We are in the process of selling our home, which has T1-11 siding. The
house inspector suggested that the siding needed to be caulked, and our
buyer requested it. The siding and paint job looks very good (it's a
new home), but we agreed to do it anyway.

So, we asked a siding contractor to caulk our house. After the job was
done, we realized he used white caulking instead of clear caulking, so
now we have to repaint thw house because it looks so bad.

Our contractor says we should have had the foresight to request clear
caulking if that's what we wanted. In my opinion, that's why I hired a
"professional"... to make those professional decisions for me.

So, my question is this:

Does this sound like standard practice/procedure, to use white caulking
unless otherwise stated by the customer (he says it is)? Has anyone
else run into similar problems?

Thanks,
Matt

"Matt M" writes:
We are in the process of selling our home, which has T1-11 siding.

Good.


The house inspector suggested that the siding needed to be caulked,
and our buyer requested it. The siding and paint job looks very
good (it's a new home), but we agreed to do it anyway.

I assume this is the buyer's house inspector and that you have some
contract to purchase, someone is holding some earnest money of the
buyer's in escrow, that they've exercised their right to inspect
clause, you've been informed of the inspection findings, and the two
parties have come to an agreement on repairs resulting from the
inspection findings, and that part of that agreement says you'd take
care of the caulking issue?

So, we asked a siding contractor to caulk our house. After the job
was done, we realized he used white caulking instead of clear
caulking, so now we have to repaint thw house because it looks so
bad.

Not so fast.

Who/what says you have to repaint the house now? Surely not because
you as a seller think it looks bad.

Do you have a Realtor? A real estate attorney? Look at the terms of
your contract and subsequent written agreements on the repairs from
the buyers. Assuming the inspection clause isn't a free for all in
terms of negotiation, your realtor or attorney should go back and
fight with the buyer's agent to say "Look, the inspection terms say
that safety and functionality issues are legitimate discussion points,
the inspection indicated defects in the sealing of the home's siding,
and that functionality issue has been addressed. The seller has, as
agreed had the home professionally caulked. Here's the receipt and
proof of the work being completed. They've held up their end of hte
bargain." And if necessary, crack out "If your client wanted the job
done exactly as they wished, perhaps a cash settlement offer for the
repairs would have been a better choice to represent your buyers. Are
you willing to risk your client's earnest money for your error in
advice?"

Our contractor says we should have had the foresight to request
clear caulking if that's what we wanted. In my opinion, that's why
I hired a "professional"... to make those professional decisions for
me.

That stinks. And I can see both sides. Sadly though, what you see
here is not terribly surprising. I've found that just because someone
does something for a living doesn't necessarily mean they're worth a
**** at what they do. Nearly half of all individuals in a given
trade are, by definition, below average. :-)

Odds are, most of these folks are likely gonna use whatever they have
on the truck unless you specify otherwise.

So, my question is this:

Does this sound like standard practice/procedure, to use white
caulking unless otherwise stated by the customer (he says it is)?
Has anyone else run into similar problems?

FWIW, my siding isn't caulked (at least not visibly)--the windows and
edges are surrounded by J-Channel (Builders seem to be cheaping out
these days and running siding right up the daned window frames though
and caulking this seam). My home's alumuminum caps are caulked in
white with windows in white vinyl on the outside, wrapped in white
alumimum and my soffits are white.

I would expect that reasonable practice would be to match the color of
the trim or that of the siding or to use clear. But all the same,
getting a contractor at this point to not only redo the job because
you failed to specify that you wanted clear caulk is going to be a
hell of a fight. Cus not only will they need ot recaulk, they need to
dig out all the crap they've just recently laid down. You're in for
an uphill battle there I'm afraid. Imagine if you were the siding guy
and had a customer complaining about a color choice after the fact?


More importantly though, has the buyer of your home weighed in on
their thoughts or threaten to bail over this? I wouldn't volunteer
your thoughts that anything looks bad. If the buyer complains about
it, you can feel free to pass on the contractor's explanation to them
because it's actually not an unreasonable defense against having to
redo the entire job. And your buyer's frankly were silly to leave the
repair up to the seller's discretion rather than bargaining for a
credit at closing for them to address the defect.

