Google
Go To Photographic Evidence
To put this case all on the Record, all Discovery, both Requests and Responses were filed with the Clerk of the Court by the Defendant Pro Se, not just the Certificates of Service.
http://journals.aol.com/rmckin2146/construction-lawsuit/
CURRENT CASE DOCKET -  CONTRACT LAWSUIT                    Next Document       Previous Document
POST CARD FROM PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT

Please let me give you a quote on Vinyl siding or Hardiplank siding. This year has been slow and I need work for my people.
I will give you the Best Discounts you'll ever see on name Brand Products and Quality Work
Satisfaction Guaranteed Licensed and Insured - 100% Financing
Please call me soon John Tabor 404-291-0450 24 hrs.
Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. John Tabor 4169 Clairmont Rd. Chamblee, GA  30341

Post Marked July 2004 Homeowner 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA 30039-6966

Plaintiff Admitted that it is in John Tabor's handwriting - disavowed responsibility for what it says claiming Mack Hilton an independant contractor is responsible because it supposedly has his phone number on it.
This is the same Mack aka Gary Michael Hilton, the killer of Meredith Emerson.
http://
memb
ers.aol
.com/r
mckin
2146/
Lawsu
it.htm
l,
http://
homet
own.a
ol.co
m/rmc
kin21
46/La
wsuit.
html
JOHN TABOR'S LETTER TO DEFENDANT
DATED JANUARY 4, 2005

FROM:  Insulated Wall Systems, Inc.
4169 Clairmont Road, Chamblee, GA  30341
Phone (770) 986-8600  Fax (770) 476-4600

TO: Mr. And Mrs. McKinney
4083 Red Laurel Way,
Snellville, GA  30039

SIGNED: Govern your actions accordingly, Sincerely, John J. Tabor


QUOTED BY PARAGRAPH AND SENTENCE, AS ADMITTED:

In responding to Request No. 16 of Defendant’s First Request for Admissions, Plaintiff states that the statements referenced therein relating to John Tabor’s letter January 4, 2005, to the extent that they are accurate are ADMITTED to the extent that they restate portions of the letter.

P. 1 : “I have placed a lien on your property in the amount of $16,000.00.”

P. 2 : “I have reviewed your letter dated 12/20/04.  Let me begin by stating to you, I believe that you are acting in bad faith and are making unreasonable demands in an effort to avoid paying the $16,000.00 that you owe my company.”  

P. 2 : “You set the tone of this project on the first day work began when you called me and voiced your “serious concerns” about the lack of the use of starter strip on the vinyl siding.  You stated that I had previously stressed how important this matter was.”  

P. 2 : “Not only had you immediately demonstrated your complete ignorance about the installation of vinyl siding but you also showed that you will not hesitate to falsely accuse me of making a statement that I did not make about a topic of which you are uninformed and confused.”  

P. 2 : “This pattern of behavior continued from that day forward.  You treated my workers as if you were the project manager by constantly ordering them to make changes according to your own personal specifications regardless of what was actually contracted for.”

P. 3 :  “I will not allow you to greedily attempt to extort extra work out of me and my workers.”

P. 3 :  “Ron made that intention perfectly clear when he stated that I (Insulated Wall Systems) would do the extra work he demanded because “I have yer money”.  He was right, you did have my money and were refusing to pay one penny on a $16,000.00 contract.”

P. 3 :  “You realized that I had invested an enormous amount of time and money fixing up your dilapidated house.”

P. 3 : “You also recognized that the work done was done at prices below the going rate.”

P. 3 :  “However, you believed that by refusing to pay any money you were doing my company such financial harm that I would have to yield to your unreasonable demands. Once again you are wrong.”

P. 4 : “The deck about which you complain has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the contract.”

P. 4 : “The extra support that you demand was not agreed to, contracted for, or paid for.”

P. 4 : “Therefore, if you want extra support on your deck for “the onetime that you have 40 people on the deck at the same time” as you stated, then I suggest you pay someone to build if for you. I will not.”

P. 4 : “I do not care what your “home inspector” had to say.”

P. 4 :  “I never agreed to have my work approved by your home inspector before getting paid, nor did I agree to build your deck to the specifications that would be required to support 40 people.”

P. 4 :  “Of course, I do not believe that you have ever had anywhere near 40 people on your deck in the past 20 years nor do I believe that you ever will.”

