UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

þ		QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2008

or

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 1200, Atlanta, Georgia (Address of principal executive offices)		30328 (Zip Code)

(770) 829-3700
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding twelve months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to the filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES þ       NO o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (Check One):

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer þ		Accelerated filer o		Non-accelerated filer   o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

YES o      NO þ

Class		Outstanding at July 31, 2008
Common Stock, $0.001 par value		39,240,011 shares

 

 

References to “we,” “us,” “our,” “Beazer”, “Beazer Homes” and the “Company” in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q refer to Beazer Homes USA, Inc.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements represent our expectations or beliefs concerning future events, and it is possible that the results described in this quarterly report will not be achieved. These forward-looking statements can generally be identified by the use of statements that include words such as “estimate,” “project,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “foresee,” “likely,” “will,” “goal,” “target” or other similar words or phrases. All forward-looking statements are based upon information available to us on the date of this quarterly report.

These forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside of our control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements, including, among other things, the matters discussed in this quarterly report in the section captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Additional information about factors that could lead to material changes in performance is contained in Part I, Item 1A— Risk Factors of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007. Such factors may include:

	•		the timing and final outcome of the United States Attorney investigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) investigation and other state and federal agency investigations, the putative class action lawsuits, the derivative claims, multi-party suits and similar proceedings as well as the results of any other litigation or government proceedings;
	•		material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting;
	•		additional asset impairment charges or writedowns;
	•		economic changes nationally or in local markets, including changes in consumer confidence, volatility of mortgage interest rates and inflation;
	•		continued or increased downturn in the homebuilding industry;
	•		estimates related to homes to be delivered in the future (backlog) are imprecise as they are subject to various cancellation risks which cannot be fully controlled;
	•		continued or increased disruption in the availability of mortgage financing;
	•		our cost of and ability to access capital and otherwise meet our ongoing liquidity needs including the impact of any further downgrades of our credit ratings;
	•		potential inability to comply with covenants in our debt agreements;
	•		continued negative publicity;
	•		increased competition or delays in reacting to changing consumer preference in home design;
	•		shortages of or increased prices for labor, land or raw materials used in housing production;
	•		factors affecting margins such as decreased land values underlying land option agreements, increased land development costs on projects under development or delays or difficulties in implementing initiatives to reduce production and overhead cost structure;
	•		the performance of our joint ventures and our joint venture partners;
	•		the impact of construction defect and home warranty claims and the cost and availability of insurance, including the availability of insurance for the presence of moisture intrusion;
	•		a material failure on the part of our subsidiary Trinity Homes LLC to satisfy the conditions of the class action settlement agreement, including assessment and remediation with respect to moisture intrusion related issues;
	•		delays in land development or home construction resulting from adverse weather conditions;
	•		potential delays or increased costs in obtaining necessary permits as a result of changes to, or complying with, laws, regulations, or governmental policies and possible penalties for failure to comply with such laws, regulations and governmental policies;
	•		effects of changes in accounting policies, standards, guidelines or principles; or
	•		terrorist acts, acts of war and other factors over which the Company has little or no control.

Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and, except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors.

BEAZER HOMES USA, INC.
FORM 10-Q

INDEX

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION			4
Item 1. Financial Statements			4
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007			4
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, Three Months Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007			5
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, Nine Months Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007			6
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements			7
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			36
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			52
Item 4. Controls and Procedures			52
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION			56
Item 1. Legal Proceedings			56
Item 5. Other Information			59
Item 6. Exhibits			59
SIGNATURES			60
EX-10.1 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CREDIT AGREEMENT
EX-10.2 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
EX-31.1 SECTION 302, CERTIFICATION
EX-31.2 SECTION 302, CERTIFICATION
EX-32.1 SECTION 906, CERTIFICATION
EX-32.2 SECTION 906, CERTIFICATION

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

BEAZER HOMES USA, INC.

