CAUSE NO. ___________________________

LEROY VENTRESS and TAMMI VENTRESS, Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., and TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD. Defendants

§ §§§§§§§§§§§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION ______________________________________________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES LEROY VENTRESS and TAMMI VENTRESS, (“Plaintiffs”)

complaining of Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., and Taylor Woodrow Communities – League City,

LTD, (“Defendants”), and for cause show the Court as follows:

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Plaintiff intend discovery in this case to be conducted under the provisions of Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure 190, Level 3, and requests that the Court enter an appropriate scheduling order.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a resident of Galveston County, Texas, and reside at 2008 Nogalas Lane, League

City, Texas 77573.

3. Defendant Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. is a Domestic For-Profit Corporation that may

be served through its registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., at 1999 Bryan Street,

Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

Filed: 3/3/2020 1:12 PMJOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk

Galveston County, TexasEnvelope No. 41333386

By: Ann Vaughn3/3/2020 2:19 PM

Galveston County - 405th District Court

20-CV-0330

Status Conference Set for 6-4-20 e-mailed to atty. 2-3-20

4. Defendant, Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City, Ltd. is a Domestic Limited

Partnership that may be served through its registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., at

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant

to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure §47, Plaintiffs seek monetary relief in excess of $200,000

but not more than $1,000,000.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction of the parties because both Defendants are domestic

entities and the Plaintiffs reside in Galveston County.

7. Venue is proper in Galveston County because the cause of action alleged arose in

Galveston County and the real property subject to this suit is sited in Galveston County.

FACTS

8. This case involves construction defects and related fraud that have caused significant

personal injury and sickness as well as damage to the Plaintiff’s property and numerous other

properties in their neighborhood. The Plaintiffs purchased a house located at 2008 Nogalas Lane,

League City, Texas 77573, in the Mar Bella development in League City, Texas. The sales

contract was signed on or about March 22, 2016. Prior to entering into the sales contract and prior

to the closing on or about May 26,2016, Defendants knew of significant mold and/or moisture

problems that had occurred and were developing in identical and/or similar homes and floorplans

as the Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to disclose this significant information. Plaintiffs would not

have entered into the sales contract and would not have closed if they had known of the other

significant problems in similarly designed houses.

9. The cornerstone of the American dream is homeownership. However, for this family, the

American dream has turned into a nightmare of personal injury, frustration, anxiety and

uncertainty. Or as Taylor Morrison puts it, “inconvenient, frustrating and extremely stressful.” As

has been reported by the Houston Chronicle, Galveston Daily News, KHOU and numerous other

media outlets, Mar Bella is plagued with “moldy homes” because of an extensive list of

construction and design defects, which Defendants have now acknowledged exist and need to be

remedied in the Plaintiffs’ home. (See Exhibits A & B Oct 2018 letters)

10. The beautiful master-planned community on the eastern side of League City is

unfortunately now often referred to by residents as “Mold Bella”. Taylor Morrison describes the

community on their website as, “acres of lakes, preserves, greenbelts, parks and plenty of palm

trees, Mar Bella offers a slice of paradise”. Because of the Defendants multiple widespread

construction defects, including but not limited to the building envelope, roof, the attic, the HVAC

and shower installation, the paradise has been upended and the streets have become filled with

dumpsters sitting in front of empty homes.

11. Unfortunately, construction defect claims are not new to the Defendants and the various

associated entities, partnerships, subsidiaries and holding companies that make up Taylor Morrison

Home Corporation.

12. The Plaintiff’s home has developed significant mold growth and mycotoxins resulting from

multiple construction defects.

13. Taylor Morrison is well aware of the problem they created. On October 4, 2018 Taylor

Morrison sent a letter, allegedly to all Mar Bella homeowners, (See Exhibit A), where they

acknowledged the problems and admitted they were aware of the problems, for many months, and

advised they did not know what the solution was, but they were searching for an answer:

“October 4, 2018

Dear Mar Bella Homeowner,

We extend our sincerest apology for the negative experience and concerns you have faced as we work to fix the moisture issues in the affected homes in Mar Bella-we know it has been inconvenient, frustrating, and extremely stressful. We also recognize that you deserve to be kept informed of the current situation in the community and we are moving forward with a consistent communication plan. Today, we would like to provide you a real-time update.

First, we want to reassure you that Taylor Morrison stands behind its homes and will not stop until the problem is solved. In our work toward a final solution, we have made significant progress over the last few months with external, independent experts and will continue to partner with industry experts within our organization and beyond to repair the issues that exist within the affected homes today.

Some of the previous attempts to fix homes in Mar Bella with these excessive moisture issues have not worked despite our efforts. Even though the symptoms are clear, the cause of the problem is multifaceted, making it sometimes difficult to diagnose and determine the appropriate repair. Also, each home or floorplan appears to have a slightly different cause or combination of causes (e.g. ventilation, duct installation, system design, etc.). Second, the experts have conducted and continue to perform onsite inspections and research over the last several months to diagnose the specific causes and potential solutions. We are currently evaluating new repair options and testing them in a sample of homes within Mar Bella to ensure they are permanent, effective solutions before we begin installing them in the impacted homes. The test cases will be monitored closely to determine their effectiveness. Once the tests are concluded, we will provide you with detailed information about our plans to repair the impacted homes. While we may not have all of the answers, we are committed to ongoing, routine communication moving forward so you know where we stand at all times.”

14. Taylor Morrison further acknowledged the problem a couple of weeks later (See

Exhibit B):

“October 31, 2018

Dear Mar Bella Homeowner,

Taylor Morrison has continued its work with a team of experts to develop a remedy for the excessive condensation and, in some cases, mold issues that you have been experiencing with your home. Since our last communication, we have inspected many homes with experts leading the way, installed and monitored various equipment options, and consulted with those same experts to finalize a repair protocol for Mar Bella. This effort has been focused on both controlling the elevated humidity in your attic, which contributes to excessive

condensation, as well as reducing indoor humidity for your comfort. Those plans have now been finalized and the experts are confident in the proposed solutions to fix the problem.

Please understand that every home in Mar Bella will not receive the same repair because the severity of the condensation varies from mild to significant in the affected homes. Also, the particular work needed to fix the problem depends on a variety of factors that include, but are not limited to, the design, installation, and equipment selection of your current HVAC system, the ventilation of the attic space, the design of the home, etc. Therefore, we will not take a "one size fits all" approach when implementing the proper repair. We will focus on you, your issue and provide a solution that is tailored to your home.”

15. Plaintiffs developed concerns about mold in their house.

16. As a result of their concerns, in December 2018, Plaintiffs retained Vanderford Air to perform

an inspection of their HVAC system. The results of the inspection were, no doubt, similar to

what Taylor Morrison already knew… there was mold in the attic and throughout the house.

Specifically, as it related to the HVAC system, Vanderford found and recommended:

“Cooling performance The air conditioning system design is not optimal. The zone control system, dampers and bypass damper are not set up correctly. This has caused major condensation issues on the furnace, evaporator coil and supply air plenum.

Fresh Air The system has a 6” fresh air damper that is controlled by a Honeywell Prestige EIM. It has not been set up correctly at the Honeywell Prestige EIM. This is causing the damper to stay open at 100%. This increases humidity levels inside the home. The fresh air duct also needs conditioned before entering the home. In our climate, unconditioned fresh air is a major problem. This can cause a multitude of issues in any home. The correct way to resolve this issue is by installing a whole house dehumidifier to condition the air before it enters the home. Ventilation The home has ridge vents and soffit vents. One additional vent was found above the HVAC system to help the attic breathe. More attic ventilation is required.

Recommendations Because of the mold growth we observed we recommend replacing the HVAC unit as well as all duct work and associated distribution lines, return lines and vents. The EPA states if the home has insulated ducts and the insulation gets wet or moldy, it should be removed and replaced as it cannot be effectively cleaned (see attached). The interior construction of the duct work and plenum is porous in nature and as such it is not capable of being cleaned to the degree necessary to ensure complete removal of the mold (see NADCA ACR Standard 4.17 and IICRC

S520). Given the history of mold issues in the home, it is critical to have a UV light installed to prevent any growth from returning. The fresh air needs to be set up correctly and dehumidified to keep the humidity levels under control throughout the year. In addition, a whole house dehumidifier needs to be installed in the attic space to condition the fresh outdoor air entering the system. The vent pipe needs to be correctly installed to code. It is laying against a supply air duct. This is also a major safety concern that needs to be addressed immediately. The cost of total replacement of both systems and along with a dedicated dehumidifier and UV light, complete duct system redesign/replacement, media filter and professional installation would be: $30,610.

17. It is important to note that Vanderford’s cost estimate did not include any demolition, mold

remediation, decontamination or construction costs, only equipment and installation.

