It's a great day here in Orem, Utah. Only 8 more days to the vacation cruise of a lifetime and counting..... Last week was filled with a lot of turmoil and only 4 inspections..... When was the last time I had only four inspections in a week??? School starts this morning and that has a lot to do with the slowdown in the inspection schedule every year. We get to send Jessica off to 5th grade, Adam to 1st grade, and even Haily gets into the picture with Preschool. The lone child in the house will be little 2 year old Aaron. But don't let that fool you, he is a handful for Shelly all by himself.
The past week found me dealing with the Broker Bill fallout as well as a brand new fiasco with the Federal Government in the form of EPA prosecutors. Both of these challenges have had a way of preoccupying my life. All of this makes me love doing inspections..... Life is good while inspecting..... The challenges mainly lie back at the office. While it is true that half of the people may hate you while you inspect, my Client's always love me. It is this renewed love with each inspection that helps to keep my batteries recharged and make me look forward to the next inspection.
NOTE: Have you heard of the Body For Life program? This is an excercise program that is becoming more and more popular. It takes 12 weeks of intensive work to change the human body on their program. It requires a financial investment, exercise, a change in eating habits, diet supplements, and more exercise. The promise is that significant changes will be visible to your human tabernacle as a result.
With that premise, there are inspectors out there who are sitting around gaining weight. They say that they would love to be inspecting at least 2 homes a day, but their business phone isn't ringing. The more time that goes on, the less work comes their way. Look at good old Punky Mudsill. He is currently 8th in his marketplace and not really doing anything about it. What would happen if Punky took the Body For Life philosophy and directed it at his business? Imagine the pain, the financial investment, and the time investment that would be required on Punky's part. The promise is that by the end of 12 weeks he would be busy....... Do you believe that it can be done?
There are a handful of Inspectors in AII that could be ripped out of their current inspection areas and placed anywhere in the USA and within 12 weeks they would be busy...... Are you one of them? What is the difference between them and you? Why is it that some Inspectors are making a real go of it and others are making an expensive hobby of it? What sacrifices have the successful made that others have not? What marketing keys have some found that others have overlooked or discarded? The bottom line is that I don't know a single successful Home Inspector who has not had to make great sacrifices to be successful. None of them had it handed to them.......... None of them were just blessed with success...... None of them stumbled into success....... All of them worked hard for it.
Last week I reported that I was once again the victim of Broker Bill. Several of you responded with words of encouragement.
Michael, It seems to me the only one who can bar you from the home is the owner. I would contact the owner, let them know I had been contracted to inspect the home, and ask for written, dated and signed permission to enter the home for the purpose of inspection. If it was not granted, then no inspection. If it was, go for it. It isn't Broker Bill's home. He/she can only ban you from his own home. Roy Brown - WA
I agree with you completely, Roy, in theory. The reality is that the Listing Agent could then pollute the opinion of the Seller and they could not grant you permission. (Seller to his agent, "I just got a call from Michael Leavitt & Co and they are coming to inspect the house for Mr. Buyer." Agent, "What??!! No way...do not let him in. He is the worst home inspector. If you let him inspect your house the deal will fall through...blah, blah...blah.") By doing so the Listing Agent would have violated the conditions of the Utah Real Estate Purchase Contract.
I would follow the same path with the Association of Realtors as a mediator/arbitrator and will be real curious to hear what they have to say. It sounds highly unethical for anyone to forbid someone from using the inspector they chose. Hang in there Michael, I'm sure there will be others in your area curious to hear the outcome also. Betty Buckley - OR
Michael, How is the state contract worded? The AZ contract states the seller will make the property available for inspections. Unfortunately it does not specify "make property available for inspections by inspector of buyers choice."
We have had similar situations with new home builders and some of the restrictions they try to apply to inspectors. Our local association is fighting it as "unfair restriction of trade". Greg Land - AZ
Greg: Our contract here in Utah is much more specific than yours is in Arizona. It states.......
8. BUYER'S RIGHT TO CANCEL BASED ON EVALUATIONS AND INSPECTIONS. Buyer's ob ligation to purchase under this contract (CHECK applicable boxes):
If any of the above items are checked in the affirmitive, then Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 apply; otherwise they do not apply. The items checked in the affirmitive abaove are collectively referred to as the "Evaluations & Inspections." Unless otherwise provided in the Contract, the Evaluations & Inspections shall be paid for by the Buyer and shall be conducted by individuals or entities of Buyer's choice. Seller agrees to cooperate with the Evaluations & Inspections and with the walk-through inspection under Section 11.
