Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)

Citation
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Parent Document
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text

459 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.