18. An extensive mold assessment on the Plaintiffs’ home was performed by Texas Mold

Inspectors (TMI). The inspections and testing by TMI confirmed the presence of various mold and

mycotoxins within the Plaintiffs’ house. TMI prepared a mold remediation protocol which

requires extensive demolition, remediation and reconstruction which will require the Plaintiffs to

move out of the house for an extended period of time.

19. Staples Consulting Group prepared a detailed line by line, 54-page mold repair estimate to

comply with the mold remediation protocol prepared by TMI. The total for the demolition,

remediation, mold protocol compliance and reconstruction totaled $690,277.13. Staples

Consulting Group and Plaintiffs also prepared and submitted to Taylor Morrison a detailed

contents claim for $378,262.53.

20. In compliance with the Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA), Plaintiffs sent all

reports and information to Taylor Morrison on or about May 17, 2019. (See Exhibit C)

21. After receiving the RCLA Notice, Taylor Morrison had its mold inspectors, Mold

Inspection Sciences, perform an inspection (as they have on tens if not hundreds of Mar Bella

houses). MIS came to the same conclusion as Plaintiffs’ experts, the house is contaminated with

mold. In fact, Taylor Morrison’s experts found mold in the Master Bathroom, Entry, Husband’s

Closet, Landry Room, and HVAC Unit in Attic. Taylor Morrison’s mold expert, MIS, conclusion

is also similar to Plaintiffs’ expert:

“Final Conclusion Based on the findings of the visual inspection and/or the lab results of the samples collected, mold remediation is needed.”

22. Taylor Morrison also retained Norex Engineering’s Michael Scanlon to perform an

inspection (as they have on tens if not hundreds of Mar Bella homes). His findings are always

similar, because Taylor Morrison repeated the same design and construction defects over and over

and over in Mar Bella. Mr. Scanlon’s Report found mold as the result of design, installation and

construction defects. (Exhibit D). Mr. Scanlon’s opinion (like on tens if not hundreds of his other

reports in the Mar Bella subdivision) was,

“It is the opinion of Norex Engineering that all parties involved in the design and installation of HVAC equipment and creation of thermal boundary shall (sic) have notified and warned the builder that operation of this equipment as designed would most likely lead to excess condensation in the attic and inadequate environment control within the thermal envelope.

23. Specifically, with regard to Plaintiffs’ house, Taylor Morrison’s expert, Mr. Scanlon,

found:

• Improperly installed ducts; • Bottom and side of supply plenum had condensation present during the time of

inspection; • Air handler had an amount of corrosion, evidence of substantial condensation, and

Cladosporium mold; and • Norex observed poorly sealed walls between conditioned and unconditioned space.

24. At all times pertinent herein, Defendants, and any of Defendants’ agents, who were acting

in the scope of their employment, were guilty of negligent conduct toward the Plaintiffs by the

following:

A. Failing to properly design, construct, install and inspect the building envelope, roof,

attic, HVAC system, showers, interiors and discover and remediate the dangerous conditions;

B. Failing to give adequate and understandable warnings to Plaintiffs of the unsafe

conditions of the building envelope, roof, attic, HVAC system, showers, interiors;

C. Failing to provide warnings to Plaintiffs of the unsafe conditions;

D. Withholding knowledge of the construction defects plaguing Plaintiffs’ and neighbors’

home and causing personal injuries;

E. Failing to remove the toxic mold and mycotoxins causing injury;

F. Failing to design a full and complete remedy.

25. Defendants and Defendants’ agents knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, had reason

to know that the toxic mold and mycotoxins constituted an unreasonable and dangerous condition

to Plaintiffs.

26. Plaintiffs would show the Court that the above-described acts and omissions of negligent

conduct constituted the proximate cause of serious personal injury and other damages as detailed

below.

CAUSES OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES

27. Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability. The mold and mycotoxin

growth, as well as the construction defects that caused said mold and mycotoxin growth, are latent

defects that rendered the home unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise unfit for living therein.

28. Defendants breached the implied warranty of good workmanship due to their failure to

construct the house in a manner as would a generally proficient builder engaged in similar work

and performing under similar circumstances.

NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION

29. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs and others to exercise ordinary care and to provide a

reasonably safe constructed home.

30. Defendants breached said duty of reasonable care by allowing longstanding issues from

the construction of the home to remain unaddressed, allowing the growth of toxic mold and

mycotoxins, and by their failure to address known issues and take other reasonable measures to

remove the toxic mold and mycotoxins and make the premises reasonably safe for Plaintiffs and

any other occupants.

31. The Defendants’ failure to exercise such reasonable care was the actual cause and the

proximate cause of the severe personal injury suffered by Plaintiffs.

FRAUD IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION

32. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for fraud in a transaction involving real estate.

33. Defendants knew of their systemic construction defects that had caused mold and

mycotoxin issues, including personal injuries, in other houses in the neighborhood with the exact

same/similar design and construction methodology, and failed to disclose this knowledge at the

time of negotiation, sale, or closing.

34. Specifically, Defendants represented that it would build Plaintiffs’ home to a safe and

particular standard but knew that representation to be false.

35. Defendants made representations of material fact regarding the quality and condition of the

homes in Mar Bella and, absent such representations, Plaintiffs would not have acted as they did.

36. Defendants knew or should have known such representations were false and/or made

recklessly without any knowledge of their truth as a positive assertion.

37. The statements were made with the intention that they should be acted upon by Plaintiffs,

who in turn acted in reliance upon the statements, thereby causing Plaintiffs to suffer injury and

constituting fraud.

BREACH OF CONTRACT

38. Plaintiffs had a valid, enforceable contract in place, issued by Defendant. The Plaintiffs

were the beneficiary of the contract.

39. The Plaintiffs fully performed their contractual obligations by paying for the service of the

construction of their home.

40. Defendants breached the contract by not performing the services that were contracted.

41. Defendants further breached the contract by not honoring the warranty issued at the time

of issuance.

42. The actions by Defendants and their designated agents constitute a material breach of

Defendant’s contract with the Plaintiffs. As a result of this breach of contract, the Plaintiffs have

suffered the damages that are described in this petition, the producing cause of which are

Defendants’ actions.

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION LIABILITY ACT

43. Defendant violated Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code. The Residential Construction

Liability Act (RCLA), permits recovery of damages or other relief arising from construction

defects. Plaintiffs complied with the Notice requirements of RCLA. (See Exhibit C). Defendants’

response was unreasonable because, among other things, Defendants failed to address all defects

and damages, failed to allow Plaintiffs to choose their own contractor, failed to specify exactly

what would be done and by who and how much it would cost so that Plaintiffs could compare and

verify all necessary removal, redesign, decontamination and repair was accomplished, failed to

acknowledge and include compliance with Texas Administrative Code Mold Remediation

Requirements, failed to include adequate alternative living expenses, offered inadequate cleaning

instead of replacement of contaminated contents.

QUANTUM MERUIT

44. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs under the equitable theory of recovery of Quantum

Meruit, which is designed to prevent an unjust enrichment when there is an implied agreement to

pay for benefits received.

45. Specifically, after the Plaintiffs paid for the home construction, Defendants’ negligent

actions caused Plaintiffs additional damages and costs to the HVAC system of the house and

bedrooms, bathrooms, showers, building envelope, attic, as well as interior damage to carpet, walls

and contents of the Plaintiffs’ house.

46. Furthermore, the purpose for which the Plaintiffs retained Defendants, to build the house,

was not properly done, as the house is suffering from multiple mold and mycotoxin issues related

to the design and construction.

47. As a result of these actions, the Plaintiffs have suffered the damages that are described in

this petition, the producing cause of which are Defendants’ actions.

VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-47 as if set forth fully at length below and

for all purposes.

49. At the time of the transaction above, Defendants represented that the real property

purchased by Plaintiffs was of the best quality, that it was reasonably safe and would be suitable

for human habitation, and that it had a reasonable building envelope, roof, attic, shower, and

HVAC system.

50. The conduct of the Defendants as described in this petition was committed knowingly.

Defendants were actually aware, at the time of the advertising, negotiation, sale and closing, of the

falsity, deception, and unfairness of the conduct about which Plaintiffs complain. As a direct result

of Defendants’ knowing misconduct, Plaintiffs suffered mental anguish. Furthermore, Plaintiffs

suffered severe personal injury as a result of Defendant’s knowing misconduct which has

continued through this date. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for mental anguish

damages suffered by Plaintiffs and for additional damages up to three times the amount of

economic damages as permitted by the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection

Act.

51. The conduct of the Defendants, as described in this petition, was committed intentionally

in that Defendants had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of the act or practice

coupled with the specific intent that the Plaintiffs would act in detrimental reliance on the falsity

or deception or in detrimental ignorance of the unfairness. As a result of Defendants’ intentional

misconduct, Plaintiffs suffered mental anguish. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for

mental anguish suffered by Plaintiffs and additional damages of up to three times Plaintiffs’

economic damages and damages for mental anguish as provided by the Deceptive Trade

Practices—Consumer Protection Act.