Our Utah contract leaves no doubt over who gets to choose the Inspector...... Jon Gudnason shared another true life reality experience.
Michael, There is an agent in our area that I will refer to as "Agent Anne". She is always one of the top 10 agents in the county. Three or four years ago I did an inspection on one of her listings. This event occurred during the height of the ABS pipe scare in this area. There had been a recent case settled against a large developer for six figures because of the bad pipe. The developer was now part owner in the RE Co. that Agent Anne worked for. There was an office policy to have an ABS pipe inspection on any homes listed that were built during the time period that bad ABS pipe was manufactured. If bad pipe was found, it was to be repaired or disclosed to any buyer.
The buyer was upset by some of the findings in my report, which included pipe made by one of the offending manufacturers, date coded during the offending time period. The buyer almost backed out of the transaction. Agent Anne skillfully(?) patched things back together and the home was sold. Agent Anne then wrote me a pleasant letter telling me what a scoundrel I was and how I might improve my manners if I wished to be successful in the inspection business. I had been in business for six or seven years at that time. I wrote her a return, somewhat kinder letter letting her know that if she had followed her office policy this whole situation would most likely not have happened.
Since that time I have had a number of inspections cancelled because Agent Anne will not allow me to inspect her listings. The buyer's agent calls and says they need to get another inspector because Agent Anne won't let me on the property. Is this legal? I do not know. I do not think so. I do know it is not ethical. The buyer's agents do not want to push the issue because there is the chance of it souring the deal. I can't blame them. They call back the next time. The funny thing is that one of Agent Anne's best friends is an agent that calls for me 2-3 times a month and thinks I am the best guy in the world. So while Agent Anne spreads ill will, Polite Patty spreads just as much good will. We stay busy and life is too short to dwell deeply on Agent Anne's vice. Every now and then I think I should invite Agent Anne out to lunch and try and smooth things over. That would probably be the right thing to do but she is somewhat older than I am and she might die next week and then I could avoid the whole messy, uncomfortable situation. So until then I stay busy, try not to think about Agent Anne much, and every once in a while I get to inspect one of her listings before she finds out I am going to be there. That is the hardest part. Trying to stay perfectly objective when I know that she will be reading my report. Jon Gudnason - CA
I agree with the difficulty in staying objective..... If you don't think that I really gave that home a going over, then you are wrong. I took extra time to make sure that my evaluation was dead-on. Every word was well thought out. During the inspection I even considered telling the Buyer's Agent to hire the Inspector of the Listing Agent's choice at my expense. My feeling was that my report was far superior to any that would have been generated by the "Approved Inspectors" of this listing office. My feeling was that when the 2 were compared that it would be completely obvious to the Listing Agent as to how she was opening up herself to high liabilities. I came to my senses realizing that it wouldn't resolve anything except to validate that which I already know to be true...... As to taking Broker Bill out to lunch...... It will never happen because of the way he severed our relationship. I know that the offer would be flatly refused.
I think Broker Bill is crossing some legal line when he tries to restrict any buyer from using the inspector of their choice. Basically what he is saying, in effect, is that he doesn't want someone (you) to inspect his company's listing that will discover the property's hidden defects. What other reason could he have? He can tell his agents what to do, because he is their boss, but I doubt he can restrict the rights of another company's agents or their clients. If the Board of Realtors can't (or won't) help, you may want to check with your state Real Estate Commissioner. Gary Holzbauer
Good advice Gary..... But is the full opening of the can of worms the same as committing business suicide???
BULL_ _ _ _!!!!!! These arrogant pieces of stuff that stick to the bottom of your shoe when you walk through a cow pasture makes me screaming mad! Have you ever heard of slander? What bad bit of info has this broker given out to their entire office about you to justify not using you? She has discredited your good name and reputation. Slanderous, self rightous, pompous piles of irritating smelly stuff. ( Please excuse me Shelly ) I can't believe the director stuck his head in the sand on this. This is WAR, get a lawyer with big guns. but then again John Wayne was my hero, you may want to talk to someone who is a little more sensible. Chris Burkhart - UT
I love the Duke also.... I just rewatched True Grit Saturday night after BYU got steamrolled by Florida State on the gridiron. I love it when he takes on the four outlaws on horseback in the middle of the field (Watch out Dennis Hopper and Robert DuVall)....... I still think the Duke's attitude would be business suicide.