The fair value of each option/SSAR grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Expected life of options and SSARs granted is generally computed using the mid-point between the vesting period and contractual life of the options/SSARs granted. Expected volatilities are based on the historical volatility of the Beazer Homes’ stock and other factors. Expected discrete dividends of $0.00 per quarter (previously $0.10 per quarter through September 30, 2007 until we suspended further dividend payments) are assumed in lieu of a continuously compounding dividend yield. There were no options or SSARs grants in the nine months ended June 30, 2008.

The following table summarizes stock options and SSARs outstanding as of June 30, 2008, as well as activity during the three and nine months then ended:

At June 30, 2008, the weighted-average remaining contractual life for all options/SSARs outstanding, currently exercisable, and vested or expected to vest in the future was 4.41 years, 3.46 years and 4.31 years, respectively.

At June 30, 2008, 1,554,911 SSARs/options were vested or expected to vest in the future with a weighted average exercise price of $42.02 and a weighted average expected life of 2.57 years. At June 30, 2008, there was no aggregate intrinsic value of SSARs/options outstanding, vested and expected to vest in the future and SSARs/options exercisable based on the Company’s stock price of $5.57 as of June 30, 2008. The intrinsic value of a stock option is the amount by which the market value of the underlying stock exceeds the exercise price of the stock option. There were no option/SSAR exercises during the three or nine months ended June 30, 2008.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements . On October 1, 2007, the Company adopted the provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 06-8, Applicability of the Assessment of a Buyer’s Continuing Investment under FASB Statement No. 66, Accounting for Sales of Real Estate, for Sales of Condominiums . EITF 06-8 states that the adequacy of the buyer’s continuing investment under SFAS 66 should be assessed in determining whether to recognize profit under the percentage-of-completion method on the sale of individual units in a condominium project. This consensus requires that additional deposits be collected by developers of condominium projects that wish to recognize profit during the construction period under the percentage-of-completion method. EITF 06-8 is effective for fiscal years beginning after March 15, 2007. The adoption of EITF 06-8 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As described in Note 8, on October 1, 2007, the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 .

Recent Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted. In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations . SFAS 141R amends and clarifies the accounting guidance for the acquirer’s recognition and measurement of assets acquired, liabilities assumed and noncontrolling interests of an acquiree in a business combination. SFAS 141R is effective for our fiscal year ended September 30, 2009. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS 141R to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements , SFAS 157 provides guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. SFAS 157 applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value but does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS 157 includes provisions that require expanded

disclosure of the effect on earnings for items measured using unobservable data. SFAS 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) 157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157 , delaying the effective date of certain non-financial assets and liabilities to fiscal periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting SFAS 157 on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations; however, it is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities — Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115 . SFAS 159 permits companies to measure certain financial instruments and other items at fair value. SFAS 159 is effective for our fiscal year beginning October 1, 2008. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting SFAS 159 on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations; however, it is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements — an Amendment of ARB 51 . SFAS 160 requires that a noncontrolling interest (formerly minority interest) in a subsidiary be classified as equity and the amount of consolidated net income specifically attributable to the noncontrolling interest be included in the consolidated financial statements. SFAS 160 is effective for our fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009 and its provisions will be applied retrospectively upon adoption. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting SFAS 160 on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations.

In December 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) 110 which expresses the views of the Staff regarding the use of the “simplified” method (the mid-point between the vesting period and contractual life of the option) for “plain vanilla” options in accordance with SFAS 123R. SAB 110 will allow the use of the “simplified” method beyond December 31, 2007 under certain conditions including a company’s inability to rely on historical exercise data. We will consider SAB 110 for future grants.

Inventory Valuation — Held for Development . Our homebuilding inventories that are accounted for as held for development include land and home construction assets grouped together as communities. Land held for future development is stated at cost. Homebuilding inventories held for development are stated at cost (including direct construction costs, capitalized indirect costs, capitalized interest and real estate taxes) unless facts and circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. We assess these assets no less than quarterly for recoverability in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets . SFAS 144 requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Upon the commencement of land development activities, it may take three to five years (depending on, among other things, the size of the community and its sales pace) to fully develop, sell, construct and close all the homes in a typical community. The impact of the downturn in our business has significantly lengthened the estimated life of many communities. Recoverability of assets is measured by comparing the carrying amount of an asset to future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the expected undiscounted cash flows generated are expected to be less than its carrying amount, an impairment charge should be recorded to write down the carrying amount of such asset to its estimated fair value based on discounted cash flows.

