He comes to your house and does the roof?
Yes.
It started raining, but you take it off anyway.
I figured the only way I could tell what the problem was
:was to take the roof off.
The interior ceilings were at risk of caving in.
Yes.
You didn't complete the repair,
so why are we here?
[narrator] Today on Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing
This case was filed in San Diego, California.
Your Honor, this is case number 1100 on the calendar
in the matter of Dapper versus Nichols. Parties have been sworn in.
-You may be seated. -[Levy] Thank you, Byrd.
Ms. Dapper, you, uh, contacted the Defendant,
who had a roofing company and was a roofing contractor
to inspect the roof on your home,
which was a 63-foot-long and 12-foot-wide mobile home.
Yes.
[Levy] January of 2019, the Defendant came to your home
and that a new roof was, in fact, needed.
[Coleen] Yes.
[Levy] He provided you with an estimate of $3,600,
and you wrote him a check for that full amount.
-Is that correct? -Yes, Your Honor.
[Levy] All right. His company installed
a brand-new, 30-year fiberglass shingle roof on top of your mobile home.
-Right? -Right.
[Levy] His company did so by putting it on top of the existing roof.
Yeah, it's a roof-over.
-[Levy] A roof over roof? -Mm-hmm.
Within six months, you noticed that the ceiling
in your home was bowing.
Slightly bowing, yes.
[Levy] And then over the next three years, you watched it get progressively worse.
Yes.
[Levy] You tried to reach out to the Defendant,
but you were unsuccessful. How did you do that?
Was that via phone or... or text or emails?
My son called him.
Were you there when he tried to call him?
-No. -Then...then we can't take that.
So-so you never tried to contact him yourself.
Not in the beginning, no.
[Levy] Okay, but you did thereafter?
-[Coleen] Yes. -[Levy] Very well.
You filed a claim with your insurance company
regarding the roof because of the damages,
and the insurance company sent out someone to inspect the roof?
Yes.
And when they came out,
they realized that there were at least two, possibly three layers.
-On that roof. -Yes, Your Honor.
[Levy] You were advised and they provided you with documents
from the insurance company
confirming that the excessive weight of the shingles caused the roof to sag,
damaging the rafters, trusses, and the ceiling
-in the main section of the home. -Yes, Your Honor.
And that the interior ceilings were at risk of caving in.
-Yes. -[Levy] On August 11, 2022,
according to your complaint,
the insurance company denied your claim.
Yes, sir.
[Levy] Because it was the Defendant's failure
to remove the old roof shingle before installing the new one,
and they said that that was on the Defendant, not on them,
and you should go after the Defendant for that money.
-Yes, Your Honor. Yes. -[Levy] That's why you're here.
Well, you contacted the Defendant,
you told him what the insurance company said,
and he and his son met you at your home to inspect the roof.
Mr. Nichols came first, and then the next day, his son did.
But, Ken was there first.
Okay, so the Defendant was there first. And then did there come a time
when his son showed up?
[Coleen] Uh, the next day.
Okay, is that correct, Mr. Nichols?
-Your son came the next day? -Yes, yes, sir.
[Levy] What role did your son have in the company, if any?
Uh, he's... it's a corporation, and he's my, uh...
-The other owner. -[Levy] Okay.
According to your complaint, Ms. Dapper, when both the Defendant and his son
are at your home, his son, who has a role in the company
and can make statements on their behalf, made one to you when he said,
-"Dad, there's three layers here." -[Coleen] The day before,
Mr. Nichols had said there were only two layers
and that the inspector was wrong,
and there was only two layers,
but he'd have his son come the next day
to check it out to see if there was indeed three.
And when his son came out,
and again, based upon his son's role in the company...
Yes.
...he made a statement to you which I just mentioned earlier.
-Is that right? -Yes, Your Honor.
[Levy] However, the Defendant did agree
to take off the roof and put on a brand-new one.
Yes.
[Levy] And he took off that roof on September 6th of 2022.
He started the demolition, installed a plywood sheet
and a moisture barrier, according to your complaint.
-Right. -[Levy] Now, who was doing the work?