Hi Michael, I would have proceeded as you did...for the good of your clients. The listing agent, in my view, does not have the right to restrict a Home Inspector. She would if she was hiring, but she is not the client. I think you were within your proper business practice. I would think that the listing agent would be up for a legal issue for targeting you and for possible deceptive practices as a realtor. Also, you did not "let yourself into the home" with your electronic key. You were admitted by your client's selling agent. Let us know how it turns out. Jim Corbin - WA
Broker Bill sounds like he is very full of himself. At the very least he is a very unethical realtor. It sounds like this is an ongoing 'challenge' and the general public would be better off without this type of 'service.' I think he should be brought up on professional ethics charges and possibly lose his license. The situation does indeed stink. I dont believe you are trespassing, your client hired you to perform a service. With numerous challenges you found though, it casts a shadow over Broker(joker) Bill and the listing agent. Book 'em, Dano. Mark Daughtry - OR
I think that Broker Bill believes that he is fully within his rights to do what he is doing. I remember the situation clearly and he felt that I was over-reporting to the detriment of the Buyer and the Seller. His opinion of what makes a good Home Inspection report very closely relates to the majority of Home Inspection reports in our area....... What do I mean??? Well, most of the Home Inspectors in Northern Utah severely under-report the details about the home. Most do not inspect to any Standards of Practice and even those that feel they are, are not really reaching the bar. I have read the reports. I have discussed this topic with them many times. Most of them tell me that I am crazy to include details such as the age of the components and the typical life expectancies.
I flash back to Broker Bill coming unglued over the way that I reported water heaters. He could not believe that I would include that the typical lifespan of a water heater is 8 to 12 years. He was even more upset that I would provide the manufacturing date of the units. This doesn't seem that out of line to me....... Let me see, I can tell my client's when the unit was made and that they are usually installed within a year of that date. Then I can tell them that water heaters usually have a 5 or 6 year warranty, but that the units usually will last 8 to 12 years. When I presented this scenario to the local Inspectors here in Utah, most of them condemned my actions saying "We never report the appliance age or typical lifespans. Instead, we report if the unit is working or not. They are not paying us to predict the remaining lifespan." What they don't get is that I don't predict the remaining life either. But why is it such a big deal about reporting the age of the unit and how many years they typically last? I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Your clients have paid you handsomely for your best, honest, and professional opinion; so tell them what you know!"
Broker Bill would love all of these gutless Inspectors because they are afraid to ruffle the feathers of the Agents or cause any disappointments. What the local Inspectors don't fully realize is that Broker Bill and his cohorts would be the first to turn on the Inspector if the water heater went out on the Buyer 2 months after they moved in....... Go figure. Following this same logic, local Utah Inspectors would have said nothing derogatory about the 1971 avocado green Kenmore gas water heater I saw early last week. They simply would have reported that a 40 gallon gas fired unit was installed and working...... Broker Bill would have been happy with their report, but I believe that this method of reporting is a disservice to our paying client. A 29-year-old water heater in a finished basement service room without any floor drains is a "Reportable Condition" that my clients need to be fully aware of so that they can balance the risks of not upgrading the unit. The last thing that I want is that phone call 2 months later when the unit fails and the basement is flooded and the personal belongings ruined....... Apparently my inspecting method is still in the minority in my area.
The original Broker Bill confrontation (See MMM Nov 30, 1998) dealt with two 10-year-old water heaters in a finished basement service room without any floor drain. The units were working fine and that is all Broker Bill wanted reported. The roof also had a 30 year composition shingle roof and he was upset that I said they typically last 15-18 years in our climate, not the 30 years on the package. Finally he was upset because I didn't say that the Lennox Pulse heater had a Lifetime Warranty (it doesn't). I am justified in my reporting, but Broker Bill just felt that the report was a Cover Your Behind document that was getting in the middle of too many deals....... The solution...... Ban Michael Leavitt & Co from their properties.
