CBH conducted the new-home orientation. Staff recorded items from our inspection checklist. Several items noted during the orientation remained unresolved when we reinspected the home in 2025.

Since moving in, we’ve experienced ongoing flickering of ceiling lights throughout both floors. The issue has persisted for months without resolution. On July 18, 2024, we submitted a warranty claim to CBH Homes requesting an inspection and fix.

Filed the formal one‑year workmanship warranty claim, listing many items that needed attention after living in the home for twelve months. This is the initial submission; any additional issues uncovered during follow‑up inspections, investigations, or third‑party evaluations will be added to this claim. The initial list included:

• Carpet defects: ridges, seams
• Upstairs floors squeak, flex
• Drywall nail pops
• Fresh‑air intake disconnected
• Windows difficult to open
• First‑floor subfloor dips
• Molding gaps, misaligned
• Ceiling‑corner nail pops
• Garage slab cracks
• Excess caulk on trim
• Tack‑strip nails exposed
• Ceiling‑wall cracks forming

CBH conducted their first on‑site inspection and agreed that several upstairs and downstairs floor areas showed unacceptable defects. They suggested the subfloor may not have been sanded properly and said specialists would be scheduled to investigate further.

Other issues acknowledged: squeaking floors, tight windows, loose pony walls on the stairs, and warped or gapped doors. The crew was friendly but offered patch cement work in the garage only; most items were deferred pending additional appointments.

Despite our attempts to reach out the day before, the CBH carpet inspector still arrived as scheduled. He identified multiple defects and acknowledged issues with the initial carpet installation. To properly address the poor workmanship, he explained that nearly all of the upstairs carpet would need to be replaced, as the linear design makes it impossible to match replacement sections with the existing pattern.

Sent a follow‑up email attaching two PDFs: additional photos documenting floor‑level issues and a warranty claim for the disconnected fresh‑air intake, which we temporarily fixed due to immediate health concerns.

Received an email from the warranty coordinator stating they couldn’t open the files we sent and asking for JPEGs or PDFs instead, despite the fact that we had already attached PDFs and only included a YouTube link for video evidence. This contradicted our earlier phone call, where they confirmed YouTube links were acceptable and said it was easier to keep everything in the original email thread because the warranty portal is limited.

Received a brief acknowledgment from the warranty coordinator saying they would forward our report to the builder. We replied, after several unanswered calls, asking what files they couldn’t open and reminding her we had only sent PDFs and a YouTube link they previously approved, while requesting confirmation that all materials were received.

Received an email from the warranty team stating the builder had approved replacement of part of the rear sod as a “one-time courtesy” and scheduled the work for next week. We had not submitted a sod-related request. We replied to clarify that no sod replacement was needed.

We thanked the warranty team and, before confirming dates, requested a detailed plan, estimated timelines, and any access or prep requirements (including whether we would need to vacate areas). We noted we were awaiting a structural engineering report expected by Friday, May 23.

We confirmed we were not available on May 29–30, reiterated we were awaiting the structural engineering report, and again requested comprehensive scope and timeline details before confirming new dates.

2-10 HBW updated the warranty claim to reflect the fresh air intake disconnection as completed. CBH noted our temporary fix was adequate. We subsequently replaced the temporary repair with a permanent solution. Other items on the claim remained open.

Submitted a supplemental claim with the structural engineer’s letter attached. We requested a coverage determination and a written remediation and restoration plan with schedule/notice, along with site-access and progress documentation. The letter noted observations including missing bottom‑chord bracing at kitchen floor trusses, examples of floor deflection beyond common serviceability limits, localized subfloor delamination at fastener lines (associated squeaks/bounce), and an assembly at effective capacity contributing to noticeable floor flexibility.

2-10 HBW relayed a builder update stating the floor assembly (24” O/C with 23/32” OSB, glued and nailed) meets 2018 IRC. They proposed a reassessment with the original framer and asked if Wednesday, July 16 around 3:00 PM worked.

2-10 HBW acknowledged our confirmation and said they would inform the builder of our availability and the additional information we provided.

We recapped the 7/16 visit and asked 2-10 HBW to distribute the structural report to the builder and framer, confirm the earliest date for a fully prepared return visit (including the framer), and clarify the repair plan for the loose stairs pony wall.

We requested a status update, noting the claim originated in April and that the 7/16 visit was inconclusive. We asked what timeframe the builder considers reasonable to provide a repair strategy and to schedule a conclusive follow‑up meeting.

2-10 HBW (cc: CBH Customer Care) advised that CBH Homes launched a new warranty portal and requested that all warranty submissions go through the CBH portal instead of contacting the 2‑10 team. They provided access instructions and a CBH contact for support.

We sent a third follow-up noting it had been nearly three weeks since our last update on August 22nd and over two months since the team’s visit on July 16th. We requested an update on outstanding warranty claims that have been in progress for five months.

We requested acknowledgment of the raised ridges between subfloor panels and other abnormalities that exceed the 2-10 HBW tolerance standard (1/4 inch ridge or depression within any 32-inch measurement). We noted that the builder’s teams have acknowledged these issues and they’re outlined in the structural engineering report. These conditions appear in nearly every room of the home. We requested this be acknowledged as part of the warranty scope of work before setting repair dates, and that we’d like our structural engineering team to review the proposed fixes before work begins.