Was this fine gentleman to my right, your left, doing the work?
-Or was it somebody else? -[Coleen] He was supervising.
And he had his crew up there.
-[Levy] Okay. -Getting things done.
[Levy] So five days later, September 11th, the Defendant called you,
according to you complaint, and said that he would send one of his workers
the following day to complete the job.
But the roof was exposed. It was already off.
It was not covered.
-And rain was in the forecast. -[Coleen] Yes, sir.
[Levy] The next day,
the Defendant and another one of his workers arrived,
and that's when the rain started.
[Coleen] Before that happened, he did say, when he came to my house,
that his son was wrong.
There was only two layers, but he would go ahead
and take the layers off and reroof,
however, he wasn't going to touch the ceiling
because the ceiling had nothing to do with the roof.
I understand. We were gonna get to that based on your complaint.
-But that's okay. -Sorry. Okay.
[Levy] With respect to the exposed roof
and any damage that may have occurred as a result...
-It started to rain. -Yes.
Mr. Nichols and his worker
very quickly tried to cover the roof,
but that rain came down, and according to your complaint,
it kept raining for about two days.
Two days, yes.
[Levy] And afterwards, after this...this deluge,
the master bathroom had moisture on the ceiling.
Yes.
And you're suing the Defendant for damages
to fix the ceiling in your home and other damages
to materials below the roof deck
that were caused by the excessive weight,
causing those rafters and everything to bow,
as well as the water damage and other damages associated with that.
Yes, Your Honor.
[Levy] Now, Mr. Nichols. I haven't forgotten about you.
-'Cause you put an answer in. -Yes, sir.
[Levy] And your answer says you've been in business for 45 years.
Yes. Well, 42 years of business. I-I worked for other people before that.
-[Levy] And you stand behind your work? -I certainly do.
[Levy] Consistent with what Ms. Dapper said?
That when you were notified about the damages
and what the insurance carrier had to say and about the dangerous condition,
you came over and did the right thing, agreed to put another roof on.
-Yes, sir. -[Levy] But you said also in your answer
that there was no proof that the damage to her roof
or the other items, the rafters,
were the result of anything that you did.
Yes, sir.
[Levy] All right. Could we take a look at photograph 00D1?
So, let me ask you this. So, I'm circling right there.
What are those? So we're all on the same page.
[Kenneth] The lower ones are the, uh, joists,
and the higher ones are the rafters.
Basically, you can see the insulation, which covers up the joists.
-Right. -[Kenneth] But the rafters
are what she claims caused the damage to the ceiling.
- [Levy] And so the... - But all the rafters are connected.
As they should be. And not broken or nothing wrong with them.
[Levy] And that's according to your inspection,
notwithstanding what the insurance inspection showed?
Yes, sir. That's why I took these pictures.
Okay.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
What's the name of your company that was doing this work?
Oceanside Roofing Contractors, Incorporated.
[Levy] So Mr. Nichols, one thing I'm gonna ask you then is,
when you were paid for the original job
-by the Plaintiff for $3,600... -Yes.
...how come the check's not made out to Oceanside Roofing Contractors,
but to you personally?
[theme music playing]
Coleen Dapper is suing contractor, Ken Nichols,
for roof repairs on her manufactured home.
Ken claims he completed the requested work
and owes her nothing.
Now when you came, according to your answer, Mr. Nichols,
with you and your son to inspect the roof,
you realized that the entire roof had to come off.
That was a quote. You "realized" it had to come off.
Well, only because
I didn't know what was causing the ceiling to cave in or to come loose,
and I didn't want her to get hurt.
I didn't want to end up with a large lawsuit in the future,
so I figured the only way I could tell what the problem was
was to take the roof off, lift up the plywood,
and see if the rafters were indeed compromised.
[Levy] And what you said, I believe, in your answer also was that
not only did you not believe
that it was as a result of you adding that second roof on
without taking off the first that caused the damage,
but it could have been something else.
You said it could be rain or it could be snow.
No, actually, what I believe caused it
was it's like a 40-year-old home.
And there's settling.
