 8% interest since Oct 15, cancellation plus legal fees spent to recover the trust monies
POLYGRAPH OFFER
I have always been honest and forthright in my dealings with the business
I understand different parties may have different perspectives on some eventsHowever, some of the business’s claims are so radically different from the actual events, the truth should be easily discernedI’ve never had a polygraph testHowever, with absolute certainty I can confirm the following key facts with a neutral 3rd party polygrapher:
1.The initial communication from the business concerning the designed basement walkout being subterranean and having issues was in mid August when I was contacted by *** RobbinsI have phone logs that suggest the call was received by me August 13, at 10:53am PT
2.On Sept 2, at *** *** in the presence of *** ***, *** and myself, *** *** stated, “I never considered this a walk out lot...its more of pseudo walkout lot”This meeting was the first time *** or myself had heard this statement from ***
3.There was never any discussions or communication, written or verbal, with the business about compromises to “avoid additional garage steps and front entry steps for your son’s benefit, we compromised by allowing for two steps up out of the back patio.”
4.On two occasions I was contacted by email by business’s attorney *** *** and asked (both times with very tight deadlines) about working out an agreement for a possible 3rd party buyerOn both occasions, I responded in the time requestedThe business may not have liked the terms and conditions I was requesting, but to imply I didn’t respond as requested is incorrect
Regards,
*** *** *** *** *** * ***, Designated Next Trustee by Trust

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meprovided it happens as promised within 30 days.
Thank you for helping us reach this agreement.
Regards,
[redacted]

Robbins Contracting has proposed a settlement that has been accepted by the [redacted].  Both parties are mutually satisfied with settlement, which is in the process of being executed.

We are sorry that you are unhappy with the home.  We are extremely empathetic towards your son’s condition and have tried to accommodate his needs throughout the entire construction process.  That said, the home is indeed a walk-out style home leading to a walk-out patio.  The...

presence of two exterior patio steps does not negate the fact that the basement offers a patio door and is, by definition, a walk-out residence. Furthermore, this design was intentional and planned on since the time the contract was signed.  When the contract was read to you by Robbins Contracting on the date in which it was signed, we explained that we will raise the foundation about 6” which will add a single step in the garage.  Due to engineered grading restrictions in the subdivision, we could not change the elevation of the final grade, and raising the foundation more would create several steps in from the garage.  In order to avoid additional garage steps and front entry steps for your son’s benefit, we compromised by allowing for two steps up out of the back patio.  This was explained to you several times throughout the construction of the home, including immediately after we read the portion of the contract stating “Contractor shall have the right to erect the residence as shall best conform, in Contractor’s opinion, to the grade of the lot upon which the residence is being constructed or in accordance with the recommendation of Contractor’s engineers”.  This was further explained in detail in a conversation on site in August after a phone call intended to explain the drainage options.  This was never a neglected problem that was unaccounted for, but rather an executed plan to save your son the burden of climbing unnecessary additional steps that would be more commonly used when entering the home.  As such, a computer graphic was presented to you to show you how a drain system and steps were going to correlate with the grade.  In addition, we explained options of adding hand rails on the back patio for your son or omitting the steps all-together by sloping the grade out of the patio.  Again, we are sorry that this execution has surprised you; however, it has always been the plan for this lot and for your son’s condition. Robbins Contracting purchased the lot with the intent of constructing a walk-out residence on it.  At one point in the discussion, [redacted] did state that he never considered this a great walk-out lot.  This is due to the shape and grade of the lot; however, it can and does still facilitate a walk-out residence.  Robbins Contracting never described this lot as a ‘pseudo walkout,’ nor ever claimed that ‘we never considered this a walk-out.’  Ever since Robbins Contracting has purchased the lot, we have executed the construction of this project as advertised and planned.  In addition, we have tried to accommodate your son in this project by offering a second hand rail on the 16-step stair case that leads to his basement living area free of charge.  This was deemed as unnecessary by you and declined, however you insist that there is no solution, including any combination of hand rails, for the two seldom used steps exiting the back patio.To date, Robbins Contracting has executed the contract as it is written and has built the home per plan and to the specifications.  You have not funded the most recent invoice, leaving our subcontractors and vendors unpaid.  Robbins Contracting has offered to refund you the money you have invested into the project upon its closing to a third party buyer, and you have declined.  Your demand for interest paid on the money is not contractual, nor justified due to your breach in contract.  Robbins Contracting deems Claimant in default under the purchase agreement and, absent a resolution, reserves all claims and defenses it may have against Claimant for damages it has sustained and incurred.