Who understands the job of an engineer in the land development process?

[Baitball Blogger]

I admit, I know close to nothing except that I do know that at one time the engineer who sealed the plans was usually held responsible for a poor or faulty design. I also know that the Florida legislature was moving to waive liability for both cities and the engineering firm if construction problems caused homeowners problems. I don't know if they were successful.

But, here's the question. What is the responsibility of the engineers who designed the plat for a residential community? And I'm not talking recently. I'm talking twenty or thirty years ago they designed a residential community over a wetland that had a seepage problem which required the project to be phased?

Would there be any concerns to the engineering firm that did something like this?

[Loudly]

1. It might be a stale claim, according to Florida statute.

See the "Statute of Limitations" section of this article:

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=607

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Thank you for the reference.

I am going to bookmark this thread.

[JackRiddler]

5. How can there be a statute of limitations on something like this?

If you think about it, it makes little sense.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Read the article.

Or rather, reference.

[tularetom]

2. There could be liability through the civil courts even after such a long period of time

If of course it could be proven that negligence on the part of the engineer caused damages to subsequent homeowners in the community (subsidence, poor drainage, etc.).

The engineer could also be at risk of discipline (suspension or revocation of license to practice engineering) through the state's professional licensing process. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen. The licensing boards are made up partly of other professionals who sort of look out for their own and tend to circle the wagons when one of them gets accused of malpractice or negligence.

There is responsibility on the part of the design professional but the burden of proof is on the injured party. It isn't sufficient to simply allege damages.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. You're confirming what I suspected, or rather, experienced.

I'll take it one step further for you. Imagine the owner of the engineering firm getting elected to the legislature where he can help pass all kinds of laws that would be favorable to cities and construction firms. Essentially, tying the hands of homeowners before they even move into a development.

Yep. In Florida it is more likely than not. Such a legislator could probably find a soft landing once his term limits are up.

Just say'n.

[NutmegYankee]

7. Engineers are rather unique among professions in that they do not protect their own.

Unlike Doctors and Lawyers, Engineers will gladly eat their own. If you made a mistake, it will get pointed out and not covered up.

[tularetom]

10. Policing of the profession by ones peers is different from action by licensing boards

Not sure what discipline or where you practice but in the 45 years I've been a licensed professional engineer I can cite five cases I took to our state board of registration, one on my own and four in concert with others.

At least two of these involved the blatant sale of a structural engineering seal on a set of plans with absolutely no review of the work. In one case there was even an admission.

Our record? One for five. One licensee received a one year suspension of his license to practice, which was subsequently reduced to 90 days. The other four cases were dismissed although one did result in a sternly worded letter.

In my experience there is a reluctance for the lay members of the licensing boards to impose harsh penalties in cases they may not fully understand. Even some members of the profession are uneasy ratting out their peers (there but for the grace of god go I syndrome).

[NutmegYankee]

8. I'm a mechanical engineer, so this is not my area of expertise

But a civil or environmental engineer would probably have approved the plans. Generally one has to prove negligence in design. One risk of older developments is that the building codes may have been very lax at that time, so they may not have had to design for everything one does now. If the county didn't require a factor in the design, you may be out of luck. Another is the actual builders practices may have been shoddy. In the 1960's-70's, it was popular to just bulldoze the trees down into the dirt and lay a slab for a house right over it all. Naturally they subside and crack after some time has passed.

What's the specific problem?

[Baitball Blogger]

9. I don't think, from a liability standpoint, that there will be recourse.

You asked what the specific problem was. You might regret asking.

As you pointed out the building codes may have permitted the poorly engineered road that resulted in huge drainage problems for the homeowners. The road and the drainage were combined. There were no sidewalks in this development and the narrow road was an inverted design to double as a drainage system. (The water came down the middle). Even if it had been maintained properly (which it wasn't) I don't think it would have mattered. The design, IMHO, was flawed.

On the original plat the development and street was a circular design. One section of that road involved a sharp curve with a hard dip that ran downhill to a wetland area. Imagine how much water that inverted road would have to carry during a Florida rainstorm. Not only would it have to take on a sharp turn, but it would also have to make it downhill beyond the last homes to reach that lowland. Over the years, the edges of the road began to erode and the problem was exacerbated. Stormwater would slosh off the curve into people's yards and, of course, would collect in front of the houses down the street. It was a real problem.

Then it gets interesting. There were two bankruptcies during the eighties, but in early 1988, a developer attempted to finish the entire development. He was not just interested in developing the unfinished part, but also wanted to replat a section in the older section (our side) of the development to build ten single family homes.

The city attorney's timesheets indicate that there were phone conversations during 1988 between the city attorney and the developer's attorney to discuss the development plans. One of the requirements was that the developer speak to the existing homeowners.