We conduct a review of the recoverability of our homebuilding inventory held for development at the community level as factors indicate that an impairment may exist. Events and circumstances that might indicate impairment include, but are not limited to, adverse trends in new orders, higher than anticipated cancellations, declining margins which might result from (1) the need to offer incentives to new homebuyers to drive sales or (2) price reductions or other actions taken by our competitors, and economic factors specific to the markets in which we operate, including fluctuations in employment levels, population growth, or levels of new and resale homes for sale in the marketplace.

As a result, we evaluate, among other things, the following information for each community:

	•		Actual “Net Contribution Margin” (defined as homebuilding revenues less homebuilding costs and direct selling expenses) for homes closed in the current fiscal quarter, fiscal year to date and prior two fiscal quarters. Homebuilding costs include land and land development costs (based upon an allocation of such costs, including costs to complete the development, or specific lot costs), home construction costs (including an estimate of costs, if any, to complete home construction), previously capitalized indirect costs (principally for construction supervision), capitalized interest and estimated warranty costs;
	•		Projected Net Contribution Margin for homes in backlog;

	•		Actual and trending new orders and cancellation rates;
	•		Actual and trending base home sales prices and sales incentives for home sales that occurred in the prior two fiscal quarters that remain in backlog at the end of the fiscal quarter and expected future homes sales prices and sales incentives and absorption over the expected remaining life of the community;
	•		A comparison of our community to our competition to include, among other things, an analysis of various product offerings, including the size and style of the homes currently offered for sale, community amenity levels, availability of lots in our community and our competition’s, desirability and uniqueness of our community and other market factors; and
	•		Other events that may indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable.

In determining the recoverability of the carrying value of the assets of a community that we have evaluated as requiring a test for impairment, significant quantitative and qualitative assumptions are made relative to the future home sales prices, sales incentives, direct and indirect costs of home construction and land development and the pace of new home orders. In addition, these assumptions are dependent upon the specific market conditions and competitive factors for each specific community and may differ greatly between communities within the same market and communities in different markets. Our estimates are made using information available at the date of the recoverability test, however, as facts and circumstances may change in future reporting periods, our estimates of recoverability are subject to change.

For assets in communities for which the undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying value, the carrying value of that community is written down to its then estimated fair value based on discounted cash flows. The carrying value for assets in communities that were previously impaired and continue to be classified as held for development is not written up for future estimates of increases in fair value in future reporting periods. Market deterioration that exceeds our estimates may lead us to incur additional impairment charges on previously impaired homebuilding assets in addition to homebuilding assets not currently impaired but for which indicators of impairment may arise if the market continues to deteriorate.

The fair value of the assets held for development is estimated using the present value of the estimated future cash flows using discount rates commensurate with the risk associated with the underlying community assets. The discount rate used may be different for each community. The factors considered when determining an appropriate discount rate for a community include, among others: (1) community specific factors such as the number of lots in the community, the status of land development in the community, the competitive factors influencing the sales performance of the community and (2) overall market factors such as employment levels, consumer confidence and the existing supply of new and used homes for sale. As of June 30, 2008, we used discount rates of 18% to 21% in our estimated discounted cash flow impairment calculations. We recorded impairments on land held for development and homes under construction during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008 of $46.8 million and $273.9 million, respectively. We recorded impairments on inventory held for development of $109.4 million and $306.8 million during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2007, respectively.

Due to uncertainties in the estimation process, particularly with respect to projected home sales prices and absorption rate, the timing and amount of the estimated future cash flows and discount rates, it is reasonably possible that actual results could differ from the estimates used in our historical analyses. Our assumptions about future home sales prices and absorption rates require significant judgment because the residential homebuilding industry is cyclical and is highly sensitive to changes in economic conditions. We calculated the estimated fair values of inventory held for development that were evaluated for impairment based on current market conditions and assumptions made by management relative to future results. Because the projected cash flows are significantly impacted by changes in market conditions, it is reasonably possible that actual results could differ materially from our estimates and result in additional impairments.