52. Defendants engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices that the Plaintiffs

relied on to Plaintiffs’ detriment.

53. Defendants represented that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade,

or that goods are of a particular style or model, but they were of another. See Tex. Bus. & Comm.

Code § 17.46(b)(7).

54. Defendants represented that a guarantee or warranty confers or involves rights or remedies

which Taylor Morrison did not have or involve. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(20).

55. Defendants failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which were known

at the time of the transaction and such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce

the Plaintiffs into a transaction which the Plaintiffs would not have entered had the information

been disclosed. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(24)

56. Defendants breached implied warranties by failing to adhere to customary construction

standards resulting in substantial damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. See Tex. Bus. & Comm.

Code § 17.50(a)(2).

DISCOVERY RULE

57. Defendants are estopped from asserting the affirmative defense of limitations because

Plaintiffs did not discover, nor could Plaintiffs have discovered by the exercise of reasonable

diligence, the existence of their causes of action against Defendants until less than two years prior

to the date on which Plaintiffs filed this original petition.

DAMAGES

58. Plaintiffs sustained economic damages as a result of the construction defects, including but

not limited to, the following:

a. Reasonable costs of repairs necessary to cure any construction defects,

b. Reasonable costs to remediate all mold and mycotoxins and rebuild following such

remediations,

c. Reasonable and necessary costs to replace or repair any damaged personal property in

the home,

d. Reasonable and necessary engineering and consulting fees,

e. Reasonable expenses of alternative housing during such repair and remediation,

f. Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses.

59. As a direct and proximate result of the occurrences made the basis of this lawsuit, the

Defendants’ negligent and/or intentional acts as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered physical

injury and illness, and continue to endure anxiety, pain, and illness resulting in damages.

60. Defendants’ acts or omissions, which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the

Defendants at the time of occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the

probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Defendants had actual, subjective

awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the

rights, safety or welfare of the Plaintiffs.

61. Defendants’ acts or omissions described above, when viewed from the standpoint of the

Defendant at the time of the act or omission, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the

probability of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and others.

62. Therefore, Plaintiffs sue for exemplary damages in the amount to be determined at trial.

63. Defendants negligence in construction caused and/or aggravated, exacerbated or

accelerated an otherwise nonexistent, un-detectable or benign reactive airway disease and/or

asthma.

64. Defendants’ breach of its duty proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs, and as a direct and

proximate result of the aforementioned actions and/or omissions of Defendant the Plaintiffs have

sustained the following:

(a) Past reasonable and necessary medical expenses:

(b) Future reasonable and necessary medical expenses;

(c) Past and, in all reasonable probability, future physical pain and suffering;

(d) Past and, in all reasonable probability, future physical impairment;

(e) Past and, in all reasonable probability, future mental anguish;

(f) Attorney’s fees and costs of court for gross negligence;

(g) Actual damages for breach of contract;

(h) Attorney’s fees for breach of contract;

65. By reason of the above, Plaintiffs have suffered losses and damages in a sum within the

sole discretion of the jury.

ARBITRATION

66. Plaintiffs acknowledge an alleged arbitration clause in the contract that the Defendants may

invoke, however, because of the fraud in the inducement of a real estate transaction, and other

alleged prior knowledge, fraudulent activity and misrepresentations, the arbitration provision is

void, voidable and/or unenforceable.

67. The Plaintiffs’ personal injury claims are not subject to arbitration, and if the Court

determines that any or all of Plaintiffs other allegations are required to be arbitrated, Plaintiffs’

personal injury claims should be allowed to proceed in this court, at a minimum, the non signatory

minor’s personal injury claims should remain in this court.

68. In the event Defendants invoke arbitration, Plaintiffs request this court appoint an

arbitrator.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

69. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary engineering, consulting and

attorneys' fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff, including all fees necessary in the event of an

appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court of Texas, as provided by

Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code, and common law.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

70. All conditions precedent to filing of this suit have been met. (See Exhibit C, RCLA and

DTPA Compliant Notice.)

REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

71. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that

Defendants disclose within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the information or material

described in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

72. Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that, upon trial hereof, said

Plaintiffs have and recover such sums as would reasonably and justly compensate them in

accordance with the rules of law and procedure, as to actual damages, and all punitive and

exemplary damages as may be found. In addition, Plaintiffs request the award of attorney’s fees

for the trial and any appeal of this case, for all costs of Court on their behalf expended, for

prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, and for any other and further relief,

either at law or in equity, to which it may show itself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

EILAND & BONNIN, PC _____________________________ A Craig Eiland State Bar No. 06502380 2200 Market Street, Suite 501 Galveston, Texas 77550 Telephone: (409) 763-3260

Facsimile: (409) 763-8154 Email: ceiland@eilandlaw.com

______________________________ Shaun W. Hodge HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC State Bar No. 24052995 Old Galveston Square 2211 The Strand, Suite 302 Galveston, Texas 77550 Phone: (409) 762-5000 Facsimile: (409) 763-2300 Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com THE FAUBUS FIRM

/s/ Dax O. Faubus Dax O. Faubus State Bar No. 24010019 1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6400 Facsimile: (713) 222-7240 dax-notice@faubusfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE TO DEFENDANT

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(a): The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(b): Name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(c): The legal theories and, in general, the factual basis for your claims or defenses. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(d): The amount and any method of calculating economic damages. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(e): The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(f): For any testifying expert:

(a) the expert’s name, address, and telephone number; (b) the subject matter on which the expert will testify; (c) the general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a brief

summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to your control, documents reflecting such information;

(d) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to your control: (i) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that

have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and

(ii) the expert’s current resume and bibliography. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(g): Any indemnity or insurance agreement under which any person/entity may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment rendered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(h): Any settlement agreements. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(i): Any witness statements. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(j): All medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 194.2(l): The name, address and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party. RESPONSE:

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS, TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR

WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD

TO: TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD., Defendants

NOW COMES, LEROY VENTRESS and TAMMI VENTRESS, Plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered cause, and requires that TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD., Defendants, answer the following Requests for Production pursuant to Rule 196.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs requires that answers to same and copies of the original documents be served upon Eiland & Bonnin, PC and The Hodge Law Firm, PLLC. Pursuant to Rule 196.3, the documents must be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the requests for production. Pursuant to Rule 196.2, a Response to these Requests shall be served within fifty (50) days after receipt of the Requests.

Respectfully submitted,

EILAND & BONNIN, PC

______________________________ A Craig Eiland State Bar No. 06502380 2200 Market Street, Suite 501 Galveston, Texas 77550 Telephone: (409) 763-3260 Facsimile: (409) 763-8154 Email: ceiland@eilandlaw.com ______________________________ Shaun W. Hodge HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC State Bar No. 24052995 Old Galveston Square 2211 The Strand, Suite 302 Galveston, Texas 77550 Phone: (409) 762-5000 Facsimile: (409) 763-2300 Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com

THE FAUBUS FIRM

/s/ Dax O. Faubus Dax O. Faubus State Bar No. 24010019 1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6400 Facsimile: (713) 222-7240 dax-notice@faubusfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Pursuant to the provisions of TEX. R. CIV. P. 196, you are hereby requested to produce the below-designated documents. These Requests are to be considered as continuing, and you are requested to provide by way of supplemental answers such additional information as you or any other person acting on your behalf may obtain which will augment or otherwise modify your response given to the Request below. Such supplemental responses are to be filed and served upon this party immediately upon receipt of such information. The following terms shall have the meaning indicated below:

a. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, federations or any other kind of entity.

b. “Document” means any printed, typewritten, mechanically or otherwise recorded matter of whatever character including but not without limitation, letters, purchase orders, memoranda, telegrams, notes, catalogues, brochures, diaries, reports, calendars, inter- and intra-office communications, statement, investigative reports, announcements, depositions, answers to interrogatories, pleadings, judgments, newspaper articles, photographs, tape recordings, motion pictures and any carbon or photographic copies of any such material if you do not have custody or control of the original. If any document requested to be identified was, but is no longer in your possession or control or is no longer in existence, state whether it is (1) missing or lost; (2) destroyed; (3) transferred voluntarily or involuntarily to others, and if so, to whom, or (4) otherwise disposed of, and in each instance explain the circumstances surrounding an authorization of such disposition thereof, state the approximate date thereof and describe its contents.

c. “You” and “Your” shall mean the party to whom these questions are directed as well as agents, employees, attorneys, investigators and all other persons acting for said “party.”

d. The term “communication” means any oral or written utterance, notation, or statement of any nature whatsoever, by and to whomsoever made, including, correspondence, conversations, dialogues, discussions, interviews, consultations, agreements, and other understandings, among two or more persons.