If you scrutinize the contract to purchase, and whatever (hopefully
written?) agreement you've arrived upon regarding repair items,
you'll probably find that by having caulk of any sort put on puts you
in the clear. If they said "we want this inspection finding fixed"
and you have the joint professionally caulked, then you may be done.
Keep in mind that in its current state, if the licensed inspector were
to reinspect the property, with the new caulk in place, they couldn't
legitimately write it up anymore--because the functionality and safety
issue has been addressed. Inspectors don't have checkboxes for
"doesn't look right."

Basically, it comes down to whatever agreements you have in writing.
In short, this may not be your problem to solve at this point.

Be sure to post how it all turns out!


Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Hi Todd,

Thanks for the response, this was very informative!

I assume this is the buyer's house inspector and that you have some
contract to purchase, someone is holding some earnest money of the
buyer's in escrow, that they've exercised their right to inspect
clause, you've been informed of the inspection findings, and the two
parties have come to an agreement on repairs resulting from the
inspection findings, and that part of that agreement says you'd take
care of the caulking issue?

Exactly.

Who/what says you have to repaint the house now? Surely not because
you as a seller think it looks bad. [...] Assuming the inspection
clause isn't a free for all in
terms of negotiation, your realtor or attorney should go back and
fight with the buyer's agent to say "Look, the inspection terms say
that safety and functionality issues are legitimate discussion points,
the inspection indicated defects in the sealing of the home's siding,
and that functionality issue has been addressed. The seller has, as
agreed had the home professionally caulked. Here's the receipt and
proof of the work being completed. They've held up their end of hte
bargain." And if necessary, crack out "If your client wanted the job
done exactly as they wished, perhaps a cash settlement offer for the
repairs would have been a better choice to represent your buyers. Are
you willing to risk your client's earnest money for your error in
advice?"

Wow, I hadn't really looked at it in this way before. I had just
assumed it wouldn't be acceptable, and and my realtor was talking about
hiring a handy-man to fix it up. I have to admit, however, that part
of the deal is that we're also trying to close on the purchase of our
new house the same day, and so I don't want anything to screw that up.
But if we really have satisfied the functionality issue, and asthetics
really don't matter after the buyer has made his offer, then that would
be great if it isn't our problem anymore! I will certainly bring this
up with our realtor.

I would expect that reasonable practice would be to match the color of
the trim or that of the siding or to use clear.

Yes, this is what I was expecting, which I think makes the contractors
comment of having to specify clear caulking a little bogus. I am
especially curious to call several other siding contractors now to find
out what they would do in similar situations.

But all the same,
getting a contractor at this point to not only redo the job because
you failed to specify that you wanted clear caulk is going to be a
hell of a fight. Cus not only will they need ot recaulk, they need to
dig out all the crap they've just recently laid down. You're in for
an uphill battle there I'm afraid. Imagine if you were the siding guy
and had a customer complaining about a color choice after the fact?

Yes, I can see that, poor as the contractor may be in comparison to
others, he technically got the job done, and so I don't have much
recourse for getting him to do anything about the caulk color.


More importantly though, has the buyer of your home weighed in on
their thoughts or threaten to bail over this?

No, I am not even sure if the buyer is aware of the situation yet. So
far we haven't had any direct back & forth with him except through the
paperwork and via our realtor, but it sounds like it would be a good
idea to find out what he thinks about it. We just don't want him to
back out at this point (several days before closing).


If you scrutinize the contract to purchase, and whatever (hopefully
written?) agreement you've arrived upon regarding repair items,
you'll probably find that by having caulk of any sort put on puts you
in the clear. If they said "we want this inspection finding fixed"
and you have the joint professionally caulked, then you may be done.
Keep in mind that in its current state, if the licensed inspector were
to reinspect the property, with the new caulk in place, they couldn't
legitimately write it up anymore--because the functionality and safety
issue has been addressed. Inspectors don't have checkboxes for
"doesn't look right."

Basically, it comes down to whatever agreements you have in writing.
In short, this may not be your problem to solve at this point.

Be sure to post how it all turns out!