Inventory Valuation — Land Held for Sale . We record assets held for sale at the lower of the carrying value or fair value less costs to sell in accordance with SFAS 144. The following criteria are used to determine if land is held for sale:

	•		management has the authority and commits to a plan to sell the land;
	•		the land is available for immediate sale in its present condition;
	•		there is an active program to locate a buyer and the plan to sell the land has been initiated;
	•		the sale of the land is probable within one year;
	•		the land is being actively marketed at a reasonable sale price relative to its current fair value; and
	•		it is unlikely that the plan to sell will be withdrawn or that significant changes to the plan will be made.

Additionally, in certain circumstances, we will re-evaluate the best use of an asset that is currently being accounted for as held for development. In such instances, we will review, among other things, the current and projected competitive circumstances of the community, including the level of supply of new and used inventory, the level of sales absorptions by us and our competition, the level of sales incentives required and the number of owned lots remaining in the community. If, based on this review, the foregoing criteria have been met at the end of the applicable reporting period, we believe that the best use of the asset is the sale of all or a portion of the asset in its current condition, then all or portions of the community are accounted for as held for sale.

In determining the fair value of the assets less cost to sell, we considered factors including current sales prices for comparable assets in the area, recent market analysis studies, appraisals, any recent legitimate offers, and listing prices of similar properties. If the estimated fair value less cost to sell of an asset is less than its current carrying value, the asset is written down to its estimated fair value less cost to sell. During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008, we recorded inventory impairments on land held for sale of approximately $21.0 million and $110.1 million, respectively. During the nine months ended June 30, 2007, we recorded inventory impairments on land held for sale of approximately $4.0 million. No held for sale inventory impairments were recorded for the three months ended June 30, 2007.

Due to uncertainties in the estimation process, it is reasonably possible that actual results could differ from the estimates used in our historical analyses. Our assumptions about land sales prices require significant judgment because the current market is highly sensitive to changes in economic conditions. We calculated the estimated fair values of land held for sale based on current market conditions and assumptions made by management, which may differ materially from actual results and may result in additional impairments if market conditions continue to deteriorate.

Goodwill. Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of assets acquired. We test goodwill for impairment annually as of April 30 or more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired. For purposes of goodwill impairment testing, we compare the fair value of each reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill. Each of our operating divisions is considered a reporting unit. The fair value of each reporting unit is determined based on expected discounted future cash flows. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the goodwill within the reporting unit may be potentially impaired. An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeds implied fair value of that goodwill. As a result of significantly less than expected new orders in our prime selling season, which is our second fiscal quarter, significant pricing pressures and additional incentives provided to homebuyers, our reforecasting of expected future results of operations and increasing inventory impairment charges, we tested all remaining goodwill balances for impairment as of March 31, 2008. We recorded estimated goodwill impairment charges totaling $48.1 million relating to our reporting units in Arizona, Southern California, New Jersey and Virginia during the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In connection with our annual goodwill impairment test as of April 30, 2008, we finalized our impairment calculations, validating the impairments recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2008. Also, in connection with our annual goodwill impairment test and our decision in the third quarter to exit our Colorado market, we recorded an additional impairment charge of $4.4 million related to our Colorado reporting unit.

Goodwill impairment charges are reported in Corporate and unallocated and are not allocated to our homebuilding segments. Goodwill balances by reportable segment as of September 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008 were as follows:

Inherent in our fair value determinations are certain judgments and estimates, including projections of future cash flows, the discount rate reflecting the risk inherent in future cash flows, our interpretation of current economic indicators and market valuations and our strategic plans with regard to our operations. A change in these underlying assumptions would cause a change in the results of the tests, which could cause the fair value of one or more reporting units to be more or less than their respective carrying amounts. In addition, to the extent that there are significant changes in market conditions or overall economic conditions or our strategic plans change, it is possible that our conclusion regarding goodwill impairment could change, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Impairment charges related to reporting units which are not currently impaired may occur in the future if further market deterioration occurs resulting in a revised analysis of fair value.