And it looks like the ceiling joists,
it looks like they've just settled down over the years
and they're not connected as well as they should be anymore.
And so you're saying that it was just happenstance
or serendipitous that the damages, the bowing, occurred
only after you put on the second layer of roofing materials?
'Cause the Plaintiff's saying that she didn't notice that beforehand.
And you didn't notice anything in 2019...
-I did, sir. -[Levy] You did?
At the time I didn't think anything of it
because almost all homes
have settling and you'll see cracks in, uh, in regular homes.
I understand. And in your answer you say
that the ceiling rafters were loose.
-The rafters. -[Kenneth] Some of 'em.
[Levy] And that they were being pulled away
from the main beam, and it was, in fact, a dangerous situation.
-Yeah, I thought it was. Yes, sir. -[Levy] It could've collapsed.
-Your Honor, could I say one thing? -[Levy] Yes, please.
Inspecting the roof in 2019,
he never came into my house.
[Levy] Well, that's important, so, thank you for adding that.
Now, under those circumstances, and based on that testimony, Mr. Nichols,
as you stand here right now, do you have an independent recollection
of what the interior of Ms. Dapper's home looked like in 2019?
-Um, no, sir. No, sir. -[Levy] Yeah. Okay.
You say that you owe her nothing because you had nothing to do
with the damages that were caused by the settling
as you just testified to.
-Correct? -Yes, sir.
[Levy] What's the name of your company that was doing this work?
Oceanside Roofing Contractors, Incorporated.
So, Mr. Nichols, one thing I'm gonna ask you then is that in 2019,
when you were paid for the original job by the Plaintiff for $3,600...
-Yes. -She gave you a check.
How come the check's not made out to Oceanside Roofing Contractors,
but to you personally?
I didn't realize it was, sir.
Did you ask her that it be made out to you personally?
I don't believe so.
[Levy] Do you remember depositing that check
or cashing it on the very same day?
Probably.
It would have gone into the roofing account.
[Levy] Okay. Thank you very much. Judge Acker?
Thank you, Judge.
Um, I am not gonna get deep into the weeds
about trusses and th... 'cause to me,
there are some big-picture points in this case
that I want to make sure I have clear.
Two thousand nineteen, he comes to your house and does the roof.
-Correct? -Yes.
What sort of warranty do you provide?
-A ten-year warranty against, uh, leaks. -[Acker] Ten-year warranty.
Three years later,
you notice some sagging, you call him, you come back
because as you explained to the Judge, you want to avoid litigation,
you want to try to tamp the problem down before it gets worse.
So there's an issue as to what happened in 2019.
Your insurance company and you say that there were three layers of shingle.
You say, no, not three layers,
your son says, "Yes," you're like, "You made a mistake,"
but in any event, I'm gonna take it all off and give you a new roof.
-Excuse me, Your Honor? -Yes.
At the time when we started taking the roof off,
we invited Mrs. Dapper to come up and look
so that she could see that there were only two layers up there.
[Acker] But I just want to be clear, you take it off anyway?
Yes. It was the only way I could see down below.
-[Acker] You start demolition? -Correct.
This is the photograph that you, ma'am, have submitted.
When was this taken?
I contacted the insurance company about three or four days later
to inspect it.
[Acker] So, you start the demolition, sir, it started raining.
According to the Plaintiff's complaint,
you put some plastic sheeting up,
but not enough, and then there's some damage.
Is that your version of the story?
He agreed to do the roof.
Um, he did the demolition.
And... it was about almost six days before he came back
and started construction on the roof.
[Acker] So, to be clear,
in 2022, essentially, a new project has taken place,
which is the demolition and replacement of the work that was done in 2019.
-Correct? -That's correct.
[Acker] And so the sagging...
-Is this what we're seeing? -Yes.
[Acker] And you started to notice that sagging
three years after?
[Coleen] About two years...
[Acker] Because there are a couple of things at play here.
Now, one, you undertook this new repair job,
but had he not done that...
Right? I mean, you know, maybe there are some other reasons
that the sagging might have taken place.
But that's not really in the record. There was a warranty. You came to fix it.
You didn't complete the repair.
