AEC News You Can Use Blog

Approximately 60 lawsuits have been filed in Richland, Lexington and Horry counties alleging construction flaws in residential houses built by major national homebuilder D. R. Horton.

The lawsuits allege various construction flaws relating to roofs, I-joists, flashing, siding, weather resistant barriers and cladding (protective coverings), depending on the house. Some defects allegedly can allow water intrusion, the lawsuits allege.

They charge D.R. Horton with negligence, breach of warranties and breach of contract, and in some cases, violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. In some cases, D.R. Horton sold homes to people knowing there were defects, some lawsuits allege. The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages.

D.R. Horton sold homes to plaintiffs “that required tight construction schedules with insufficient resources and labor to build a top-quality Residence,” says one lawsuit, filed by Sam and Kristina Prest about their Little River home.

D.R. Horton, a Fortune 500 company whose stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, describes itself as the largest housebuilder in the nation. It is headquartered in Texas.

The company is currently building houses in 125 markets in 36 states, including South Carolina, according to its 2024 annual report. In South Carolina, its projects are in areas around Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Spartanburg, Hilton Head and Myrtle Beach.

After being contacted by The State, a D.R. Horton official emailed a statement saying it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

But the official said the company “is aware of the claims and actively engaging with these homeowners and their counsel” and added, “We have retained independent third-party engineers and experts to investigate the claims.”

“D.R. Horton stands behind the homes we build and remains willing to work with our homeowners to address any valid and warrantable concerns,” the statement said.

The current lawsuits are not the first against D.R. Horton in South Carolina.

Last year, D.R. Horton, subcontractors and suppliers reached a $16.1 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging construction defects in more than 200 houses in a..Read More

Jonathon Yu is not a professional developer, but he is interested in building new housing.

In 2023, the 29-year-old product manager submitted plans to Sunnyvale to raze the modest 1,000-square-foot bungalow he bought a year earlier and replace it with a three-story, five-unit multifamily building.

He paid a few thousand dollars for an architect to draw up plans, then a few thousand more to the city for application fees. His parents called him insane for spending so much, but Yu had the money, and he wanted to build housing.

He didn’t have the funds for what Sunnyvale demanded next: To get the permit for the $3 million project, he would need to pay $300,000 in impact fees, one-time charges imposed by local governments to fund improvements to infrastructure like roads, parks and schools.

“What stopped me were the impact fees,” Yu said. “If I would have completed the structure, it would’ve been the most affordable new housing in the area.”

Across the Bay Area, impact fees like those Yu encountered often surpass six figures per unit — and developers have had little leeway to challenge them.

But a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could limit the impact fees that California can levy, which some say could lower the barriers to building new housing.

The case involved California landowner George Sheetz, who challenged the $23,420 fee El Dorado County required to fund road expansions the county said were necessitated by the small home he wanted to build. Sheetz sued, arguing the Constitution’s taking clause limits what the government can take without fair compensation.

Previous cases have required such fees to be “roughly proportional” to a development’s impact. But California courts have held local governments to a lower standard

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that was incorrect, and remanded the case to the state court for reconsideration. It’s unclear what new standards the California court will.. Read More

A home builder is accused of faking his own disappearance in an elaborate plot to steal money from clients, a Texas lawsuit says.