PRIVILEGED OR PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS

If any document requested is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege or work product, or otherwise, you are requested to submit in lieu of any such information a written statement, no later than the date of the commencement of the document production:

a. Identifying the person or persons who prepared or authored the document and, if applicable, the person or persons to whom the document was sent or shown;

b. Specifying the date on which the document was prepared or transmitted; c. Identifying the subject matter of the document; d. Describing the nature of the document (e.g., letter, telegram, etc.); e. Stating the number of pages, attachments, and appendices;

f. Stating the identity of each person who had access to, custody of, and who received a copy of the document;

g. Identifying the present custodian; h. Stating the reason why the document was not produced; i. Stating briefly why the document is claimed to be privileged or to constitute work

product; and j. Identifying the paragraph of this request to which the document relates.

If any document relates in any way to a meeting or to any conversation, all participants in the meeting or conversation are to be identified.

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

For electronically stored information, please produce, no later than the date of the commencement of the document production, a discovery log that details the type of information, the source of information, the discovery request to which the information corresponds, and the information’s electronic ID number. Write all the electronically stored information to a reasonably usable storage media, such as a CD, DVD, or Flash Drive.

For electronically stored information, identify every source containing potentially responsive information that You are not searching or producing.

LOST OR DESTROYED DOCUMENTS

If any document requested has been lost, discarded, or destroyed, you are requested to submit a written statement no later than the date of the commencement of the document production, identifying as completely as possible each such document so lost, discarded or destroyed. Identification of each such document shall include the date of disposal, manner of disposal, reason for disposal, persons authorizing the disposal, persons having knowledge of the disposal and persons disposing of the company.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all communication and correspondence between you and the HVAC contractor regarding ALL complaints that you attribute to the design or installation of the HVAC system. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all demands for coverage as an additional insured, contractual indemnity or contractual contribution to any contractor, subcontractor, architect or engineer related to claims or mold, moisture, smells, HVAC, attics, roofs, baths or showers for homes in the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents referring to or describing “the problem” as referenced in Defendants October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Original Petition) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all drafts with comments of the October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents, correspondence and communication with “external, independent experts” and “industry experts within our organization and beyond” to repair the issues referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents that identify “the issues” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents which identify the “cause of the problem” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents identifying the causes or combination of causes referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (“each home or floorplan appears to have a different cause or combination of causes (e.g. ventilation, duct installation, system design, etc).” (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all research conducted by “the experts” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all “new repair options” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce the results of all “testing them in a sample of homes within Mar Bella” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce “detailed information about our plans to repair the impacted homes” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all “ongoing, routine communication” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all communication and correspondence to or from Marbella@taylormorrison.com referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents forming and/or identifying “a dedicated Mar Bella team comprised of personnel fully focused on assisting Mar Bella residents until all issues have been resolved” referred to in your October 4, 2018 letter to Mar Bella Homeowners. (Exhibit A) RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce the sales contract of Plaintiffs’ home construction making the basis of this suit. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce the entire investigation files generated and maintained by Defendant in the ordinary course of business pertaining to Plaintiffs’ claim(s) making the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All training and educational materials which instruct employees or representatives in handling claims for warranty requests from homeowners. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All communications and documents including electronic between Defendant and Plaintiffs regarding Plaintiffs’ house/home/claim(s). RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All communications and documents, including electronic, between Defendant and any third-party regarding Plaintiffs’ claim(s). This includes but is not limited to communication and correspondence related to Plaintiffs complaints or claims regarding HVAC and/or mold with architects, engineers, contractors or subcontractors who originally designed or built the home, the mold inspection company (Mold Inspection Services) and Norex Engineering Inc/Michael Scanlon and any proposed contractor or subcontractor for the proposed repair of Plaintiffs home. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All communications and documents, including electronic, between Defendant and any other entity regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All communications and documents, including electronic, between Defendant’s business departments, including all individuals or entities part of the Defendant company, regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All communications and documents Defendants sent to any other entity regarding Plaintiffs or the property, after Defendants were notified of Plaintiffs’ claim(s). RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All photographs, diagrams, drawings, or other graphic depictions of the Plaintiffs or the Property made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Any and all documents, reports, data, emails, notes, photos, videos, manuals, guides, and summaries regarding the claim(s) made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Any and all request, complaints, reports, claim files and claim reports, including but not limited to notes, emails, data, photos, videos, manuals, guides, summaries and claim documents, regarding all warranty claims made by homeowners in Mar Bella to Defendants, specifically regarding mold, smells, moisture, HVAC, attics, roofs, bath tubs or showers in the Mar Bella Subdivision. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All documents, including reports, estimates, data, emails, testing, sampling, videos, and photographs prepared by or received by Defendants regarding inspections of Plaintiffs’ Property made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Any and all records or documents Defendants have reviewed and/or obtained regarding Plaintiffs’ Property made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Any and all materials, documents, statements and/or files that reflect verbal or written complaints, RCLA notices, DTPA notices and/or lawsuits filed by homeowners against Defendant regarding the construction, repair and/or addressing of homeowner warranty claims in Mar Bella Subdivision. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. Defendants may exclude RCLA and DTPA Notice served by the undersigned counsel. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: A copy of each advertisement Defendants have used, published and/or distributed, through any means, in Texas. This request is limited to the last five (5) years. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Any and all materials, documents, files, and/or reports sent to Defendants by its contractors, experts, employees, agents, and/or representatives on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis regarding Plaintiffs’ claim(s). Include any and all field notes and summaries of the room-by-room scope of Plaintiffs’ Property made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Any and all materials, documents, files, invoices, and/or reports of any and all experts, contractors and roofing companies retained to investigate, inspect, and/or evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim(s) made the basis of this lawsuit, prepared on behalf of the Defendants. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Any and all materials, documents, files, invoices, and/or reports of any and all contractors, engineers or workers retained to investigate, inspect, and/or evaluate claims similar in nature to Plaintiffs’ claim(s) asserted in this lawsuit, prepared on behalf of Defendants. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: The most recent address maintained on file for any and all employees or representatives assigned to Plaintiffs’ claim made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Any and all documents reflecting company guidelines, procedures, or policies that serve as criteria for evaluating whether claims are covered or excluded by any policy provisions Defendants contends applied to Plaintiffs’ claim(s). RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Any and all organizational charts for Defendants. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Any and all organizational charts or diagrams for each department, unit, or section of Defendants. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Any and all charts or diagrams reflecting the chain of command or supervisory hierarchy relating to each person involved in handling Plaintiffs’ claim(s). RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Any and all documents related to the first 10 notices or complaints of mold, moisture, smells, HVAC, showers or baths. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Any and all documents, including correspondence and checks, exchanged between Defendants and any and all vendors concerning Plaintiffs’ claim(s). RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Any and all documents relating to or reflecting any and all inspectors, engineers, or employees assigned to Plaintiffs’ claim made the basis of this Lawsuit, from the time of hiring through the present. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Any and all documents relating to the assignment of Plaintiffs’ claim(s) to any and all inspectors, engineers or employees assigned to Plaintiffs’ claims made the basis of this lawsuit, from the time of hiring through the present. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: If you are withholding documents based upon the assertion of a privilege, please produce a privilege log, detailing with reasonable particularity a description of the documents withheld, the number of documents, and the applicable privilege which Defendants claim properly precludes the information discovery. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Any and all advanced or specialized certifications of personnel who inspected, investigated, and/or supervised the investigation of the claim(s) pertaining to the Property made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Any and all documents, including contracts, rules, guidelines and/or instructions exchanged between Defendants, Plaintiffs and any and all inspectors, engineers, or employees assigned to Plaintiffs’ claims made the basis of this Lawsuit, from the time of hiring through the present, and any other entities with whom Defendants worked or communicated regarding the Property made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Any and all indemnity agreements between Defendants and any other person, firm, or corporation against which a claim of indemnification might be brought because of the facts in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Any and all complaint policies and procedures regarding the handling by Defendants of complaints made by homeowners. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: All non-privileged e-mails regarding the investigation, assessment, and/or handling of the claim(s) of mold, moisture, HVAC, showers or tubs in the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: All e-mails between Defendants’ inspectors, agents, supervisors, officers, and/or executives regarding changes in the educational programs relating to the handling of warranty claims. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: True and complete copies of all billing records from any and all independent inspectors regarding the claim(s) made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: True and complete copy of activity logs filed by the staff and independent inspectors on the file pertaining to the claims(s) made the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Any and all reports, documents, or correspondence containing the names and locations of all inspectors, engineers, or employees who have worked on this file to the present. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: True and complete copies of all billings on the file from the independent inspectors, including the time sheets or documentation used to justify the billings. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Any and all lawsuits involving vendors, staff or management involved with warranty claims, construction defects, breach of contract, and fraud claims related to work in the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Any and all correspondence and lawsuits concerning the issues of honesty, conflict of interest, criminal actions, past criminal record, criminal conduct, fraud investigation and/or inappropriate behavior of any person associated with the handling of Defendants’ claim files, management of property damage, including staff and vendors. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Any and all demand letters, and/or lawsuits filed against any of Defendants’ vendors, or by any vendors against Defendants. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Studies commissioned by or on behalf of Defendants, including any done by a law firm to analyze its claim management strategies. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce your Activity Log related to the claim that forms the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce your claims manual that applies or applied to this claim up to the time that you received a demand letter from Plaintiffs or were served with the petition in this case. RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please identify the “team of experts” Defendants worked with as referenced in the October 31 letter to “Dear Mar Bella Homeowner” attached as Exhibit B to the Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Please produce the repair protocol that you were referring to when you state, “…and consulted with those same experts to finalize a repair protocol for Mar Bella” in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Please produce all documents that you refer to or support the statement, “Those plans have now been finalized and the experts are confident in the proposed solutions to fix the problem” as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Please produce all documents which reflect that “the experts are confident in the proposed solution to fix the problem” as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Please produce all inspections and individualized repair plans that were started or completed as a result of your statement, “With that fact in mind, Taylor Morrison will begin contacting affected homeowners to schedule meetings and inspections so that our experts can finalize a repair plan for your home. Your home will receive a thorough diagnosis and individualized repair plain” as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: Please produce all documents reflecting how you determined who the “affected homeowners” were as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Please produce all correspondence to and from “affected homeowners” or any homeowner as a result of you October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Please produce all documents reflecting the dates you first became aware of the problems or defects referenced in Exhibit A and B of Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: Please produce all documents of the first remedies to these problems or defects referenced in your October 04 and 31, 2018 letters, attached as Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. RESPONSE:

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS, TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR

WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD TO: TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD., Defendants NOW COMES, LEROY VENTRESS and TAMMI VENTRESS, Plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered cause, and requires that TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD., Defendants, answer the following interrogatories under the provisions of Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs requires that answers to same be served upon the Eiland & Bonnin, P.C. and The Hodge Law Firm, PLLC. no later than fifty (50) days after the date of the service hereof.

Respectfully submitted, EILAND & BONNIN, PC ______________________________ A Craig Eiland State Bar No. 06502380 2200 Market Street, Suite 501 Galveston, Texas 77550 Telephone: (409) 763-3260 Facsimile: (409) 763-8154 Email: ceiland@eilandlaw.com ______________________________ Shaun W. Hodge HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC State Bar No. 24052995 Old Galveston Square 2211 The Strand, Suite 302 Galveston, Texas 77550 Phone: (409) 762-5000 Facsimile: (409) 763-2300 Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com

THE FAUBUS FIRM

/s/ Dax O. Faubus Dax O. Faubus State Bar No. 24010019 1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6400 Facsimile: (713) 222-7240 dax-notice@faubusfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS The undersigned party propounds the attached questions to you under the provisions of Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. These questions are being served on your attorney and answers to the Interrogatories should, to the extent possible, be answered in the spaces provided; and if additional space is needed, please use additional sheets or the back of the preceding page. You are notified that this party specifies that the answers shall be filed and served upon the undersigned on or before the expiration of fifty (50) days from the date of the service of these questions; and the questions and your sworn answers may be offered in evidence at the trial of this lawsuit. In answering these questions, please furnish all information available to you, including information in the possession of your attorney, or its investigators, and all persons acting in your behalf, and not merely such information known of your own personal knowledge. If you cannot answer the Interrogatory in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, so state in your answer and, to the extent possible, answer stating whatever information or knowledge you have. These Interrogatories are to be considered as continuing, and you are requested to provide by way of supplemental answers such additional information as you or any other person acting on your behalf may obtain which will augment or otherwise modify your answers given to the Interrogatories below. Such supplemental responses are to be filed and served upon this party immediately upon receipt of such information. The following terms shall have the meaning indicated below.

a. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, or any other kind of entity or its agents, servants and employees.

b. “Document” means any written instrument, recorded matter of whatever character, including but without limitation contracts, letters, purchase orders, memoranda, telegrams, notes, catalogs, brochures, diaries, reports, calendars, statements, investigative reports, announcements, newspaper articles, photographs, tape recordings, motion pictures, and any carbon or photographic copies of any such material, and anything else in writing.

c. “You” and “Your” shall mean the party to whom these questions are directed as well as agents, employees, attorneys, investigators and all other persons acting for said party.

d. “Misconduct” is defined as an activity, act, or omission to act which result in a breach of warranty, express of implied, violation of any statute, regulation, or industry standard, whether relating to safety or otherwise, or a breach of any duty of any care.

e. “Plaintiffs” is defined as the party who is propounding these Interrogatories to you and any of its agents, servants or employees.

f. “Occurrence” shall mean the accident, event or happening as set forth in the Plaintiffs’ complaint that has given rise to this lawsuit.

g. When asked to “describe” a document, state the title, subject matter, author, date, addressee, file designation and other identifying designation and the present locations and custodian of the document.

Whenever an Interrogatory asks information concerning a document, you are requested to attach a copy of that document to your answers.

In each question wherein you are asked to identify a person, please state with respect to

such person his full name, last known address and home telephone number. If the person to be identified is not a natural person (e.g. a corporation) give its name and address and principal business activity.

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, telephone number, and position or job title of all persons answering these interrogatories. ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether Defendants contend that any conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ recovery has not been met, whether said conditions be stated in the sales contract or required by law. If so, state what conditions have not been met. ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: List the date(s) Defendants requested that Plaintiffs provide any named Defendant(s) in this cause of action with requested information that was required in order to properly evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim(s). ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State whether Defendants contend that Plaintiffs did not provide any named Defendant(s) in this cause of action with requested information that was required in order to properly evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim(s). If so, state what information was requested and not provided, and the dates of the requests. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the legal theories and describe the factual basis, for your contention that Defendants fully complied with each of the claims handling requirements codified in Texas Business and Commerce Code § 27.01, the violation of which is alleged in Plaintiffs’ current live pleading against Defendants. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the name, address, and telephone number of each homeowner who gave Defendants written notice, within the last five years, of a complaint about Defendant’s defects in construction or need for warranty claims to be used. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify by name, address, and telephone number, all persons and/or entities that have filed property damage claims, RCLA Notices, and/or warranty claims with Defendants related to or involving the roof, attic, HVAC, mold, moisture, showers or baths. This request is limited to the Mar Bella Subdivision. You may exclude any notice or claim represented by undersigned counsel. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify by name or company name, address, and telephone number any engineer(s) and/or engineering company(s), used to evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim(s). Please include the name(s) of each prior claim each such person(s) and/or company(s) worked for Defendants, the date(s) of the reports, and the address of the Property for which the inspection was done. ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For each of the above listed engineer(s) or engineering company(s), list the compensation received from Defendants or any affiliated entity for any services and work performed in the last five years. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do Defendants claim that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages? If so, describe how Plaintiffs failed to do so, identifying any resulting prejudice caused to Defendants. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify the “team of experts” you worked with to develop a remedy for “the excessive condensation and, in come cases, mold issues,” as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify the specific homes you are referring to when you state, “Since our last communication, we have inspected many homes with experts leading the way…” in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify and describe all of the “various equipment options” that were “installed and monitored” as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify and describe repair protocol that you were referring to when you state, “…and consulted with those same experts to finalize a repair protocol for Mar Bella” in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify and describe the “proposed solutions to fix the problem” as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify how Taylor Morrison determined who the “affected homeowners” were as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please identify all homeowners you contacted to schedule a meeting and/or inspection as referenced in your October 31, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state the dates you first became aware of the “moisture issues” and “the problem” referenced in your October 04, 2018 letter, attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Original Petition. ANSWER: INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please provide the dates or the first proposed remedies to the problems or defects were determined referenced in your October o4 and 31, 2018 letters, attached as Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS, TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR

WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD

TO: TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD., Defendants NOW COMES, LEROY VENTRESS and TAMMI VENTRESS, Plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered cause, and requires that TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, INC., AND TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, LTD., Defendants answer the following Requests for Admissions, and Plaintiffs requires that responses to same be served upon the undersigned no later than fifty (50) days after the date of the service hereof.