So from Broker Bill's point of view he feels that he is doing right..... The question is..... "Is Broker Bill crossing the line?"
So what to do?.... Shelly and I contemplated going to a lawyer. We also contemplated a frontal attack to expose their actions to the public. When I slept on the topic, I decided it was best to speak with our local Utah County Board of Realtors and see what my options were. I called and scheduled an apppointment. I explained my scenario and the Executive Director said...... "Wow.... I wish I had the answer for you." We discussed the different options and then referred to the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics.
Article 3 of their Code of Ethics says... "Realtors shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client's best interest. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker." I was also pointed to Standard of Practice 3-8 "Realtors shall not misrepresent the availability of access to show or inspect a listed property"
I was encouraged by my conversation because the actions of the Listing Agent were clearly wrong, but I wanted to know how I should act when this happens again. We attempted to call the legal counsel of the Utah Association of Realtors, but he was not in the office. I was also ecouraged by the e-mail that was sent by our local Executive Director to the legal counsel which read as follows.....
We have had an interesting ethics and legal issue arise for which I need some help and guidance. The facts are as follows:
There are some potential issues with the Code of Ethics, Article 3 on the part of the listing broker/agent, and Articles 16 on the part of the sellers agent. There are also some issues with interference with a valid contract on the part of the listing agent.
The bottom line questions are:
We need some guidance.
As you can see the e-mail was pretty much on the money. I am awaiting the response from the legal counsel.
"What are your thoughts???"
Your Name:
Last week we left Punky on top of the world. He just finished inspecting a condo for pretty and purky Paula Primer. The condo had a few challenges, but everyone was happy anyway. Even Rolanda, Paula's agent, was all smiles and ready to call Punky again even though he probably killed the deal. Punky got a bonus from Paula, which he promptly took down to the corner joint for a little celebration.
We pick up the story a week later, with Punky sitting in his office staring at the phone………………….
"I can still remember old Rolanda a week ago at the condo sayin she would call again real soon. So why don't da phone ring already. I still got dial tone, although I might not next week if I don't get another job soon. Maybe I should take old Prince for a cruise past that condo and see if it's back on the market again," Punky said to no one in particular. The drive was quick, with little mid-day traffic.
I rounded the corner at 5th and Green again, just like last week. I expected to see the "For Sale" sign still up on the lawn. It wasn't there. What was there really surprised me. Paula was bent over pickin up a box to cart inside. Rolanda and Ray were there too, shlepin in a coffee table. It was a movin in party. Paula had already hired Freddie the Fixer to do the repairs. His truck was parked in the street in front of the condo. It just didn't add up. There are lots a condos in town to buy that don't have to be fixed. Why would Paula buy this piece a junk? I felt that cool breeze again on the back of my neck, like when Rolanda called the first time. Only this time the breeze was accompanied by a championship racket ball game being played in my belly.
I drove on by quickly, not wantin to be spotted. Back at the office, I saw a green, dirty and dented Chevy Citation parked in front of the walk. I brightened some, thinking some guy was waitin for old Punky, wanting to order my second job of the month. I wheeled Prince into the drive and got out. As I looked at the Chevy, I saw a guy getting outta it too. He came up to me in kinda a hurry. He was kinda small, but had some serious meat on his frame. "Hey buddy, are you Punky Mudsill?" said the little man with the big arms.
"The one and only", I shot back.
"Congratulations, Schmuck. You've been served," he said over his shoulder heading back to his green wreck.
I stood there with a sealed white envelope in my hand, staring at it like it was battery acid, which I figured it was. I walked back into the house, grabin the bottle of Mac as I went back into the office. I poured myself two fingers, then decided to make if four. It wasn't but a few seconds later that I could see the bottom of the glass again. I pulled out the paper in the envelope, and began to read. I figured it must be some kind of a joke, and read it again. It wasn't. Summons It is hereby alleged that on the date of July 5, 2000, Punky Mudsill, hereafter known as the defendant, preformed for one Paula Primer, hereafter known as the plaintiff, an inspection on condominium unit B-1 at 5th and Green for the purpose of determining condition of the unit. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant accepted payment in the amount of $300.00 for said inspection. It is also in contention that the defendant found no significant damage to the unit, and that the defendant did not furnish a written report of any findings. Based on the inspection, the plaintiff purchased said condominium unit, later discovering significant damage to the exterior and to the upper bathroom floor. The exterior damage will result in a special assessment, to be paid by the plaintiff. The interior damage will result in significant charges by the contracting repair company. It is further alleged that the defendant came to the job intoxicated, preventing adequate and professional conduct toward the plaintiff and the inspection process. The plaintiff alleges the damages to be in the amount of $35,000. Further, the plaintiff alleges punitive damages in the amount of $75,000 for the loss of purchase on another condo unit, purchased by a third party shortly after the plaintiff's decision to purchase unit B-1 at 5th and Green. The defendant is hereby ordered to the 1st Circus Court of Last Resort, Room 20A, July 24, 2000, to answer the above charges.