Conversations did take place with at least a handful of the residents. There is a city meeting to attest to this.

In late 1988, not only was the replat of those ten lots approved, but our side of the development was formally transferred over to the homeowners. This occurred in an amendment to our Association. Let me repeat that. Control of the Association was formally transferred to the homeowners in late 1988.

The following year, 1989, the developer presented plans to the city commission to build the unfinished portion of the development. The plans were approved. But the development was never constructed and the land remained feral.

Meanwhile, on the older side of the development, the water problems continued. The existing homeowners did emergency patchwork on a road that was in desperate need of a complete retread. In a letter that I uncovered in the HOA documents I found a clue to what happened next. Essentially, the Treasurer wrote a note to the HOA President to tell him that the HOA attorney advised him that the HOA could be held liable if any homeowner could prove that they lost a potential buyer because of the condition of the road.

From that point on the story began to change. Suddenly, the older residents insisted that the Association was not yet formally turned over. My guess is that no one wanted to take financial responsibility for the maintenance of the road, or its landscaping features.

By the time I moved into the development, everyone was repeating the same story, word for word. Some may have known better, but others may have just been repeating what they were told. The story was that the development belonged to a foreign owner and had not yet turned over to the homeowners. All our infra-structure problems, they claimed, would be resolved when a new developer was found to finish the final portion of the development.

It only get worse from here.

In 1998 the final phase of the development was approved, but it was rough going as many of us were handled and herded through the process. We were intentionally kept ignorant of our rightful interest in the property and common areas, such as the entrance road. That was actually on our side of the plat.

I have had plenty of time to study the details and can see no other interpretation. We were defrauded. We thought we had no vested right in the city review process, and indeed, the city officials and the stand-in attorney treated us that way. They allowed us to provide public input, but they would not take our concerns into account. There is no excuse I can think of to explain why the stand-in attorney was not aware of what was going on when he worked in the same law office as the city attorney who had reviewed the 1988 turn-over document. They knew, or had to know.

One of the homeowners who signed that 1988 turn-over document was a close friend of the mayors. This homeowner was continually introduced as the authority on our development. Not only did the HOA leadership push him as a credible individual, but so did the city. He counseled us and walked us through those city meetings and he never once told us about our legal right. In fact, he diverted us away from the truth.

He told us that our best chance to get leverage with the developer was to forgo a replat of our portion of the development. If we didn't make a big deal about the replat with the city, then it would save the developer time and money. So that's how he claimed we would win leverage to get the developer to agree to fix our road problems and other concessions we were hoping to get.

This homeowner had forty years of real estate experience so there is no way that I can see that he didn't know what he was doing. In addition, he was as close to being a city insider as a person could get without actually drawing a government check. Over the course of seventeen years, whenever there was an important matter that involved our development, he was usually appointed to a city committee where he was within easy reach of the City Manager.

Of course, we didn't know that he had this close connection with the city in the nineties. The internet was in its infancy then, and word of mouth in the community was unreliable. And we certainly didn't see why a neighbor would have an outside allegiance that would conflict with our interests. So when he suggested that we not make a big deal about the replat, we took his advice because we had no other option. We did get better drainage and an inch of blacktop on the road. But it didn't take a year before a drainage pipe collapsed. The story continues but I'm trying to stick to the issues pertaining to the original road problems.

If it were not for that poorly engineered road I believe we would have proceeded differently during the city review that took place in 1998. Had we not been in such dire need we would have insisted on a replat and the entire ruse would have been uncovered. The replat would have included a formal title search, which would have established our rightful ownership AND it would have alerted us to the fact that common ground areas that belonged to our development were being absorbed into the new development. That land was taken, not through a replat, but through engineering plans.

And it wasn't just common grounds they took. They also took four lots from our side of the development that the developer claimed he and his partners had purchased. Yet, there is no record of the sale in the public records.

What complicated our situation was that our HOA president signed a rudimentary contract, which I believe the title company used as acceptance of transfer of ownership rights. Despite, this complication I could think of a number of ways that the deceit could have been exposed and remedies applied had our Association come together during this early stage. But every step of the way we were intentionally prevented from organizing. We had people in our Association who divided us by spreading misinformation and creating complications that had no legal basis. And there were no shortage of people outside our immediate community who were eager to help them. At least two would be lawyers who should have recognized they had a conflict of interest.

I tried several time to get the authorities to look into this matter and never could get them interested. All the signs lead me to believe they had help in high places.

So, if I can prove that the poorly engineered road was a legal problem for the engineering firm that originated it, it would explain a great deal. Because I believe it all began with a poorly engineered road and a development that was phased because of a seepage wetland.