Five years later, the couple says their dream home has been nothing but a nightmare and they blame the process by which the house was permitted.

They are among three township homeowners who have been vocal at recent board meetings, putting the blame for their woes on Almont's inspection process and the man who, until recently, was responsible for inspecting the work done by builders.

Paul Wilcox resigned from his post as village building inspector last month. He stands up for his work, saying since he first began inspecting homes in Almont Township in 1989 he always did the job to the best of his ability.

After stepping down, he is hoping to put the controversy behind him. However, the residents who have questioned officials at recent board meetings say their problems are far from being settled.

Patrick Smylie says he and his wife have experienced nothing but issues ranging from poor grade and water retention to improper sealing and brick work at their home. They suspect it was built on a spring vein and point to their sump pump, which puts out over 5,000 gallons of water during the wettest months of the year, requiring his constant attention.

"This was our dream, to retire and move to the country. We purchased the house in 2001," said Patrick, who moved with his wife from the state's fifth largest city, Sterling Heights, after retiring. "Within three days we had water in the house."

Initially, he dealt with the home builder and even managed to win a small claims court judgment for issues with the Hollow Corners Road brick ranch. While some repairs were made, water began seeping back into the home three months later.

In 2004, he went to the township offices with pictures of sub-standard work he said never should have been approved by Wilcox.

"They went to their building inspector (Wilcox) about this. He said this house is inspected to code and nothing is wrong with it," said Smylie, recounting the initial response he received from the township.

Dissatisfied with what he was told, Smylie took his case to officials in Lansing. After being shuffled around between the state, county and township, the Michigan Construction Code Commission opened an investigation of the township's code administration and enforcement program.

Meanwhile, as the Smylies' case went public, other township residents began to voice similar concerns.

Joe and Nancy Moskwa moved to their Dryden Road home in July of 2002. Like the Smylies, they moved from the hustle and bustle in search of tranquility. After selling their home in Eastpointe, a post-World War II subdivision just outside of Detroit, they settled in Almont Township.

Not long after they unpacked problems reminiscent of the 1980s movie The Money Pit began. The first came only a few weeks following their move when, as Joe was taking a shower, the bathtub buckled underneath him, causing a back injury he said still hampers him today.

After that, the interior drywall began cracking. The couple said they later found out was a result of improperly installed insulation that was creating mold. Eventually they were told their entire foundation was suspect and have been quoted a figure of $119,000 they say it will take to repair it and the other issues.

They did go to court and managed to receive a judgment of $6,000 from their builder, but were unable to sue the township, which was granted immunity.

After four years of dealing with the issues, the Moskwas say they know what they want.

"We want to be made whole," Nancy said. "We didn't ask for this."

"We want to be bought out. I want out of this township. There's just too much farmer politics going on," Joe said.

The couple list a litany of issues with their home, ranging from the water penetration and foundation to land grade problems.

"The state believes this house was never back filled properly," Nancy said.

Both couples say the state suspects a number of code violations with each house and has gone as far as revoking their final occupancy permits and replacing them with temporary certificates of occupancy.

Like the Smylies, the Moskwas believe shoddy workmanship and improper building techniques were signed off on by Wilcox, who recently resigned as Almont Township's building inspector. He still holds the same position for Almont village and Imlay Township and is fire chief for the Almont Fire Department.

As with the Moskwas and Smylies, the inspection process of township resident Kathryn Bock's home is under state investigation. After losing her first home to a fire, Bock had a new home built on the same site. In December of 2004, she moved in. Two years later, she is contending with grade and cement issues. While many have told her she should be happy to have a new home, Bock said she would gladly take her old home back.

And she isn't confident about her recourse.

"If they (Almont Township) are granted government immunity, then are we going to be just left holding the bag?" she asked. "My understanding is a lot of the work that was done on my house is just plain sloppy work and it should have never been approved."

The overriding question that binds these cases is what responsibility does a municipality have as a permit granting authority? In Almont Township, while no final determinations have been reached, state officials have found improper procedures were in place in the building department.

In its review, the state Construction Code Commission revealed eight areas of concern, ranging from clerical issues such as improper filing of files to more serious inspection issues.

"Inspectors do not consistently perform periodic inspections on active permits while construction is progressing," the state July report, written by Henry L. Green, director of the bureau of construction codes and fire safety, concluded. "Inspections are performed only upon request. The township has no formal mechanism in place to monitor and follow up on open and active permits to assure that required inspections have been performed and corrections have been completed in a reasonable timeframe."

As a result of this violation, state overseers learned permits remained open beyond code provisions, violations went uncorrected and occupancies had taken place prior to final inspections and approvals.

After making a number of recommendations, the Construction Code Commission planned to review actions taken by the township by the end of the year.

One in particular could potentially put the township in legal harm. The state concluded permits have been administratively closed with outstanding code violations, resulting in temporary and final certificates of occupancy being issued prior to final inspections being requested, performed and approved. If any of the three residents who have come forward can link this to their individual situation, they may have a cause of action against the township.

Supervisor Gary Groesbeck said he is confident the township has corrected the issues identified by the state. Wilcox added before he resigned, compliance with the state's issues was nearly completed.

"We worked on almost all of them. We were not complete on all, but we had gone a long way toward them," he said.

Meanwhile, the township has appointed its plumbing and mechanical inspector, Tim Israel, as Wilcox's successor. Groesbeck said at a recent meeting, officials considered several options, including contracting with the regional Construction Code Authority, before appointing Israel. While the CCA was an option, he said officials did not want to farm out the work. The inspector is paid 75% of the fees collected for inspections, an industry professional interviewed by The County Press said.

As for the individual inspection complaints, Groesbeck stated the remedy lies with builders.

"We have been advised not to say much," he said of the ongoing state investigation and resident complaints. "None of these are in a state of litigation. A lot depends upon the builders and whether they're willing to cooperate."

He did say in Smylie's case, the township has notified the builder of the issues but has not received a response.

As the complaints continue to be made against the department, Wilcox considers them to be personal attacks by individuals whose respective remedies lie with builders or, in some instances, the need for upkeep.

"They both won small judgments," he said of Smylie and the Moskwas. "Now they think they're going to get the township to pay for it. All they're trying to do is drag me through the dirt."

He added: "There is stuff being turned up now that is coming four and five years later. Things can happen. I don't deserve this. I was hoping it would die down and go away."

That is unlikely to happen, as Bock, Smylie and the Moskwas stated they intend to continue attending board meetings and putting pressure on officials.

Wilcox added proving the township was responsible for gross negligence in their cases will not happen.

"The township's liability is limited unless they can provide I did something stupid," he said. "And I did what I thought was right as an interpretation of the (building construction) code."

That's not how the inflamed residents see it.

"I had faith in what was said to me for almost two years, until July of this year. Then when I kept getting the run around I started asking questions about what is going on in this township," Patrick Smylie said.

"If Paul Wilcox had done his job, we wouldn't be going through this and neither would the township," Nancy Moskwa concluded.

Jeff Payne can be reached at (810) 664-0811, Ext. 8106 or This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it