Originally Posted By: rfarruggia This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
OK guys, I need some advice on this one.
I was called to a house, not for an inspection, just a consultation on whether the buyer has reason to persue a lawsuit against her Home Inspector (sale was in Sept ) for missing leaky windows.
I did not perform a full HI, just looked into this one problem. Much head scratching later, and with the owners permission, I pulled up the starter strip and the first course of roofing shingles. There I noticed that the roof sheathing extended about 1 1/2" short of the fascia. Problem identified. Water was spilling up over the gutter into the gap where there was no roof sheathing (or dripping down from the underside of the starter strip…either way same difference), and down behind the siding, finally discharging around the windows. I have never seen this before. I told the homeowner, that in my opinion, the condition that caused the leaking was a hidden or latent defect and the Home Inspector, doing a reasonable non-destructive inspection, is not at fault for missing this.
Now my question. Why would this condition exist? At first I figured that the roofer was lazy and just didnt fit the sheathing correctly, then a few other possibilities popped into my head. 1) Could this be some sort of bizzare, misguided, but specified by the architect attempt to provide ventilation? Kinda like soffit vents, but on the roof? or 2) could the sheathing have been installed correctly at the time of original construction and a wacky case of truss uplift over time caused the roof sheathing to creep upwards?
The homeowner may bring suit against the seller for non-disclosure (required here in Jersey) because other things I found indicate that the water entry condition was known for some time and ineffective corrective measures were taken, so although I severly doubt the last two possibilities, I want to be absolutely certain before I write this up.
So has anyone ever seen roof sheathing intentionally cut too short before?
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
How old is the house? If new enough, could go after builder.
If leak evidence had been covered up by seller, go after seller for non-disclosure.
I doubt that an HI is going to do what you did without your advance knowledge of the problem existing. Your description indicates it was not visible.
My guess is that the seller, and the agent, are the likely suspects.
I don't defend HIs just because they are HIs, but you went to extra lengths to find a problem you knew about. Simple logic, would you have done all that and found the leak during your inspection? If yes, then the HI may be on the hook. If no, then why expect them to do what you would not have done?
Originally Posted By: rfarruggia This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks Jerry.
The house is too old to go after the builder, and I told her that she doesn’t have grounds to go after her HI. She is looking at @ $40,000 (in my rough estimation) in repairs, so she is rightly going to consider going after the sellers for non-disclosure.
But whatever she does, it is none of my business. I just report the facts. They breed lawyers to handle that other crap.
I was just curious if anyone else has come across any similar condition (short sheathing) that might have been purposely done.
Originally Posted By: Lew Lewis This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ray,
How old was the roof, and was there ice shield installed? Was there an overhang? Was this condition happening every time it rained, or due to snow accumulation and ice damming. OK, now you know to ALWAYS look at the window head jamb for the telltale drip marks. 
I don't think the water was coming from the gutter due to the back of the gutter being taller to prevent this type of spillage.
What do think the appropriate repairs would have been to total $ 40,000?
Originally Posted By: rfarruggia This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks guys. Here we have a 10 year new home warranty.
Neal, the roof (as the house) is 18 years old. There was no edge flashing. The fascia and soffit boards were both attached to the ends of the truss top chords (very small overhang). And as I mentioned, the plywood roof sheathing started about an inch and a half uphill of the fascia, leaving a nice gap into the house and behind the siding less than 3/4 of an inch over the gutter. Possibly spillage, perhaps water splashing up or maybe even wind driven, I dunno, but it was getting up, under the roof shingles. As an added bonus, the existing sheathing was wet. A chronic problem at every good sized rain, says the owner, with plainly obvious staining and degradation of the drywall. The interior was completely painted in the days prior to the original inspection. There was no telltale marks on the window jambs for the original inspector to note. Seems as though the seller was trying to hide something, and succeeded. Just to make things interesting, a previous owner had tried to correct the problem by replacing a few windows where the problem was particularly severe back in 1996. (the windows are date stamped). There is no doubt about the cause of the water penetration. The question that I had was why this condition existed. My first instinct seems the most likely, poor workmanship. I spent a few days looking at every truss sheathing specification I could, read through my books, all the pertinent on-line technical and engineering journals and even a few engineering thesies and could find no instance where a gap was specified. I checked the dimensional shrinkage rates for all the related materials, and gave much thought to the possibilities of a uplift situation that might involve the sheathing but not the truss itself. I know that anything is possible, but this being a designed condition is extremely unlikely. I told the homeowner to take my findings (I did not do a complete HI), along with the architects plans and any available information from the truss manufacturer to a Licensed Truss Design Engineer for their opinion. I am aware that my qualifications do not allow me to make a definitive engineering statement, but my legwork could save the homeowner a few bucks on consulting fees.
The $40K is a rough estimation for a new roof (with replacement of the missing and damaged sheathing) and interior repairs. She will get real estimates.
Another interesting note... I was called to this job to see if she should have expected her original Home Inspector to know that this condition existed. She was seriously considering suing him. After giving my verbal report, and exonerating him, she told me who did the inspection. I wont name him here, but he is one of the better inspectors out there, whom we both know.
Originally Posted By: jdigiacomo This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree that the sheathing should probably go to edge, but not for the reason of water infiltration. I think something else is wrong. You said gutters overflowing? Are gutters draining properly? I am not a roofer but sheathing held back 1" to 2" should not cause water to penetrate. The sheating is there more for structural reasons, not for water proofing. My 2 cents.