Thanks again for the suggestions! We're just purchasing our 2nd house,
so this is all still pretty new to us. I'll certainly let you know how
it goes.

Thanks,
Matt

"Wow, I hadn't really looked at it in this way before. I had just
assumed it wouldn't be acceptable, and and my realtor was talking about

hiring a handy-man to fix it up"

I think you're right in assuming it won't be acceptable. If it's
really noticeable, the buyer would have to be pretty stupid to just
accept this. It's possible, but if the caulking is very noticeable,
it's unlikely you'll get away with it. This is one reason why it's
better for both parties for the seller to just give credit for work
that needs to be done, instead of having the work done.

" have to admit, however, that part
of the deal is that we're also trying to close on the purchase of our
new house the same day, and so I don't want anything to screw that up.
But if we really have satisfied the functionality issue, and asthetics
really don't matter after the buyer has made his offer, then that would

be great if it isn't our problem anymore! I will certainly bring this
up with our realtor. "

If you're trying to get by on this, I'd be real careful about who you
talk to and what you say. If you're gonna try to claim that you just
fixed what they asked to be fixed, then having discussions with a real
estate agent just provides one more witness that can say you knew you
had a botched job, knew about it, etc Plus the agent may take the
position that once they know about it, they have a duty to disclose it,
even if they are your agent. If you're gonna take the position that
it's OK, then you better leave it alone. Plus, I hope you have an
attorney. That would be someone appropriate to discuss this with.

"Yes, this is what I was expecting, which I think makes the contractors

comment of having to specify clear caulking a little bogus. I am
especially curious to call several other siding contractors now to find

out what they would do in similar situations. "

If it comes down to it, this is something that would have to be decided
in court. A lot is going to depend on what your contract with the
contractor says. You have a contract right? Does it specify what
color caulk was to be used? If not, what discussions did you have with
him? Any witnesses? If you made it clear you just wanted to caulk to
sell the house and were not going to be painting, then it's pretty
clear that you are right. If you just called the contractor and asked
to have the siding caulked, then it's not clear you are right. I think
the guy should have asked and made sure, but it's not clear to me it's
an absolute requirement.

A related issue is where the caulking had to be done. If it was just
around windows, that area is frequently done with clear. If it's in
joints all over the place, then IMO to have it look right, it really
needs to be painted even if he did use a clear caulk. And I've never
seen painters use clear caulk on general siding joints.

" but it sounds like it would be a good idea to find out what he thinks
about it. "

None of us can see what it looks like. But, if you're gonna try to
take the position that it's acceptable, then asking about this specific
repair is a dumb idea. What does the sales contract say about repairs?
Does it provide for a re-inspection, your notifying that repairs have
been made, etc? A better approach would be to follow the contract
procedure.


Bottom line is this:

If this caulk job is easily visible and you take the position that you
did what they wanted and keep quiet, I doubt you will get away with it.
What will likely happen is the buyers will object to it at some point.
That could be before or at the closing. In that case, you're probably
stuck with paying for most or all of a paint job. The solution then is
to hold in escrow an amount to pay for the paint job or else let them
walk. If they object after closing, you are in a better negotiating
position. Worse case, they can sue you for the cost of painting the
place. Or you could negotiate to pay for part of the paint job.

And when negotiating who pays for what, keep this in mind. Unless the
house was painted recently, it's unfair for you to pay the entire cost
of painting the house. It would need to be painted every 7 years of so
anyway. So, if it were last painted 3 1/2 years ago, then you paying
half would be fair. And if they close and you're in a good negotiating
position, then that offer will look a lot better than if you bring them
over now and ask what they think of your caulk job.

And finally, you may have a small claims case against the contractor,
but that depends on what you have in writing, witnesses to
connversations, and what was actually agreed to.

Just thought of a possible easy, cheap and fast solution to your
dilema. Pull off a piece of something with the exterior paint color.
Go to a paint store and have them match it. Or use a can of the
existing paint if you have some and it hasn't been so long since it was
painted that the color has faded a lot. Then touch up the caulked
areas.

I think you are then in a much better position. I think now it's
reasonable for you to claim you correctly made the repairs that were
called for in the inspection. At that point, I would just follow the
contract and not do or say anything more.

