Both of the first two reviews are spot on with this builder. At a very high level, my experience was one of chronic mismanagement, widespread cost overruns, and shoddy workmanship. My life became defined by chronic psychological distress, as I felt trapped and disenfranchised. I think I gained 10 pounds, and couldn't sleep properly for at least a year. What misery. And 30 months later, Monarch still is not finished.
How did this happen to me?
The bottom line is I walked into a contract that disenfranchised me. The builder worded the contract in a way that turned me into a blank check. This was compounded by a conflict of interest where Monarch utilizes the same subcontractors to do work on other client homes AND their own spec homes! I could therefore never be sure where my money was going. Given that workmanship was frequently so shoddy, and I had no visibility into Monarch's books, I can only imagine.
How did Monarch engineer this situation? The wording of my contract was set up as if it were a traditional "cost plus" contract where one hires a general contractor for some predetermined 'management' fee, who then manages the build to be performed at cost by subcontractors without markup. In such an arrangement, the key protection for me is the right to approve/deny all subcontracts prior to being obligated. The builder's role is to advise me on the process and to manage the work of the subcontractors. It is understood that costs can only be approximately predicted, as costs fluctuate naturally, so the client should understand that costs can overrun, just as they can underrun. However, the problem with my contract was that it took away my ability to force due diligence on cost. It included a "sleight of hand" clause in the "Owner's roles and responsibilities" section that says, verbatim: "Sign all contracts with each subcontractor upon recommendations of the Project Manager OR (emphasis mine) by signing this contract Owner is authorizing the Project Manager to execute all contract on behalf of the Owner".
So, what is the purpose of presenting this false choice? What exactly is the logic behind stating I will sign all contracts with subcontractors when this is immediately followed by a statement that my signature on this contract allows Monarch to take that control away? This is the money line, IMO. It turned me into a blank check in a conflicted environment. I have no doubt that this contractual line would not withstand a regulatory review. Specifically, it clearly runs counter to a specific regulation in the Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Contractors regulations document containing Title 54.1, chapter 11 statutes. Specifically, Part V STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND CONDUCT, 18 VAC 50-22-260, expressly prohibits making a misrepresentation that might influence, persuade, or induce. That is precisely what this contractual clause does. It misrepresents itself as a fundamental right to oversee contracts, while actually removing that right. No choice exists. No explanation can make sense of this, short of the one that casts it as an attempt to induce a poor decision by the client.
The contract was tilted against me in another important way: It posed the agreement as one between me (the client) and a 'Project Management' organization, Monarch Construction. Monarch then hires itself as general contractor under another LLC shell, gaining control over regulatory mechanisms that would have empowered me to protect my interests.
Once we realized what we had gotten ourselves into, and as our budget ballooned and we were gaslighted repeatedly, we pressed Monarch to reverse the contractual clause giving them a blank check. They refused. And the owner of Monarch had the gall to be offended when I later said I did not trust him. What a piece of work, that one.
Given the fact that we were far along and would suffer significant financial strain and delays if we fired Monarch, I and my spouse's life became a never ending vigil to manage Monarch. We recovered some degree of control by clamping down on bank releases and undergoing an exhaustingly relentless campaign of forced oversight that involved lots of evidence collection (emails, videos, photographs, text messages, signed subcontractor contracts) to force Monarch to watch their back. It was unpleasant for us, but it was all we could do to protect ourselves given that Monarch refused to cede back to us contractual control over our subcontractor obligations.
The upside is our house has great curb appeal and the interior layout is to our liking. That's what hooked us in the first place, the "Monarch" look and the promise full customizability. If only the workmanship quality were not so bad, I might have even been tempted to explain away the $$ bleeding and chosen to 'move on'. But I guess I would have bled a lot more $$, wouldn't I? Sigh ... read more