(2) Supplemental Cash Flow Information

During the nine months ended June 30, we paid interest of $122.9 million in 2008 and $126.9 million in 2007. In addition, we paid income taxes of $0.8 million in 2008 and $15.7 million in 2007 and received tax refunds of $56.6 million in fiscal 2008 related to the carryback of tax losses. We also had the following non-cash activity (in thousands):

Homes under construction includes homes finished and ready for delivery and homes in various stages of construction. We had 300 ($60.2 million) and 862 ($179.4 million) completed homes that were not subject to a sales contract at June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, respectively. Development projects in progress consist principally of land and land improvement costs. Certain of the fully developed lots in this category are reserved by a deposit or sales contract. Land held for sale as of June 30, 2008 principally included land held for sale in the markets we have decided to exit including Denver, Colorado, Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio, Lexington, Kentucky and Charlotte, North Carolina.

Total owned inventory, by reportable segment, is set forth in the table below (in thousands):

The following tables set forth, by reportable segment, the inventory impairments and lot option abandonment charges recorded (in thousands):

		Quarter Ended June 30,								Nine Months Ended June 30,
		2008				2007				2008				2007
Development projects and homes in process (Held for Development)
West		$	20,371			$	57,623			$	145,792			$	140,532
Mid-Atlantic			2,402				6,516				52,280				41,495
Florida			9,032				16,931				21,171				54,904
Southeast			9,817				7,204				27,427				12,075
Other			2,085				14,960				7,409				39,450
Unallocated			3,053				6,194				19,790				18,389
Subtotal		$	46,760			$	109,428			$	273,869			$	306,845
Land Held for Sale
West		$	6,910			$	—			$	7,714			$	3,105
Mid-Atlantic			5,631				—				14,802				—
Florida			804				—				23,839				—
Southeast			3,793				—				19,246				500
Other			3,828				—				44,458				350
Subtotal		$	20,966			$	—			$	110,059			$	3,955
Lot Option Abandonments
West		$	14,134			$	19,858			$	14,962			$	31,616
Mid-Atlantic			21				14,477				6,679				19,174
Florida			606				7,209				4,354				21,481
Southeast			684				2,685				28,074				5,934
Other			12,311				587				13,857				10,851
Subtotal		$	27,756			$	44,816			$	67,926			$	89,056
Total		$	95,482			$	154,244			$	451,854			$	399,856

The inventory impaired during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008 represented 2,430 and 8,850 lots in 44 and 191 communities with an estimated fair value of $164.2 million and $556.2 million, respectively. The impairments recorded on our held for development inventory, for all segments, primarily resulted from the continued significant decline in the homebuilding environment that negatively impacted the sales prices of homes and increased the sales incentives offered to potential homebuyers in our efforts to increase home sales absorptions. Fiscal year to date, our West and Mid-Atlantic segments experienced the most significant amount of inventory impairments as compared to our other homebuilding segments due to the fact that the number of owned land and lots in the West and Mid-Atlantic segments comprise approximately 29.5% and 12.7%, respectively, of our total land and lots owned as of June 30, 2008 and approximately 37.4% and 19.9%, respectively, of the dollar value of our held for development inventory as of June 30, 2008. In addition, our homebuilding markets that comprise our West segment consist of markets that once experienced the most significant home price appreciation in the nation during the 2004 through 2006 periods which was partially driven by speculative purchases and the availability of mortgage credit during those time periods. The decline in the availability of mortgage loan products and the exit of speculators from the market, among other factors, contributed to the significant increase in the supply of new and used homes on the market for sale.

The impairments recorded in our other segments are primarily as a result of continued price competition brought on by the continued high levels of new and resale home inventory for sale during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008 that has resulted in increased sales incentives and home sales price declines as we attempt to increase new orders and generate cash to the Company.