Respectfully submitted, EILAND & BONNIN, PC ______________________________ A Craig Eiland State Bar No. 06502380 2200 Market Street, Suite 501 Galveston, Texas 77550 Telephone: (409) 763-3260 Facsimile: (409) 763-8154 Email: ceiland@eilandlaw.com ______________________________ Shaun W. Hodge HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC State Bar No. 24052995 Old Galveston Square 2211 The Strand, Suite 302 Galveston, Texas 77550 Phone: (409) 762-5000 Facsimile: (409) 763-2300 Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com THE FAUBUS FIRM

/s/ Dax O. Faubus Dax O. Faubus State Bar No. 24010019 1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6400 Facsimile: (713) 222-7240 dax-notice@faubusfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit the Defendants’ principal place of business is Texas. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit the Plaintiffs’ property sustained damage as a result of the construction defects that make the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit the as a result of mold and mycotoxin issues caused by construction defects within Plaintiffs’ home, Plaintiffs’ personal property was damaged. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit the Plaintiffs’ property sustained damage as a result of the construction defects that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit the Plaintiffs’ building envelope sustained damage as a result of the construction defects that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit the Plaintiffs’ home sustained damage as a result of the construction defects with the shower and tub installation and design that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit the Plaintiffs’ HVAC system sustained damage as a result of the construction defects that form the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit the Plaintiffs’ home sustained damage as a result of the construction defects with the water proofing system that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit the Plaintiffs’ home sustained damage as a result of the construction defects with the insulation that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit the Plaintiffs’ home sustained damage as a result of the construction defects with the roofing system that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit the Plaintiffs’ home sustained damage as a result of the construction defects with the mechanical equipment that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit the Plaintiffs’ home sustained damage as a result of the construction defects and failures with the design and construction that makes the basis of this lawsuit. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit Plaintiffs’ personal property was damaged as a result of the construction defects. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit the Defendants were aware, prior to the closing of Plaintiffs Property that issues, or conditions had been revealed in other Mar Bella houses with the same or similar design that could lead to the damage of Plaintiffs’ Property. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit the Defendants took advantage of Plaintiffs’ lack of knowledge and expertise. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit the Defendants engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices in the business of handling Plaintiffs’ real estate transaction. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit the Defendants made material false representations and/or material false promises to Plaintiffs. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit the Defendants intended that Plaintiffs would rely on these false representations and upon which Plaintiffs did reasonably rely to its detriment. ADMIT OR DENY:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit the Defendants breached its real estate contract with Plaintiffs. ADMIT OR DENY:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Disclosure, Request for Production, First Set of Interrogatories, and Requests for Admissions has been served upon Defendant by serving its Registered Agent at the same time Defendant was served with a copy of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition.

________________________________ A. Craig Eiland

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

LAW OFFICES OF

A. CRAIG EILAND, PC

WWW.EILANDLAW.COM

EMAIL: CEILAND@EILANDLAW.COM

GALVESTON OFFICE

2200 Market Street

Suite 501

Galveston, TX 77550

(409) 763-3260

E-FAX (713) 513-5211

PRE-ACTION NOTICE AND OFFER OF SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO

SECTION 27.004 TEXAS PROPERTY CODE (RCLA) & DEMAND UNDER TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE

PRACTICES ACT (DTPA) Via CMRRR 7016 3010 0000 9496 2527 Mr. Jim Black Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City LTD. 5353 W. Sam Houston Parkway, North, Suite 190 Houston, Texas 77041 RE: Leroy & Tammi Ventress, Property Address: 2008 Nogalas Lane, League City, TX 77573 Total Demand: $1,269,187.56 (See included for

breakdown): Attorney’s Fees: $37,562.50 Expenses: $6,483.04.

Expiration: 60 Calendar Days from Transmittal Date

Dear Mr. Black: We have been retained to represent Leroy and Tammi Ventress related to the issues at the home address referenced above. Please accept my clients’ Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and RCLA demands, along with the accompanying expert reports and estimates. I am sending both the Offer of Settlement/Demand and estimate via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested as required by statute. Please note, as titled, this Demand also serves as written Notice as outlined in Section 17.505 of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Section 16.071(b), and The Texas Property Code Section 27.004(a).

I.

BACKGROUND FACTS Leroy and Tammi Ventress closed on their new home in May 27, 2016. After being in her new home for a short period of time, the Ventress had concerns about what appeared to be an apparent roof leak for water staining on their ceiling. After making a call to a roofing company, The Ventress were advised they had no roof leaks. A Taylor Morrison representative, Debbie Sillivan, contacted Mr. Ventress to inform him that their home probably had a mold issue. Taylor Morrison sent out Ryan Cole to take a look at the areas that were seemingly affected by visible staining and also the HVAC system in the attic. On October 9, 2018, Debbie requested that Mr. Ventress put in a request on site that had been created for the mold issue by Taylor Morrison. Mr. Ventress submitted the request. Mr. Ventress then spoke with a Taylor Morrison representative on October 16, 2018 as well as November 1, 2018. Mr. Ventress left messages on both November 5, 2018 with Representative Cole and November 6, 2018 with Representative Sillivan. Mr. Ventress then spoke with a Taylor Morrison representative on November 8, 2018 and also left message with Representative Steve Gibson on November 9, 2018. Mr. Ventress had multiple calls on November 14, 2019 and November 15, 2019 with Taylor Morrison Representatives and was ultimately told that although his house had mold, no Remediation Protocol would be written for his home. Mold Inspection Sciences performed an inspection at the control of Taylor Morrison and MIS stated in an email to a Taylor Morrison Representative that:

“No protocol has been issued or has been scheduled to be written at this time. Ultimately, mold-like substance was observed at the exterior of HVAC components in the Attic and at the ceiling surrounding the HVAC supply in the Entry. Due to the height of the ceiling in the Entry, it could not be reached to collect a surface sample and confirm mold growth. The only mold growth that was confirmed was on the exterior of the HVAC unit/components in the Attic. Also, all air samples collected were normal compared to the outdoors. Based on our visual observations and/or the laboratory data, if a protocol was to be developed for this project, it could include the exterior of HVAC

components in the Attic and the ceiling surrounding the HVAC supply in the Entry. We do not have any additional data that supports at mold problem in this residence. There were some odors detected, some water damage/staining at window sills, and some staining at ceiling materials; however, all air samples collected showed normal airborne mold concentrations, and therefore, indicates a low likelihood of any indoor sources of mold growth in those areas tested. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and/or if you would like us to develop a protocol for this property.”

Mr. Ventress then obtained an additional, more extensive mold assessment than that which was performed by Mold Inspection Sciences.

An extensive mold assessment on the Ventress’ home was performed by Texas Mold Inspectors (TMI). An HVAC evaluation was conducted by Vanderford Air Inc. (Vanderford). The inspections and testing by both TMI and Vanderford confirmed the presence of various mold and mycotoxins within the Ventress’ house. The results also stated the cause of the various mold and mycotoxins found within the Ventress’ house.

TMI prepared a Mold Remediation Protocol compliant with Rules for

Mold Assessors and Remediators, Administrative Rules of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, and 16 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 78. Unfortunately, it is obvious that extensive demolition, repair, replacement and reconstruction of the Ventress’ house is required in order to properly comply with the applicable protocol.

Attached is the report by Vanderford Air describing the construction defects which have resulted in the contamination of the Ventress’ house by various forms of mold. Because of the construction defects related to the HVAC system, Vanderford Air found mold growth within the walls of the supply plenum box leading towards the duct distribution as well as on the supply grills. The exterior cabinet of the furnace has mold growth as well as rusting parts due to an imbalanced zone system.

Vanderford Air determined that it is necessary to replace the HVAC unit including all duct work and associated distribution lines, returns and vents. In addition, the fresh air duct needs to be conditioned before entering the home by installing a whole house dehumidifier. Finally, the vent pipe

needs to be correctly installed to become code compliant and not lay against the air duct. It was also noted that more attic ventilation is required.

The cost to replace both systems and add the dehumidifier and UV

light is $30,610. This price, however, does not include the demolition/removal of the existing equipment under mold protocol or the costs of installation of additional the attic ventilation needed.

Also attached are the reports of TMI testing samples and laboratory

results. These results indicate unacceptably elevated levels of mold and mycotoxins in the Ventress’ house. Due to the mold testing results, TMI has prepared a Mold Remediation Protocol in compliance with Texas laws, rules and regulations. (See attached)

Staples Consulting Group was retained to cost out the repairs and

remediation in compliance with the Mold Remediation Protocol for both the structure and contents in a standardized, industry accepted Xactimate format. The cost of the demolition, remediation and rebuild is $675,529.30, (See attached). The cost of the cleaning and replacement of the Ventress’ contents are $279.612.72, (See attached).

CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS-FAILURES

a. failure/defects of the building envelope b. failure/defects of the HVAC system c. failure/defects with the shower and tub installation and design d. failure/defect of the water-proofing system e. failure/defect of the insulation f. failure/defect of the roofing system g. failure/defect of the mechanical equipment h. failure/defect of the design and construction See attached documents for further explanation regarding all failures and defects.