So why are we here? Don't you just owe her a new roof?
Or to complete the work?
I didn't think I even owed her the new roof,
but because I want my reputation to be good,
and, more than that, I didn't want that ceiling to cave in on her.
And what if it was my fault?
[Acker] That's why I don't really understand why we're here.
He came back to fix it. It started raining.
When it stops raining, why can't he just finish the job?
I'm gonna let Judge DiMango pick it up from there.
Okay.
Uh, yeah, I'm kind of having the same question in my mind.
Because I think what you did, sir, was pretty noble as a businessman.
To go in there
and to replace an entire roof because you were concerned
that there was something you could've done.
You didn't wait to be proven to have been the one that did it.
So let's start.
because these shingles that he put on, those had a 30-year warranty.
And there's nothing about the labor
that you've demonstrated that was defective
that would have caused any issue because the workmanship from the labor
is what he's warrantying.
-Okay. -[DiMango] Now, you made a point, sir,
that kind of was glossed over.
When you went up on the roof to remove the shingles...
-Yes. -...to show her,
did you go up on the roof and look at the shingles he was showing you?
No, Your Honor.
[DiMango] But he did say, "Come up here. I wanna show you there's only two layers."
No, Your Honor.
[DiMango] I'm gonna tell you, I find his statement credible.
I do. I'm looking here. I don't see three layers.
I mean, I don't understand why somebody who'd want to show three layers
just lifts it up like that, I mean... It doesn't look to me...
Unless I'm mistaken, it only looks like two layers.
But when he removed it,
how many layers did you see coming off the roof?
Honestly, I'm not, um...
You would've seen different color roofs. Different layers, different dam...
You would've seen something.
Because I don't see where he's been faulty.
He comes back at your request.
He cautiously takes everything off.
He does that because he's looking to see
whether he, indeed, is to blame for any of the, uh, damages
that you're alleging occurred inside the home.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
That part of your house had no damage absolutely
before the rainstorm?
That bathroom? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
No.
So, if it had no damage, then apparently it wasn't
all the shingles on the roof that caused the problem.
[theme music playing]
So now he goes to install the new roof...
Now, let me ask you, inside
was all of the inside, uh, equally damaged?
-From that rainstorm? -No.
Were there difference in damages from the rainstorm?
The damage to the master bathroom
was separate from what was already going on
throughout the ceiling.
Now, I think the point that we've all been trying to make
is that there are two separate times of damage.
One from 2019 to 2022,
and the second that you're contending occurred,
when he took the roof off and you had the rainstorms.
So my question to you is
did you have damage all along across the ceiling?
And did any of it get worse from the rainstorm?
And if so, where?
First of all, state of California
does not allow more than one layer of roof on a manufactured...
Okay, I'm not going back to that issue.
Let's go back to my question.
If your damages that you're claiming are from the rain,
-I want to know. -They're not from the rain.
They're not from the rain. They're not from when he took the roof off
and he put down the what... what do you call it?
No, I-I put a new roof on half of it, and we put plastic on the other half.
Yeah, no, no, I'm... that's my point. The point is you did half the roof
before the rainstorms started.
-Right. -[DiMango] So if there was any negligence
attributable to the way you covered the roof to protect it from the rain,
then clearly, inside the home,
would be more wet where you didn't cover properly
as opposed to where you had the roof already on.
That not what she's demonstrating to me at least here.
And I've asked her several times,
and we just keep going back to the same point.
If you did that, and you were now only one layer on the roof
and one that wasn't done yet and there was no damage from the rain
and that's what she's asking for, then that's not something you did.
And if it was something that occurred between '19 and '22,
you can't show me, at least, that it was from what he did
or it wasn't from other factors and variables.
At this point I don't have any other questions
so I think we're going to retire to deliberate.
Just to clarify, there is one document,
a bill that you sent, an invoice, for the master bath from the...
the damage from the water as a result of the roof not being covered.
-Right. -So when Judge DiMango asked you
if there was anything specific...
-There is one for $2,000. -[Coleen] Yes.
-[Levy] Okay. -[DiMango] And none of that was prior?