During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008, as a result of the Company’s decision to re-allocate capital employed through strategic sales of select properties and through the exiting of certain markets no longer viewed as strategic and based on current estimated fair values, less costs to sell, as compared to book values, we recorded impairments on land held for sale. During the three months ended June 30, 2008, we decided to exit the Denver, Colorado and Fresno, California markets.

We also have access to land inventory through lot option contracts, which generally enables us to defer acquiring portions of properties owned by third parties and unconsolidated entities until we have determined whether to exercise our lot option. A majority of our lot

option contracts require a non-refundable cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit based on a percentage of the purchase price of the land for the right to acquire lots during a specified period of time at a certain price. Under lot option contracts, both with and without specific performance provisions, purchase of the properties is contingent upon satisfaction of certain requirements by us and the sellers. Our obligation with respect to options with specific performance provisions is included in our consolidated balance sheets in other liabilities. Under option contracts without specific performance obligations, our liability is generally limited to forfeiture of the non-refundable deposits, letters of credit and other non-refundable amounts incurred, which aggregated approximately $76.7 million at June 30, 2008. This amount includes non-refundable letters of credit of approximately $12.8 million. The total remaining purchase price, net of cash deposits, committed under all options was $861.6 million as of June 30, 2008. Only $34.8 million of the total remaining purchase price contains specific performance clauses which may require us to purchase the land or lots upon the land seller meeting certain obligations.

In addition, we have also completed a strategic review of all of the markets within our homebuilding segments and the communities within each of those markets with an initial focus on the communities for which land has been secured with option purchase contracts. As a result of this review, we have determined the proper course of action with respect to a number of communities within each homebuilding segment was to abandon the remaining lots under option and to write-off the deposits securing the option takedowns, as well as preacquisition costs. In determining whether to abandon a lot option contract, we evaluate the lot option primarily based upon the expected cash flows from the property that is the subject of the option. If we intend to abandon or walk-away from a lot option contract, we record a charge to earnings in the period such decision is made for the deposit amount and any related capitalized costs associated with the lot option contract. We recorded lot option abandonment charges during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008 of $27.8 million and $67.9 million, respectively. We recorded lot option abandonment charges of $44.8 million and $89.1 million during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2007, respectively. Southeast and Other Homebuilding segments represented 41.3% and 20.4% of the nine-month fiscal 2008 abandonments, respectively, as we made the decision to abandon certain option contracts that no longer fit in our long-term strategic plan and related to our decision to exit our Colorado and Kentucky markets.

We expect to exercise substantially all of our option contracts with specific performance obligations and, subject to market conditions, most of our option contracts without specific performance obligations. Various factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as market conditions, weather conditions and the timing of the completion of development activities, will have a significant impact on the timing of option exercises or whether land options will be exercised.

Certain of our option contracts are with sellers who are deemed to be variable interest entities (“VIE“s) under FASB Interpretation No. 46 (Revised), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities , an Interpretation of ARB No. 51 (“FIN 46R”). FIN 46R defines a VIE as an entity with insufficient equity investment to finance its planned activities without additional financial support or an entity in which the equity investors lack certain characteristics of a controlling financial interest. Pursuant to FIN 46R, an enterprise that absorbs a majority of the expected losses or receives a majority of the expected residual returns of a VIE is deemed to be the primary beneficiary of the VIE and must consolidate the VIE.

We have determined that we are the primary beneficiary of certain of these option contracts. Our risk is generally limited to the option deposits that we pay, and creditors of the sellers generally have no recourse to the general credit of the Company. Although we do not have legal title to the optioned land, for those option contracts for which we are the primary beneficiary, we are required to consolidate the land under option at fair value. We believe that the exercise prices of our option contracts approximate their fair value. Our consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 reflect consolidated inventory not owned of $120.3 million and $237.4 million, respectively. We consolidated $37.1 million and $92.3 million of lot option agreements as consolidated inventory not owned pursuant to FIN 46R as of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, respectively. In addition, as of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, we recorded $83.3 million and $145.1 million, respectively, of land under the caption “consolidated inventory not owned” related to lot option agreements in accordance with SFAS 49, Product Financing Arrangements . Obligations related to consolidated inventory not owned totaled $83.0 million at June 30, 2008 and $177.9 million at September 30, 2007. The difference between the balances of consolidated inventory not owned and obligations related to consolidated inventory not owned represents cash deposits paid under the option agreements.