I agree the quick fix is the way to go. Some paint stores can put the
matching paint in spray cans for a quicker fix.
The caulking contracter had his head in his ass to do this. Too bad if
you paid him.

Thanks again for the all the tips and suggestions.

It turns out we still had a leftover can of the paint used for the
siding, so we were able to just do a touch-up job ourselves over the
caulked areas, and the new paint seems to be blending in with the old
very well. We'll just need to hire someone for an hour or less to
finish up some areas that were too high for us to reach. Our realtor
even helped us with the painting.

I am planning on filing a claim with the Construction Contractors Board
and Better Business Bureau; there was actually more that went wrong
than just the white caulk... they left our gate open and now the dog
we've had for 11 years is gone, and also the contractor was extremely
rude, yelled at my wife, and called me lazy for not taking care of
everything myself. He is certainly not very professional.

Unfortunately, we didn't have a contract with the contractor. So, I'm
not expecting any kind of claim to go very far, but at least there's a
lot of people right now (realty agency, title company, neighbors, etc.)
that know about the awful job the contractor did and won't be using him
in the future. An attorney would be nice, but I think paying for an
attorney would just offset any kind of re-imbursement we might get.
Our realtor set up the job for us, and the siding contractor they
usually use was busy for at least three weeks, so they went with a
referal from that contractor. They checked to confirm with us first,
and it seemed reasonable at the time. But I have certainly learned my
lesson now; always leave money for repairs in escrow, and let the buyer
deal with it, and if that doesn't work, get a written contract for all
repairs!

--Matt

On 11 Nov 2005 23:23:17 -0800, someone wrote:

...comment of having to specify clear caulking a little bogus. I am
especially curious to call several other siding contractors now to find
out what they would do in similar situations.

Hmmm, you really think other contractors have any motivation to shoot
the breeze with you just theoretically of course as to what they would
have done on a jib they didn't do..... And to what point, do you
really think that if you go back to your contractor and say "well Joe
Blow said that HE would have used clear...." then YOUR contractor will
say "oh golly gee I didn't know that, why now I will certainly tearout
all the caulk and re-do the job for you for free"....

Bottom line, you left an ambiguity. Even YOU realize there is more
than one answer - either match the color or use clear. Imagine if he
used clear and then the homeowner said "idiot, why didn't you match
thye color". You really SHOULD have specified the color. Whay color
is your house again? What color are the windows frames? While I
wouldn't think white was right, it is a "basic" color and its iffy how
"wrong" he was IF NOBODY SPECIFIED a color.

On professionally managed construction jobs, the "specs" for the
project can run to hundreds of pages. On "homeowner" jobs people
often expect the workers to be mind readers and know what the owner
had in mind even if it wasn't said.

Don't repaint unless you have to. Don't assume you have to. Don't
assume you simultaneous closing is gonna take place on the originally
expected day, either.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On 12 Nov 2005 17:23:33 -0800, someone wrote:

I am planning on filing a claim with the Construction Contractors Board
and Better Business Bureau; there was actually more that went wrong
than just the white caulk... they left our gate open and now the dog
we've had for 11 years is gone, and also the contractor was extremely
rude, yelled at my wife, and called me lazy for not taking care of
everything myself. He is certainly not very professional.

You should not have left the dog out, when a contractor was going to
be going in and out of the gate, but still, I'm sorry since it was
your dog that you'd had for a long time.

Being rude probably isn't an actionable offense.

But yeah he doesn't sound like a very GOOD contractor.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

Yeah, it's pretty funn how someone who didn't take the time to clarify
exactly what was to be done upfront, or watch what was being done, now
wants to waste endless time pursuing this, when the solution was
simple, straightforward and worked. It's not clear to me that the
contractor was so wrong. Every painter I've seen has used clear caulk
only in areas that were specifically not to be painted, like areas
around window trim. Now, if the contractor used a clear, unpaintable
caulk all over the siding, that would have been a real headache!

As for the dog issue, I have to agree with the poster who pointed out
that the homeowner is the one responsible for securing the dog when
work is being done, not the contractor.