By the second reading I knew it was no joke. A hundred and ten thousand. I'd been had. Course, I'd been had before, so I was experienced. Pretty and purky Paula wanted a little cash. Must be Rolanda was backin her up. I did have my ace in the hole. I had purchased E&O insurance a couple a months ago. And the payments was up to date.
I needed to make a claim right away, cause the payments might not be up to date next month. The insurance guy said he was sending out a crack lawyer, Duddly Doright. I'd heard of him before. Old Duddly started out in the Canadian Mounted Police. I heard he always got his man. I was getting a famous guy. Maybe Duddly would save the day. There was a little matter of the deductible. The insurance guy wanted a grand. I told him no problem. It would be in the mail by next week. I didn't have a clue where to find a grand, but he didn't need to know that.
"Folks, I gotta stop the story right here for this week. I'm feelin a little anxious. It's time to start workin on my defense. After all, I gotta reputation to defend. I'm gonna go down to the store, get a fresh bottle of Mac, a whole box of pencils and some paper. I'm gonna write it all out for Duddly. Paula ain't getting away with this. Punky Mudsill ain't going down. You can take that to the bank".
Will Duddly want to settle after he meets Punky? Will Punky be on the street when Paula finishes with him? Will the new bottle of Mac hold up through Punky's preparation? Will this silly story ever end? You will never know unless you click on next week's MMM for the Occasional Chronicles of Punky Mudsill, alternative to the professionals and house detective Extraordinare. There and only there will you find the next exciting installment, "Hooda Ever Thunk It, Part IV.
"Michael.... This is Bob Ford from the Utah Division of Environmental Quality and I wanted to give you the heads up that the EPA has found several statements on your website that they feel are direct misrepresentations and they want to penalize you $27,000."..... That will sure wake you up in the morning. I wish that I could share the details with you, but that will have to wait until I am sure that no penalty is coming my way...... Stay tuned!!!
Thanks to the Buckley's for providing the following information from Weyerhaeuser. It can be found at: http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/news/2000/071000.htm
For Immediate Release: July 10, 2000
FEDERAL WAY, Wash.— Weyerhaeuser Company today announced that it would take an after-tax charge of $82 million during the second quarter to cover estimated costs of a nationwide class action settlement and claims related to hardboard siding. The settlement is subject to court approval and other conditions in the agreement. Weyerhaeuser expects the court to complete its review of the settlement in the fourth quarter.
"This is a claims-based settlement, which means that the claims will be paid as submitted over a nine-year period," said Robert A. Dowdy, vice president and general counsel. "An independent adjuster will review each claim submitted and determine if it qualifies for payment under terms of the settlement agreement. A small percentage of property owners with Weyerhaeuser siding have previously submitted claims under the company’s warranty program. This proposed settlement will benefit the company by ending the uncertainty and expense of defending class action litigation."
Weyerhaeuser will hold a conference call for analysts on July 10 at 8:30 a.m. PDT to discuss the settlement. To access that call, participants should dial 877-461-2816 or 416-695-9757 prior to the scheduled start time. There will be a replay available for 24 hours starting at 9:30 a.m. PDT on July 10. The replay may be accessed by calling 888-509-0082 or 416-695-9768. No conference ID code is required.
Weyerhaeuser Company (NYSE: WY), one of the world’s largest integrated forest products companies, was incorporated in 1900. In 1999, sales were $12.3 billion. It has offices or operations in 13 countries, with customers worldwide. Weyerhaeuser is principally engaged in the growing and harvesting of timber; the manufacture, distribution and sale of forest products; and real estate construction, development and related activities.