II.

CAUSES OF ACTION

A. FRAUD IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

Taylor Morrison’s acts and/or omissions constituted “fraud in a transaction involving real estate.” See Texas Business & Commerce Code §27.01. Specifically, Defendant represented that it would build Plaintiffs’ home to a particular standard, but knew that representation to be false. Plaintiffs, however, relied on Defendant’s representation to their severe detriment.

B. BREACH OF CONTRACT

Mr. and Mrs. Ventress had a valid, enforceable contract in place, issued by Taylor Morrison. Mr. and Mrs. Ventress were the beneficiary of the contract. Mr. and Mrs. Ventress fully performed their contractual obligations by paying for the service of the construction of her home. Taylor Morrison breached the contract by not performing the services that were contracted. Taylor Morrison further breached the contract by not honoring the warranty issued at the time of issuance.

The actions by Taylor Morrison and their designated agents constitute

a material breach of Taylor Morrison’s contract with Mr. and Mrs. Ventress. As a result of this breach of contract, Mr. and Mrs. Ventress have suffered the damages that are described in this demand, the producing cause of which are Taylor Morrison’s actions.

C. QUANTUM MERUIT

Taylor Morrison owes under the equitable theory of recovery of Quantum Meruit, which is designed to prevent an unjust enrichment when there is an implied agreement to pay for benefits received. Specifically, after Mr. and Mrs. Ventress paid for the home construction, Taylor Morrison’s negligent actions caused them additional damages and costs to the HVAC system of the house, as well as interior damage to flooring, walls and contents of the Ventress’ home. Furthermore, the purpose for which Mr. and Mrs. Ventress retained Taylor Morrison, to build the house, was not properly done, as the house is suffering from multiple mold issues related to the construction. As a result of these actions, Mr. and Mrs. Ventress have suffered the damages that are described throughout this notice/demand, the producing cause of which are Taylor Morrison’s actions.

D. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

Taylor Morrison’s construction came with an implied warranty to perform the construction Mr. and Mrs. Ventress sought in a good workmanlike or professional manner; which as described above, was not done. Because of Taylor Morrison’s breach of these warranties, as described above, Mr. and Mrs. Ventress suffered damages as described throughout this notice/demand.

E. TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Taylor Morrison’s conduct in this matter constitutes false, misleading and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), codified in §§ 17.01 – 17.904 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The DTPA protects consumers. A person who contracts a homebuilder in Texas qualifies as a consumer under the purview of the DTPA. Specifically, my client will pursue causes of action against Taylor Morrison, for:

I. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT; VIOLATIONS OF TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE § 17.46, ET SEQ.

Taylor Morrison violated the DTPA when it: 1. Engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices that Mr. and Mrs. Ventress relied on to their detriment; 2. Engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices that were the cause-in-fact of Mr. and Mrs. Ventress’ damages and harm including, but not limited to: economic damages, mental-anguish damages, costs of litigation, and attorney fees; 3. Represented that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, but they were of another. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Sec. 17.46(b)(7); 4. Advertised goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. See Texas. Bus. & Comm. Code Sec. 17.46(9); 5. Represented that a guarantee or warranty confers or involves rights or remedies which Taylor Morrison did not have or involve. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Sec. 17.46(20);

6. Failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which were known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce Mr. and Mrs. Ventress into a transaction which Mr. and Mrs. Ventress would not have entered had the information been disclosed. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Sec. 17.46(24); 7. Breached implied warranties by failing to adhere to customary construction standards resulting in substantial damages suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Ventress. See Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Sec. 17.50(a)(2); and 8. Knowingly and intentionally made false representations, by intentionally failing to disclose information in an effort to induce Mr. and Mrs. Ventress into the transaction.

F. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION LIABILITY ACT

Taylor Morrison violated Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code. The Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA), permits recovery of damages or other relief arising from construction defects.

III.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Ventress need to move out of their home for their health and safety while remediation is ongoing. It is estimated that after they move out, interview and retain a general contractor to comply with the Mold Remediation Protocol, it will take at least 12-18 months to perform the demolition, remediation and rebuild of the affected areas. The cost of the Ventress’ alternative living expenses, while maintaining the mortgage, electricity and water at the current location is estimated to be $10,000-$15,000 per month for a maximum of $270,000. The Ventress are willing to receive the alternative living expenses on a month to month basis instead of lump sum since their time out of the house is estimated.

Mr. and Mrs. Ventress have incurred $37,562.50 in reasonable and

necessary attorney fees and $6,483.04 in expert testing and estimating fees. Based on the experts hired by Mr. and Mrs. Ventress and the additional alternative living cost estimates, plus attorney fees and expenses, under RCLA and in order to avoid further litigation, we are offering to settle this matter for a total of $1,269,187.56--which includes actual damages in the amount of at least $1,225,142.02, and reasonable and necessary

attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $44,045.54. (Attorney fees calculated at 7 hours @ $750 per hour for Craig Eiland, 66.75 hours @ $450 per hour for Shaun Hodge and 6.5 hours @ $350 per hour for Anthony Clarkson).

In addition to the specific damages outlined herein, Mr. and Mrs.

Ventress have endured personal injury damages as a result of their mold and mycotoxin exposure including, but not limited to, bouts numerous sinus infections and a persistent cough.

IV.

SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

The purpose of this Notice/Demand is to encourage Taylor Morrison to

resolve this matter in a fair and equitable manner without the need for further legal action. In the event Taylor Morrison fails to respond to this letter with a reasonable settlement offer, my clients will have no alternative but to file a lawsuit against Taylor Morrison. The lawsuit will be filed under the causes of action outlined above, and others as applicable. In such a lawsuit, rather than seeking only the monetary amount we are now asking for, we will seek to recover the full measure of damages, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred, as allowed by law. To that end, this correspondence also acts as formal notice under § 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, of my firm’s intent to seek attorney’s fees in this matter.

Pre-Action Notification. This correspondence and attachments should

be considered as Leroy and Tammi Ventress’ written notice of their claim to Taylor Morrison for construction defects under Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code, also known as the Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA).

This Notice/Demand is conditioned upon delivery of written acceptance

prior to the expiration of 60 calendar days from the date of your receipt of this Notice/Demand. For your convenience, a settlement check will be held in trust until a release has been fully executed. Such release will be sent via email and mail at a locations(s) specified by Taylor Morrison.

Taylor Morrison has been provided with copies of all records and

information relevant to evaluating this claim. Therefore, this firm considers

Taylor Morrison in a position to act promptly on this Demand. If the Demand it not met, we reserve the right to then proceed against Taylor Morrison, for the full extent of all possible damages.

In regard to the above Notice/Demand, be aware that our law firms

have been assigned an attorney’s fee interest in any and all claim(s) related to the above claim. Our firms are the sole representatives for Leroy and Tammi Ventress in this matter. As such, please direct all communication and correspondence regarding our client and this claim to the attention of our firms, at the contact information contained in this letter. In addition, please send any future payments related to the above policy to this law firm’s address for handling, with The Law Offices of A. Craig Eiland, PC and The Hodge Firm, PLLC, named as additional payees.

Pursuant to applicable Texas Law, I consider this entire

correspondence to be a pertinent communication with respect to the resolution of this case. Your prompt response is therefore expected, as defined by governing Texas statutory and common law.

Documents can be downloaded via Dropbox link below:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0bcwkhcjivj0ijl/AABmYMuK91honlyn1-W4zKEAa?dl=0

Sincerely,

A. Craig Eiland State Bar No. 06502380 Law Offices of A. Craig Eiland 2200 Market Street, Suite 501 Galveston, TX 77550 P: 409-763-3260 F: 713-513-5211 E: ceiland@eilandlaw.com

Shaun Hodge State Bar No. 24052995 Hodge Law Firm 2211 Strand, Suite 302 Galveston, TX 77550 P: 409-762-5000 F: 409-763-2300 E: shodge@hodgefirm.com

Exhibit D

N Norex Engineering, Inc. O 1220 E. Main Street R League City, TX 77573-4157 E 281-474-2640 Office X 281-474-2748 Fax

05 July 2019 Taylor Morrison Homes ATTN: Russel Daniels 2929 Briarpark Drive Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77042 Re: HVAC System and Thermal Boundary Analysis 2008 Nogalas Lane