P. 5 :  “The slab about which you complain has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the contract.”

P. 5 :  “There was no agreement to compact the soil or to install piers or footers.”

P. 5 :  “You paid $1,400 for a simple slab.”

P. 5 :  “The concrete and wire alone cost $1,000.00.”

P. 5 :  “You made a point of telling me how very little money you make and how important a low price is for you.”

P. 5 :  “Therefore, we agreed to build the kind of slab that you got.”

P. 5 : “Price is extremely relevant in all areas of construction.”

P. 5 : “The kind of slab that you are now demanding could not possibly have been constructed for $1,400.00.”

P. 5 :  “You know this and it is despicable that you are now trying to take advantage of me for trying to give you a low price and good value for your money.”

P. 6 :  “It has come to my attention that you new windows may or may not have argon gas”

P. 6 :  “It seems that the procedure for ordering argon changed around the time your windows were ordered.”

P. 6 :  “Argon gas had always been automatically included with low-e glazing.”

P. 6 :  “However, it (argon) has now become an option on these windows for an additional $3.00 per window.”

P. 6 :  “I am told that the change occurred because of growing evidence that argon gas offers no appreciable energy savings in our climate and carries no warranty at all regarding longevity”

P. 6 :  “Clearly, argon gas is of very little value in this situation.”

P. 6 :  “Further, it seems that there is no practical way to test the windows to definitely determine whether the gas was actually installed in the windows.”

P. 7 : “It was clearly explained to you that damage would be caused to the stone and/or concrete surrounding the two front windows.

P. 7 :  “I told you that we are not stonemasons and therefore would not be responsible for damage to this area. I stated that a certain amount of damage was certain.

P. 7 :  “We proceeded with great care and therefore damage was minimal and less that I told you to prepare for.”

P. 8 :  “Not only did I explain to you in great detail that we would not be responsible for any sheetrock work on the inside of the house, I even wrote that into the contract.”

P. 8 :  “Only an unreasonable fool would be making an issue of that now.”

P. 9 :  “Finally, I believe that all work contracted for on your home has been satisfactorily completed and is in compliance with the level of workmanship that is customary and usual in this trade.”

P. 9 : “However I am willing to forfeit the Ebony Princess peppermill set that was promised as compensation in addition to the $16,000.00.”

P. 9 : “I believe the roughly $500.00 retail price of the set will more than adequately compensate you for the missing shutters and potential lack of lack of argon gas in the windows.”  

P. 9 :  “Therefore, I demand payment in full of the contract price of $16,000.00 within 10 days or I will file suit for the full amount plus attorney fees and all other costs of collection in the State Court of Gwinnett County.”

P. 10 :  “You two will have the distinction of being only the second customers out of over 1000 that have proved to be so unreasonable that I believe the only way to resolve our differences will be through extensive litigation.”

P. 10 :  “Rest assured that I am completely prepared to go this route. This matter is no longer about money but principle

DEFENDANT'S LETTERS TO PLAINTIFF BEFORE LAWSUIT FILED

RonMcKinney
4083 Red Laurel Way
Snellville, Georgia 30039

John Tabor
Insulated Wall Systems, Inc.
4169 Clairmont Road
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

December 20, 2004

Certified Mail Receipt #70042510000079122543

Ref:    1st Notice Contract dated 23rd August 2004 between
Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. And Ron McKinney

Dear Mr. Tabor,

In an effort to facilitate the completion of the above reference contract this letter serves to present my concerns to you so that action may be taken by your company so that the contract can be completed forthwith and payment be made.
Slab---

The slab has been determined to have been poured on uncompacted soil by a qualified house inspector. The depth of the uncompacted soil reaches to at least 2 feet. In his judgment, the weight of the concrete alone not to mention any structure we build or items we place on the slab could result in the slab sinking up to 1 foot over time. In addition, there are uneven stress points due to the breaking up of the old sidewalk and placing the broken pieces of concrete randomly into the middle section of the slab will result in uneven cracking throughout the slab, particularly as the far end of slab settles into the uncompacted soil.

The suggested fix for this structural problem is to placecement pier footers at intervals around the outside perimeter of the slab. The inspector recommends one footer at each corner, one about 5 feet toward the house on each side and 2 more in the middle for a total of 6 footers. Each footer needs to be 24 inches to the depth of compacted soil and 10 inches in diameter with 5 inches of the footer underneath the slab.

To keep the adjacent sidewalk from breaking up when the slab sinks, the inspector recommends a joint be cut between the slab and the sidewalk with a depth 1/3 of the sidewalk or approximately 2 inches. This will require a concrete saw.