(4) Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures

As of June 30, 2008 we participated in 19 land development joint ventures in which Beazer Homes had less than a controlling interest. Our joint ventures are typically entered into with developers, other homebuilders and financial partners to develop finished lots for sale to the joint venture’s members and other third parties. Equity in loss of unconsolidated joint ventures was $(18.6) million and $(0.9) million for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 and $(75.1) million and $(7.0) million for the nine months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Equity in loss of unconsolidated joint ventures for three and nine months ended June 30, 2008 included the writedown of our investment in certain of our joint ventures, reflecting $18.5 million and $63.0 million, respectively, of

impairments of inventory held within those ventures in accordance with APB 18, The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock . Joint venture impairments totaled $3.1 million for the nine months ended June 30, 2007. Our joint ventures typically obtain secured acquisition and development financing. The following table presents our investment in and guarantees under our unconsolidated joint ventures, as well as total equity and outstanding borrowings of these joint ventures as of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007:

The decrease in our investment in these joint ventures from September 30, 2007 to June 30, 2008 relates primarily to $63.0 million of impairments of inventory held within the joint ventures. In connection with the exchange of our interest in two joint ventures with our joint venture partner during the second quarter of fiscal 2008, we also acquired that partner’s interest in two separate joint ventures. In connection with the acquisition of one of these joint ventures, we assumed the joint venture’s debt of approximately $22.7 million.

At June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, total borrowings outstanding above, include $374.4 million and $450.6 million related to one joint venture in which we are a 2.58% partner. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the lender to this joint venture notified the joint venture partners that it believes the joint venture is in default of certain joint venture loan agreements as a result of certain of the Company’s joint venture partners not complying with all aspects of the joint ventures’ loan agreements. The lender has not taken any action against the joint venture or the Company at this time. The joint venture partners are currently in discussions with the lender. The Company’s share of the debt is approximately $9.7 million at June 30, 2008 with a total repayment guarantee of $15.1 million. Our equity interest at June 30, 2008 was $8.4 million in this joint venture.

As of June 30, 2008, the debt related to two of our unconsolidated joint ventures has matured. Total borrowings outstanding related to these two joint ventures, in each of which we are a 50% partner, was $33.2 million. In one instance, the joint venture has received notice from the lender demanding payment in full. The Company and its joint venture partner are currently in discussions with the lender.

In some instances, Beazer Homes and our joint venture partners have provided varying levels of guarantees of debt of our unconsolidated joint ventures. At June 30, 2008, these guarantees included, for certain joint ventures, construction completion guarantees, loan to value maintenance agreements, repayment guarantees and environmental indemnities. See Note 9 for further discussion of these guarantees.

We also participated in one land development joint venture in which Beazer Homes obtained a controlling interest during the quarter ended March 31, 2008. This joint venture has been consolidated in our consolidated financial statements and, as such, is excluded from the information provided above.

(5) Interest

Our ability to capitalize all interest incurred during fiscal 2008 has been limited by the reduction in our inventory eligible for capitalization. The following table sets forth certain information regarding interest (in thousands):

(6) Earnings Per Share and Stockholders’ Equity

Basic and diluted earnings per share were calculated as follows (in thousands, except per share amounts):

In computing diluted loss per share for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2007, all common stock equivalents were excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share as a result of their anti-dilutive effect.

(7) Borrowings

At June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 we had the following borrowings (in thousands) :

Warehouse Line —Effective February 7, 2007, Beazer Mortgage amended its 364-day credit agreement (the “Warehouse Line”) to extend its maturity date to February 8, 2008 and modify the maximum available borrowing capacity to $100 million, subject to compliance with the mortgage loan eligibility requirements as defined in the Warehouse Line. The Warehouse Line was secured by certain mortgage loan sales and related property. The Warehouse Line was entered into with a number of banks to fund the origination of residential mortgage loans. The maximum available borrowing capacity was subsequently reduced through amendments down to $17 million as of September 30, 2007. We had no borrowings outstanding under the Warehouse Line as of September 30, 2007. The Warehouse Line was not guaranteed by Beazer Homes USA, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries that are guarantors of the Senior Notes or Revolving Credit Facility. Effective November 14, 2007, we terminated the Warehouse Line, at which time there were no outstanding borrowings.