That part of your house had no damage absolutely
before the rainstorm?
That bathroom?
-Yes or no. It's a simple question. -No.
So, if it had no damage,
then apparently it wasn't all the shingles on the roof that caused the problem.
Uh, Your Honor.
[DiMango] I'm good. I assume we're all good.
We're gonna retire to deliberate. Thank you.
[Byrd] Court is now in recess. Parties are excused.
[theme music playing]
Reviewing the evidence in the case presented by the Plaintiff,
I was concerned. I was concerned
because the Defendant acknowledged
that, in fact, he had put on a roof on top of another roof.
And in fact, in the state of California, on regular homes,
two or three layers of shingles are acceptable.
Mobile home, it's only one.
Which means that you have to take off the original one
before you put on the new one.
And so whether it was two layers
-or three layers... -It was more than one.
That was my point. It was more than one.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff indicated in her direct testimony
to me as well as in her complaint that she recognized a problem immediately.
She said within six months, she noticed parts of the interior ceiling
to start drooping, but then it got progressively worse.
As far as the Defendant, yeah, he came in and he fixed what he knew he should fix.
And he said it was a dangerous situation,
so all of those things taken into consideration
as well as the fact that she had the roof put on in 2019
and there was an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
that the Defendant owed her...
The fact that- that the testimony came out as it did,
I believe that she met her burden.
I believe that $7,831 estimate
would be fair and reasonable under the circumstances,
and that's what I would award her.
I don't even think her burden was that high in this case
because not only was there an implied covenant,
there was a warranty. He gave her a ten-year warranty.
So when he came back three years later,
uh, I agree, I mean, you know, it was
maybe a good thing to do, but it was also the necessary thing
he had to do because he gave her a ten-year obligation,
but I absolutely believe that he owes her.
Well, I... see, my confusion was
this contract, the original one,
for all we know, when they talked about it, he said,
"I could take all the shingles off, and it'll cost you $10,000,
or I could just put it over this one. It'll cost you 36.
So all we have to work with is what exists now.
I don't know how we could even say whether he covered it properly or not.
She's asking for ten, and I'm not willing to do that.
So, we're gonna do that.
Mm-mmm. He has a warranty, he's gonna live up to the warranty.
The roof doesn't work, it's...f...
-Seven thousand eight thirty-one. -7,831, correct.
[theme music playing]
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
Thank you. We've had an opportunity to discuss the matter and to deliberate.
We'll say, Mr. Nichols, you know, you came back, you did the job in 2022,
and that was real stand up of you.
You had a warranty that you had offered, so, you know,
some people would've said, "Hey, it was your responsibility,"
but she didn't have to sue you to come and do the job.
You did that on your own.
Ms. Dapper, you know part of the issue was one of causation.
You know? Did, in fact, the work that Mr. Nichols did in 2019
cause the damage, the substantial damage,
to the interior of your home, the rafters, the trusses?
It was the position of all three of us that it wasn't just serendipitous
that you noticed six months after Mr. Nichols went to do the work in 2019,
-you saw the bowing... -Right.
it got progressively worse, so be it, but there was no other testimony
that that could have been excessive rain, snow, sleet, ice
where you live in California
and it was most likely caused by the excessive weight on that roof.
Yes, sir.
Based upon the fact that we don't have any other expert testimony,
we did not feel it appropriate to award you your top end of 14,000,
but we did agree unanimously to award you $7,831
that represents the damage to that home.
We wish you the best of luck, both of you. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
[Byrd] This case is now concluded. Parties are excused. You may step out.
[theme music playing]
Her son called me in a panic, and said that, uh...
"You did a roof for my mom and the ceiling is caving in."
Well, that scared me.
I mean, I would never want anybody's ceiling to cave in
especially if it was from my... my fault.
The state of California states that only one layer of roof
is legal on a manufactured home.
The weight of the shingles
almost strengthens the roof rather than caves it in.
And he said there weren't three layers. There's only two.
But it doesn't matter. You can only have one layer.
I stand by my work.
I would like to thank them very much. This has been a great experience.
[narrator] Having a family dispute?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]