For years the scales have been tilted against Missourians or Kansans who were unhappy with the results of home remodeling or with shoddy work on homes they had built.

A pattern of irresponsible and sleazy workmanship on new homes led to the creation of a nonprofit grass-roots organization, Homeowners Against Defective Dwellings five years ago. Even though it is underfunded, HADD has bravely dueled with homebuilders and related organizations over warranties that were sometimes virtually useless for homeowners.

But the balance may be ready to shift in favor of the long-suffering consumers in the two states.

A recent decision by the Kansas Supreme Court was a significant boost for homeowners' rights to receive their newly purchased homes free of serious construction defects. The state's high court ruled that the now-defunct Certified Master Builder program came under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act that was designed "to protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable acts."

The legal action that sparked the appeal to the Supreme Court, which involves two Johnson County families who contend they were harmed by a defective builder, now returns to federal court for final disposition.

In Missouri, the encouraging news comes from the state Senate, where a comprehensive consumer protection bill crafted by state Sen. Harry Wiggins could win passage this year. The Kansas City Democrat introduced SB 899 in response to constituent requests for better protection against fly-by-night remodeling operations and homebuilders who take shortcuts that result in significant structural defects in houses.

Among other provisions, Wiggins' bill would require: that dwellings be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards for three years; that builders issue a five-year warranty against defects caused by faulty installation of plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling systems; and that the dwelling be free from major construction defects for 10 years.

Remodeling work would be guaranteed against faulty workmanship or defective materials that did not conform to building standards for two years, and remodeling would be guaranteed against major construction defects for 10 years.

If a builder or remodeler was found liable for shoddy work, the homeowner would be entitled to recover the amount required to repair problems or the difference between the value of the dwelling without the defect and the value with the defect.

In addition to actual damages the court could assess legal costs, including attorney's fees, and punitive damages against the builder or remodeler.

There are provisions in the measure that would eliminate a builder's liability if the damage was caused by the homeowner's actions, but on the whole this appears to be a strong move toward enforcing accountability for people who frequently handle the most expensive investment citizens make.

The type of protections included in Wiggins' bill could properly punish unsavory builders or remodelers who have appeared capable of committing horrible acts of carelessness, ignorance or outright criminality with too-little fear of legal consequences.

Does your new foundation tilt in six directions? Sorry, that wasn't covered in the paper you thought was a guarantee against slipshod work.

Is your house sliding down a hill into a ravine because it was constructed on a shifting mound of fill dirt? Sorry, you should have known enough to hire an engineer to determine this was unstable soil.

Does your roof admit more water than it keeps out? You should have read the fine print that absolved the builder of any serious responsibility for such minor annoyances.

These scenarios, and ones like them, are the reasons HADD was founded. Finding your most expensive investment is a lemon is a horrible feeling, especially when you also discover that you have little recourse.

The best solution, of course, is selecting a reputable builder or remodeler in the first place. This takes hours of checking records and interviews, but it beats a futile trip to court later.

If consumers get the much-needed breaks promised in the Kansas court case and the proposed Missouri law, there could be fewer futile trips to court for homeowners in the future.

Rich Hood leads The Star's Editorial Board. His column appears Sundays. To reach him, call (816) 234-4421 or send e-mail to rhood@kcstar.com.

All content © 2000 The Kansas City Star