Please note that there are many other problems with the slab. Excessive bowing, a lack of a smooth surface, poor water drainage and broken and unsightly edges, as well as damage to our existing driveway. A quick solution by your company concerning the major structural problems could persuade me not to push for a solution to these cosmetic problems.

The Deck---

During our brief conversation on Wednesday, December 15, 2004, you acknowledged that it was code for 2X4 reinforcement under each stair stringer so I will consider that you accept this requirement.

The most serious problem with the deck according to the inspector is that 10 feet of the deck is not attached securely to the house nor is it supported underneath. In his judgment this is a serious safety issue. We believe it is as well as the old deck did indeed begin to fall away from the house at that point.

The inspector's suggested fix is to cut through approximately 8 joists and install a double beam perpendicular to the joists and securing it with hangers. In addition, he suggests that an extra joist be placed on each end of this double beam secured with hangers and nailed to the existing joist. To facilitate the transfer of the weight he suggests two 4/4 posts supporting a 4/4 beam be placed next to the house.

Please bear in mind that the above fix is merely one solution. If there is another solution I am open to it as long as there are no posts placed within my storage area. This part is nonnegotiable.

Windows---

According to information we have received from Ted Lansing Corporation and the National Fenestration Rating Council the windows do not contain argon gas as called for in the contract. Additionally the new window downstairs was not properly installed and was damaged by installing screws through the top of the window frame.

I am open to solutions to these problems, however, any solution other than replacement must include the energy savings we would receive over the life of the window, which is generally considered to be 20 years.

Screens---

Several screens have cuts in them done during the installation and will need to be replaced or repaired.

Shutters---

The contract calls for the installation of 2 pair of winestone louvered vinyl shutters. As of this writing this has not been accomplished.

Sheetrock---

Even though the contract calls for "no work to inside walls on windows that are being reframed" we certainly were not told there would be extensive damage to the inside sheetrock on the upstairs windows, particularly when there was no damage to the sheetrock on the window downstairs. I believe this problem should be open for discussion.

Windows in the Stone---

The 2 windows installed in the stone are clearly not finished and require masonry mortar between the edge of the window and the stone to be finished.

Cleanup---

The contract calls for the removal and disposal of the rear deck. As a result of the deck work, there are various large pieces of concrete littering the back and front yard and I believe the responsibility lies with Insulated Wall Systems to remove these. In addition, since the contract calls for "all work to be done in a good and workmanlike manner" and surely good workmanship includes good cleanup, I would like the area around the concrete slab cleared of the fallen cement debris from the pour.

The above list of outstanding issues will need to be addressed and dealt with by Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. and myself before I can sign off that the contract has been satisfactorily completed and payment can be made. Our brief discussion on Wednesday, December 15, 2004, indicated tome that obvious personality differences exist making spoken communication difficult if not impossible; therefore my recommendation is that you/we employ the use of a professional third party as an intermediary to discuss these issues. I am open for suggestions.

Regards,

Ron McKinney

RonMcKinney
4083 RedLaurel Way
Snellville,Georgia 30039




John Tabor
Insulated Wall Systems, Inc.
4169 Clairmont Road
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

January 3, 2005

Certified Mail Receipt #                            

Ref: 2nd Notice and Demand, Contract dated23rd August 2004
BetweenInsulated Wall Systems, Inc. And Ron McKinney

Dear Mr. Tabor,

In an effort to facilitate the completion of the above referenced contract, andsince I have not heard from you in over 10 days, I am sending you this secondletter to urge you to give prompt consideration to the items listed below anddiscussed in depth in my first letterdated December 20, 2004 (copy attached) in hopes that this work can beexpedited and payment be made forthwith.
1.) Slab
2.) The Deck
3.) Windows
4.) Screens
5.) Shutters
6.) Sheetrock
7.) Windows in the Stone
8.) Cleanup

This letter also serves to put Insulated Wall Systems onnotice that its continued failure to communicate or complete said work itemsbeyond 10 days of receipt of this letter will compel me to put the work itemsup for general bidding.

Regards,

Ron McKinney

Attachment: Copy of letter dated December 20,2004, sent Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested #70042510000079122543 andsigned received for on December 22, 2004.


Ron McKinney
4083 Red Laurel Way
Snellville, Georgia 30039

John Tabor
Insulated Wall Systems, Inc.
4169 Clairmont Road
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

January 14, 2005

Certified Mail Receipt #                            

Ref: 3rd Notice, Contract dated 23rd August 2004
Between Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. And Ron McKinney

Response to Letter dated January 4, 2005 from John Tabor

to Mr. and Mrs. McKinney


Dear Mr. Tabor,

1. From now on please address all correspondence only to me, as my wife is not a party to the contract.

2. In the future please make every attempt to control your emotions, as it is clear from your emotional outburst of December 15, 2004 and your emotional displays in your letter that you need help. Mr. Tabor, this is only business, and there really is no room for your childish actions or comments. They merely make you look silly.

