Opinion ID: 1922008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Location of the Exterior Dryer Exhaust Vent

Text: The Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals, along with respondent, state that there were several alternate locations that the exterior vent could have been placed in order that it not interfere with Dr. Kantt's enjoyment of his property. The record, however, does not reflect this. Respondent identifies four alternate locations. The first alternative is running a new dryer exhaust system up though the main furnace duct, which would vent out through a chimney in the roof of the house. This proposal is unacceptable, as it would violate section 504.4 of the International Mechanical Code, 2000, which states that the [c]lothes dryer exhaust ducts shall not be connected to a vent connector, vent or chimney. The second and third alternatives involved moving the exterior vent from its installed position either a couple of inches or a couple of feet or twelve to sixteen inches. Neither of which is substantially different from where it was originally installed and would not serve to provide a remedy for Dr. Kantt's complaint. The final alternative was given when respondent's counsel questioned petitioner's expert witness at trial, as outlined in the following colloquy: [Counsel:] ... In response to my question whether or not the alternatives that were discussed here were the only alternatives, your response was depends on how much money you want to spend? [Witness:] Yes. [Counsel:] Other alternatives exist? [Witness:] Based on your financial expenditures, yes. [Counsel:] Right. And now, that directly contradicts what you testified to earlier, that other alternatives didn't exist? [Witness:] That is true. [Counsel:] Okay. So now what I need to be able to let the judge know is that some alternatives do exist besides the current placement of the vent. That is what I'm hearing from you? [Witness:] Yeah. I believe my testimony was that we could move it six to twelve inches. And you asked me, if I heard you right, two things: Number 1, you said I said something out in the hallway that you didn't relate to and then you turn around and said to me that could it be moved and I said if you want to spend a lot of money. It is simple, we tear all the dry wall out of the garage, we tear out and drop the ceiling down and we can move the dryer to the second floor and shorten it up. We can move the dryer anyplace around that there is, move the garage out. If you want to spend the money, pal, give it to me. It is not a viable alternative to, effectively, completely remodel petitioner's condominium unit by tearing down walls and dropping ceilings in order to be able to provide exterior ventilation for the clothes dryer in a different location. The exhaust system was improperly installed by the developer in the first instance when they had the opportunity to locate the exterior vent wherever would have been most preferable. Petitioner had the vent installed in the most logical place, as evidenced by the Court of Special Appeals' recitation of the facts of the case: The new system was routed from the dryer through the wall of the laundry room into the adjoining garage, then through the garage and through the exterior wall. Thus, we find the location of petitioner's original installation of the exterior dryer exhaust vent to be the most reasonable option under the facts presented in the case sub judice.