# # #
Statements contained in this press release concerning the company’s future results and performance are forward looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The accuracy of such statements is subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, including, but not limited to, the effect of general economic conditions, including the level of interest rates and housing starts; market demand for the company’s products; the effect of forestry, land use, environmental and other governmental regulations; the risk of losses from fires, floods and other natural disasters; and the company’s ability to execute its business plans, including its transition plans for the MacMillan Bloedel and TJ International acquisitions. The company is also a large exporter and is affected by changes in economic activity in Europe and Asia, particularly Japan, and by changes in currency exchange rates and restrictions on international trade. These and other factors that could cause or contribute to actual results differing materially from such forward looking statements are discussed in greater detail in the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
NOTE: Here is another helpful siding website http://www.4w.com/siding/index.htm
Last week's photo was a great view of a rafter in a brand new almost completed home. We had some great replies.....
It looks like there is no crows foot to anchor to the wall, no place for hurricane clips and a shoddy, mismatched facia system. With the notch at the end of the rafter, it looks like either the rafter was supposed to be for another location or a support member is missing. Recommend further review and comparison to design details of construction prints. Jim Corbin
No seat cut on the rafter at the plate line. In this area they would also want to see a hurricane clip holding the rafter down. Jon Gudnason
The "wafter" is not supported or secured /strapped (no visible means of support, to borrow a phrase). Is that a notch at the end? Photo taken prior to insulation or was that an additional oversight?.... Author Unknown
Looks like the infamous "flying wafter," (idiot cousin to the flying buttress.) It appears as though the rafter is resting on the soffit material(chipboard?) Questions that beg to be asked: 1)How is the rafter attached at this end to the structure? If the answer is bleeding roof sheathing nails and/or nailed to fashia we have problems. (I hope the answer is not "stapled to soffit.") 2) Is there a supporting beam directly under the seat of the rafter beneath the soffit? If so how is the rafter attached to the beam as no method of attachment is visible? 3)Why was blocking not installed between rafters? Peter Barten
No birdsmouth cut into the rafter where it bears on the exterior wall. No blocking in between the rafters. I would call this a non-professional job of roof framing. Was there a permit issued for construction? If so, then... Who is the local inspection jurisdiction? If the roof framing looks like this what other corners were cut in this building? Run. Don't walk. Run, far far away. Mark Daughtry
The answers to the Photo Challenge were right on the money. There should be at least 1 1/2" of bearing on a birdsmouth cut. In other words, the rafter cannot just set on the structure. The other interesting point is that the rafters were cut too short and they had to install little spacer blocks for the attachment of the fascia. This is one of the wonderful things about aluminum siding and enclosed soffits is that it gives the builders a chance to cover up their mistakes with good looking gift wrapping =:) This is a phrase I have long been using in my reports..... "This older house has been gift wrapped with vinyl siding which prevents my evaluating the condition of the underlying structure......"
A little birdie has just whispered in my ear that one of our very own is getting married this coming weekend. That's right, Nathan Buckley is suppossed to be making the vows....... If this is true, Nathan, then we wish you the very best. I understand that you are so busy that you are considering waking up early the following morning and getting 2 pest inspections done before she wakes up =:) If that is true, then you really are a dedicated professional...... Congratulations!!!
ANTIQUATED FUSE BOX
This week's AII™ Photo Challenge is a Blast From The Past...... I say this because it comes from an old house with a partially upgraded system. There was a new power drop, weatherhead mast, and exterior main shut off panel. On the home's interior was a new breaker panel and on the reverse side of the wall was this door covered fuse box. Notice the upper left fuses are missing and they go to the old main home shut off. Yes, that's right. The old shut off was this old fashioned throw handle on the double fuse. My first assumption was that all of these fuses were dead...... I was wrong!!! In fact, the only portion that was dead was the upper right main throw because it was now wired to the interior subpanel. Now the other fuses seen here were still live. There are six fuses installed on three 110 volt branches of knob & tube wiring. What hazards do you see? (There are several)..... What would your recommendations include?...... For the electrical saavy, please include more than just "Recommend further evaluation by a licensed Electrician." It would be a great learning experience if you could share what is wrong and why it is wrong......
For more information E-MAIL Us