Right to cure

Law makes court last resort in home construction

By Janine Anderson

Residential construction projects don’t always turn out as planned.

Sometimes, the contractor is at fault. Sometimes, the home owner made mistakes. But no matter who is to blame in a dispute resulting from a finished house, the parties involved can no longer turn first to a judge for a resolution.

A new law — the Consumer’s Right to Repair Act — requires that home owners and builders attempt to work through problems with a finished home before going to court. Prior to the law’s enactment in March, there was no formal process set up for home owners and builders to address issues with a completed house. The law establishes a nonlitigious way for new home owners and builders to resolve disputes; if the problem is not fixed, court is still an option.

State Sen. Luther Olsen, R-Ripon, introduced the bill saying that after home construction is done, the last thing either side wants is to spend money on attorney fees to fight through arguments that could be resolved in easier ways.

“When a person builds a house, it’s probably the biggest investment they’re ever going to make,” he said. “It could be an enjoyable experience, but sometimes it’s a real problem.”

After the home is done, he said, people sometimes end up with construction-related problems. Going to court takes money and time for the home owner and the builder, and it may just delay getting the problem fixed.

The Right to Repair Act changes that. First, the home owner must give the builder a written notice of the problem. Within 30 days, the builder must respond in writing offering to make a payment, repair the problem and make a payment, or request to inspect the home.

After inspection, the builder can pay the home owner, repair the problem and make a payment, or reject the claim. If the claim is rejected, or if at any point the builder does not follow the process, the home owner can take the issue to court.

“It’s a mediation process,” Olsen said. “It’s a way to solve the problem in a structured, hopefully congenial way. If a settlement can’t be reached, they can always go to court, but this requires both sides to look at something else first.”

Frank Madden, vice president of M.D. Properties Inc., Brookfield, and president of the Wisconsin Builders Association, said national home-builders associations are pushing for this type of legislation throughout the country.

“Sometimes you wind up, especially when finishing, with bad feelings between the builder and buyer,” he said. “You can reach a point where communication breaks down. There could be a leak in the roof or a plumbing problem.”

If disputes go straight to court, Madden said, they don’t address the buyer’s issue and wind up costing everybody time and money.

“Rather than spend money on lawyers, it’s probably better to have a skilled tradesman come in and fix it,” he said. “This is designed to get something solved at a lower level and in a simple manner rather than in the court system.”