League City, Texas 77573 Sir, In May 2019, our office was contacted to perform a non-destructive HVAC system analysis at the above referenced address. Norex met on site with Taylor Morrison’s representative Steve Gibson to inspect the home. Per plans provided, 2008 Nogalas Lane was constructed as a two-story brick building in 2015. Norex has been provided with Burgess inspection letter, Staples Consulting Group report, Mold Inspection Science’s reports, Vanderford Air inspection report, Taylor Morrison’s plan, and the options report. However, Norex Engineering was not provided any original Manual J, S, or D used for permitting. At the time League City was operating under the 2009 International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, and International Energy Conservation code. The 2009 IECC code mandates a HVAC SEER rating of 14, the 2009 International Mechanical Code sets infiltration rate of 7 air changes per hour, ACCA mandates a capacity percentage between ninety percent (90%) and one hundred and fifteen percent (115%). The internal living space consists of 2,937 square feet of living space, and is placed on an approximately 3,482 square foot slab with wall framing comprised of 2x4 studs with R-15 insulation between. Existing HVAC combination 14ACX-060-230-14 + LH41/61R9C has approximately 5-ton worth of capacity and is installed for the whole home. The machine combination is installed in a ventilated attic with radiant barrier and R-30 blown insulation between ceiling joists. Roof decking is covered in medium dark composition shingles. This inspection, completed on 24th of June 2019, was performed following generally accepted engineering principles, practices, and guidelines. Conclusions presented in this report are based on information provided by the client, the client’s sub-contractors, and a visual inspection of the structure. Due to the limited nature of this inspection, Norex Engineering, Inc. can make no representation regarding the possibility of concealed defects. Contained herein are our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Standard of Care The international Building Codes do not include all standards as prescriptive adoptions. In order to address the multitude of products and techniques the use of alternatives allowed by the building code, manufacturer standards and guidelines and industry guidelines are used either in full or to supplement the code. As well, the building codes adopt and reference many standards pursuant to specific manufacturer products and application. In addition to these guidelines, engineers and builders must always be alert to conditions that require additional design and construction quality. The designers, and construction professionals were responsible for design of the project in accordance with applicable codes, site requirements, industry standards, and project manufacturer installation guidelines. The designers, construction professionals, and subcontractors were responsible for construction of the project in accordance with the applicable codes, plans, specifications, and product manufacturer installation guidelines. International Code Council, Inc. (ICC), “International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (IRC),” 2009, Chapter 1 “Administration,” Section R102 “Applicability,” states the following:

“R102.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.”

“R102.2 Other laws. The Provisions of this code shall not be deemed to nullify any provisions of

local, state or federal law.”

“R102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.”

In evaluation of the standard of care of a general contractor, Norex Engineering has relied upon the following definition: The general contractor shall provide watchfulness, attention, and experience prudence that a reasonable person involved in similar circumstances would exercise. If the person’s actions do not meet this standard of care, then his/her acts fail to meet the duty of care, which all people (supposedly) have towards other. The term standard shall be the necessary guideline as called for in the project documents, codes, industry standards, standard setting, and testing agencies. The effect of the standard is to ensure a minimum level of quality necessary for the construction of the project to meet the needs of each product, the incorporation of the products, and the level of quality anticipated by the project documents.

System analysis:

The equipment currently installed in 2008 Nogalas Lane for the for the Home’s cooling load consists of the machine combination 14ACX-060-230-14 + LH41/61R9C. Norex produced the cooling load per Manual J and sized machine combination 14ACX-060-230-14 + LH41/61R9C per Manual S based on information given. The Wrightsoft program output reflected the capacity as 115% of the load. Per comparable machine combination the downstairs machine combination 14ACX-060-230-

14 + LH41/61R9C has an approximate sensible cooling capacity of 46,533 Btuh and a latent cooling capacity of 9,248 Btuh.

Norex Engineering’s Manual J and S analysis showed that the machine combination 14ACX-

060-230-14 + LH41/61R9C‘s total capacity of 55,781 Btuh exceeded the gain within the home of 48,526 Btuh by 115% and does meet ACCA standards.

o The design conditions used are based on Ellington Airport’s historical weather data with

an outdoor summer dry bulb of 96.1°F, an inside summer dry bulb of 75.0°F, an indoor entering wet bulb of 63.7°F, and an outdoor summer wet bulb of 78.2°F.

HVAC and Attic Observations:

Inspection of the attic revealed the follow items:

o Improperly installed ducts:

All observed ducts in unconditioned space had the less than the prescribed insulation value of R-8 (2006 IECC 403.2.1).

Ducts in direct contact with other ducts without buffer between them

Ducts came in contact with structural members

Overly tight turn and strap constriction on supply duct

Drooping supply duct

Partially foam sub-floor duct chase

o Bottom and side of supply plenum had condensation present during the time of inspection

o Air handler had an amount of corrosion, evidence of substantiall condensation, and Cladosporium mold

Thermal Boundary Observations:

Norex Observed poorly sealed walls between conditioned and unconditioned space.

Electrical outlets at the thermal boundary were unsealed around the perimeter of the box as well as the entrance of wires into the back of the box.

Conclusions The Paston effect as defined by Ronald B. Bailey, P.E., CIAQP, CIE and Hollace J. Swanson, P.E., CIAQP, CIE in the article Air Infiltration in Coastal Regions – The “Paston Effect” has long plagued hot and humid climates such as climate zone 2 as defined by IECC which encompasses the south and south-eastern coastal United States including areas such as New Orleans, Jacksonville, and Houston. It is the opinion of Norex Engineering that all parties involved in the design and installation of HVAC equipment and creation of thermal boundary shall have notified and warned the builder that operation of this equipment as designed would most likely lead to excess condensation in the attic and inadequate environment control within the thermal envelop. The HVAC system was correctly sized according to ACCA’s Manual S standards, however, the following can be attributed to the cause of noted deficiencies:

No lower limitation of thermostat setting was implemented Ducts were poorly installed Ducts were minimally insulated Undesired infiltration was present due to a discontinuous thermal boundary.

Recommendations

In summary, Norex recommends a two stage HVAC machine combination, a whole home dehumidifier, and encapsulating attic areas over conditioned space. In addition, focusing efforts to seal the thermal boundary on easily accessible yet vulnerable aspects of the thermal boundary, such as the soffit area, will be the most efficient way of decreasing infiltration. Doing so will avoid chasing inconvenient, and negligible infiltration at a high cost. The remaining infiltration will be mitigated not only by the appropriately sized two stage air conditioner, but our suggested whole home dehumidifier as well. Based on our observations, we recommend the following: Attic space over unconditioned areas:

1. Confirm a continuous thermal boundary If the area is open to attic space over conditioned space, build an air impervious wall between

the two spaces, foam the barrier, and the barrier’s perimeter to complete the new thermal boundary

Seal any exposed subfloor with foam Remove insulation baffle connecting unconditioned areas and the newly conditioned areas,

then spray foam along new thermal boundary. Add any necessary blocking Tape and seal any hot walls

2. Ensure appropriate attic ventilation (in accordance with 2015 IRC section R806.1 through R806.3). Add attic ventilation such as soffit vent, ridge vent and/or air hawks as necessary

Attic space over conditioned space:

1. Energy Guard to remove blown insulation, ducts, and equipment by use of vacuum truck. 2. Encapsulate attic at the perimeter of the newly created thermal boundary with open cell isonene

R-20 spray foam on the underside of roof decking and in-between rafters. Seal all air hawks and ridge vents. Install spring loaded and gasketed backdraft prevention at roof, and at exterior wall for

utility, kitchen and bathroom vents

Reseal vent penetrations at exterior wall, especially at the subfloor. Seal subfloor penetrations such as canned lights, speakers, and AC vents over

unconditioned areas Foam off and close soffit vents Seal across any soffit area leading to any unconditioned area at the thermal boundary As result of polysealing the attic, install transfer grills between the attic and directly

conditioned areas

or Supply conditioned air directly to the attic per 2018 IRC R806.5.2.10. Preform blower door test

Seal any remaining leaks 3. Size two stage equipment with whole home dehumidifier by Preparing both Manual J&S for each

address specific plan to include all options and the address’ specific orientation. 4. Plumber to replace both water heating equipment and furnace with appropriate 90% efficient or

greater equipment and vent through roof or soffit for fresh air makeup. 5. Install new AC equipment, and an Ultra Aire 205 whole home dehumidifier. 6. HVAC contractor to define lower limitation of thermostat setting

Living area’s thermal boundary: 1. Seal or improve seal of thermal boundary

Confirm penetrations of the exterior wall are sealed at the thermal boundary per 2015 IECC Table R402.1.1, including but not limited to the following:

i. Electrical outlets ii. Light switches iii. Plumbing iv. Dryer vent

2. Burgess or Topbuild will verify infiltration is less than 7 ACH/Hr at 50 PA by preforming a blower door test.

If the result is above 7 ACH/Hr, the remaining leaks will be sealed.

Existing Mold: Mold identified by third-party mold remediation company shall be remediated in accordance with

ANSI/IICRC S520 or as specified by remediation professional recommendations. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact our office. Sincerely, Michael T. Scanlon, P.E. President Norex Engineering, Inc. MTS/smc