We provided availability options for the reassessment visit.

The builder apologized for the delay and indicated they are still awaiting confirmation from the framer to see if a proposed date and time will work. They will provide confirmation once they hear back.

The builder confirmed a date for the framer to meet with us in late September.

The builder’s team and framer conducted a site visit to assess and mark areas that exceed measurement tolerances for repair. The team measured various locations throughout the home to determine which areas qualify for repair under warranty guidelines.

We sent a second follow-up noting it had been over three weeks without any update since the 9/30 visit. We requested an update on when the work will start to remediate the numerous issues throughout the house, and asked about updates for the other issues on the list outside of the flooring/framing issues.

We requested clarification on what the repair will include, noting that:

• The team that came last time said they would have to pull carpets to figure out the problems and didn’t know what the repair would look like yet
• We need to understand if this includes both the crawl space and all areas upstairs
• We need to plan for moving furniture from multiple rooms, emptying closets, and potential laminate flooring removal in the master bathroom
• The carpet team previously said they wouldn’t be able to just piece carpet back together due to the type and would need to replace large areas
• We need a cohesive plan to prepare appropriately

We also indicated we’d review our schedule and get back tomorrow on confirming dates, and would provide an updated list of outstanding items from the original documents sent by the warranty company.

We asked whether the area in the master bathroom would be a separate repair, noting it’s all laminate and will likely take more repair work due to pulling up floors, trim, and likely the toilet.

We indicated we’ll go through all the outstanding items and provide a final solid list. We noted there were many items that were completed or not covered, but there are for sure a bunch that were covered and never addressed. These items appear to have been lost in the transition from the warranty company’s portal to working directly with CBH. We indicated we might not be able to get to this until the weekend but will try to carve out time ASAP.

We also said we’ll get back tomorrow on confirming the repair dates.

CBH stated the master bathroom floor was upgraded after closing and is not covered under warranty (must be original builder-installed products). The service coordinator confirmed November 13 appointment with carpet retuck on November 14.

The service coordinator got management approval for the repair despite the post-closing flooring upgrade. Flooring installers unavailable for November 13, so that portion will be scheduled separately. Lumber delivery scheduled for November 12.

The service coordinator confirmed that if we leave space in the driveway for the lumber material that will be fine. They confirmed that the master bedroom, master closet, and loft/bonus room will need to be completely clear for the team.

They also confirmed the team will look at the window and pony wall during their visit.

The CBH team completed the scheduled repair work, fixing many of the floor squeaks and putting the carpet back into place. The work was performed under the crawl space to address the subfloor and framing issues.

The service coordinator scheduled same-day inspection at 4:30 PM to assess the flooring damage and remove extra garage material. CBH has no record of completing the carpet patch referenced. Window noted for additional review; pony wall deemed normal per framer (not warrantable).

We followed up on the November 14 site visit, recapping the findings: nail gun used (not screws), nails penetrating LVP in multiple locations. Repair requires vacating bottom floor, ripping out the framer’s work, and replacing flooring (estimated week or more). The framer’s workmanship was also incorrect upstairs (CBH filled gaps/holes in subfloor sheathing during previous repairs). Despite recent repairs, upstairs ridges persist and new squeaks appeared.

We requested the formal repair plan and schedule. We indicated the pony wall would be re-evaluated by an independent inspector. We requested upstairs be inspected again due to continued deficiencies.

We informed CBH we will not be available for scheduling until after the new year. We plan to reach out in early January to coordinate a date that works for everyone.

CBH acknowledged our update and indicated they will wait to hear from us.

Our structural engineer issued their report of findings from the January 29 site visit. Key conclusions: per IRC Table R503.2.1(1), the floor system is under-designed and does not meet code minimums. Square-edge sheathing was used instead of the required tongue-and-groove sheathing (or 1/4-inch underlayment), which is also not up to code. The leveling methods applied during the November 2025 repairs (filing sheathing, screwing panel edges, applying leveling compound) may temporarily improve floor flatness but do not provide a long-term solution. Upper-floor sheathing thickness was confirmed at 3/4 inch (23/32 inches). Blocking installed beneath the kitchen was improperly installed.

The report recommends replacing the existing floor sheathing with a minimum 7/8-inch tongue-and-groove sheathing (glued), or achieving compliance through closer joist spacing. Blocking should be installed in accordance with floor joist manufacturer requirements.

CBH responded to the second structural engineering report. CBH agreed to add blocking and support under the kitchen area, which had already been approved for repair. CBH declined to address the systemic issues identified in the structural engineering report, stating the current subfloor thickness meets code requirements. The engineering report did not cite subfloor thickness as the issue. The report identified square-edge sheathing used instead of the required tongue-and-groove sheathing and an under-designed floor system that does not meet IRC code minimums. CBH’s response did not reference these findings. This is the second time CBH has refuted findings from a licensed structural engineering report without providing supporting documentation or methodology. CBH asked which window we were referring to, stating their records showed the window item as completed. The window issue was first reported on April 14, 2025, and we informed CBH that the item was prematurely marked as completed on April 27, 2025, November 11, 2025, and February 26, 2026. CBH offered to patch a small area of carpet.