3. The contract is very clear that a signed acknowledgment of work completed is required before funds are due. You last provided work and materials on November 2, 2004 and you have not afforded us a complete walk through.  I cannot give you approval as of yet because in my opinion and the opinion of the house inspector, the work is not completed.  This hardly qualifies as "extortion."

4. The contract is very clear when it states "NoVerbal Agreements Recognized" so any agreements/arrangements/deals we have/had outside the contract cannot be a part of any negotiation.

5. The contract states that "contractor will do all work in strict accordance with the ordinances, rules and requirements of the City, Town or Village, wherein the above mentioned property is located." It would seem to me that the house inspector would be the appropriate person to determine if this has occurred.

6. The contract is very clear that the standard of work called for is "good." This word is obviously subjective but I think it is safe to say that "good" encompasses items such as safety, structural soundness, lack of damage and obvious visual abnormalities.
7. The siding is complete and in my opinion rates "good."

8. The gutters are complete and in my opinion rates "good."

9. The front deck is complete and I will accept it as "fair."

10. The back deck is not complete as it has insufficient support for 11 1/2 feet or over half the length of the deck. It is not sufficiently attached to the house nor is it supported from beneath. This is not "extra support." It is proper support. This is a safety issue where the appropriate building code applies. You acknowledged this lack of support by suggesting the unacceptable solution of placing posts in the middle of my storage area. The step stringers lack the required 2X4 reinforcement, which you acknowledged was required by code. We have received a bid for this work and it comes to $320.00

11. The slab is totally unacceptable and at this point I refuse to sign off on it. There is no smooth surface as called for in the contract. Edges are broken, cracked, chipped and unsightly and this was completely unnecessary. There is no joint between the sidewalk and the main slab, which could result in the sidewalk cracking in many different directions. Water does not drain properly off the slab. There are bows along each side that amount to almost 1 1/2 inch from a line drawn between the end points. Lastly, and most importantly, I have been told it is not structurally sound and could sink up to 1 foot because it was poured onto uncompacted soil. Six pier footers have been suggested as a fix for this structural problem. As much as you didn't agree to do any of these particular things, you did, in fact, agree to do "good" work. We have also been told that $1400 was plenty for a "premium job" to include good edges, a smooth surface and even the pier footers. I think the slab is poor work and I think a jury of my peers would agree with me. Therefore, at this point in time consider the $1400 in dispute.

12. The windows do not contain argon gas as called for in the contract.  I believe you were made aware of "that fact" by the distributor, Ted Lansing Corp. There are also several torn screens. The cost to replace all the windows with ones that have argon gas is $4350, the amount you quoted us for the windows. So consider this sum in dispute.

13. The contract calls for shutters. The bid to purchase and install these is $150.

14. The masonry grout work for the windows in the stonework comes under the "good work" clause of the contract and we have a bid of $50.

15. Likewise the sheetrock damage is grossly more than a matter of finishing the cut edges as you had told us to expect.  When my wife showed you the damage you suggested that the whole piece of sheetrock would need to be replaced. That is a great deal more than merely cut edges of sheetrock and every bit of it was unnecessary according to Jimmy, your normal window installer, who took a look as well. The repairs come to $200 for both windows.

16. Hauling away the old deck is clearly part of the contract. The very large pieces of concrete from the posts of the old deck are still here. There are also many pieces of dried concrete that came off the forms that litter the yard and there is also the waste from the concrete truck cleanup. A handyman said he would charge me $100 to get rid of all this.

17. The total in dispute at this point comes to $6570. Therefore, the most I could sign off on and pay for is $9430 but given the wording of the contract I am well within the lawful bounds of the contract by refusing to do so and therefore I will not pay you at this time unless you want to accept this as payment in full.

18. Your last day of providing work and materials was November 2, 2004 and you have clearly made it known that you will not do anymore work to complete the contract and based on your emotional outbursts and petty comments I am certain I don't want you out here either soit would seem we are at an impasse. If you believe your only solution is a courtroom then feel free to pursue that avenue, however, I am not in anyway responsible for your attorney fees because of your breach of your own contract.

Regards,
Ron McKinney

Attachment: Copy of your letter dated January 4, 2005.

 

page created with Easy Designer