DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)

Citation
Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Parent Document
Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5106834/atherton-condominium-apartment-... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text

457 chars 
Owners learned that the product which Blume had originally applied to the exterior walls was not stucco, as Owners believed. Rather, Blume had used Kolor Krete, an allegedly inferior stucco substitute, which could be expected to deteriorate further.2 The use of Kolor Krete was not authorized in the Atherton plans and does not satisfy the UBC 1-hour fire resistivity standard. Owners also learned that Atherton contained several other construction defects.