Revolving Credit Facility — In July 2007, we replaced our former credit facility with a new $500 million, four-year unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Credit Facility”) with a group of banks, which matures in 2011. As a result of a series of amendments, as more fully described below, the Revolving Credit Facility is now a $400 million secured revolving credit facility. The Revolving Credit Facility has a $350 million sublimit for the issuance of standby letters of credit. We have the option to elect two types of loans under the Revolving Credit Facility which incur interest as applicable based on either the Alternative Base Rate or the Applicable Eurodollar Margin (both defined in the Revolving Credit Facility). The Revolving Credit Facility contains various operating and financial covenants. Substantially all of our significant subsidiaries are guarantors of the obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility (see Note 12).

We fulfill our short-term cash requirements with cash generated from our operations and funds available from our Revolving Credit Facility. There were no amounts outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility at June 30, 2008 or September 30, 2007; however, we had $71.5 million and $133.3 million of letters of credit outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility at June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, respectively.

On October 10, 2007, we entered into a waiver and amendment of our Revolving Credit Facility, waiving events of default through May 15, 2008 under the facility arising from our failure to file or deliver reports or other information we would be required to file with the SEC and our decision to restate our financial statements. Under this and the October 26, 2007 amendments, all obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility are secured by certain assets and our ability to borrow under this facility is subject to satisfaction of a secured borrowing base. We are permitted to grow the borrowing base by adding additional cash and/or real estate as collateral securing the Revolving Credit Facility. In addition, we obtained additional flexibility with respect to our financial covenants in the Revolving Credit Facility.

On May 13, 2008 and June 30, 2008, we obtained limited waivers which relaxed, through August 15, 2008, our minimum consolidated tangible net worth and maximum leverage ratio requirements under our Revolving Credit Facility. During the term of the limited waivers, the minimum consolidated tangible net worth could not be less than $700 million and the leverage ratio could not exceed 2.50 to 1.00.

On August 7, 2008, we entered into an amendment to our Revolving Credit Facility which changed the size, covenants and pricing for the facility. The size of the Revolving Credit Facility was reduced from $500 million to $400 million and is subject to further reductions to $250 million and $100 million if our consolidated tangible net worth (defined in the agreement as stockholders’ equity less intangible assets) falls below $350 million and $250 million, respectively. The facility size is also subject to reduction to $250 million if our leverage ratio (defined in the agreement as the ratio of consolidated debt (net of average unrestricted cash in excess of $20 million) to consolidated tangible net worth) exceeds 5.0x (or 3.5x excluding the effect of any deferred tax valuation allowance). Further, the facility size is subject to reduction to $200 million if our interest coverage ratio for the quarter ending June 30, 2010 is less than 1.0x.

Availability under the facility continues to be subject to satisfaction of a secured borrowing base. The amendment provides that the book value of the assets securing the facility must exceed 3.0x the outstanding loans and letters of credit. Such coverage level increases to 4.5x and 6.0x to the extent the facility size is reduced to $250 million or $100 million, respectively. At June 30, 2008, we had available borrowing capacity of $90.7 million under the Revolving Credit Facility. At August 7, 2008, after giving effect to the amendment, we had no additional borrowing capacity available under the facility.

The interest margins under the Revolving Credit Facility were increased and are now based on the facility size. The Eurodollar Margin under the facility is now 4.5%. To the extent the facility size is reduced to $250 million or $100 million, the Eurodollar Margin will increase to 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

The financial maintenance covenants pertaining to the leverage ratio, interest coverage ratio and land inventory were eliminated as part of the August amendment. The remaining financial maintenance covenants are a minimum tangible net worth covenant (which requires us to have at least $100 million of consolidated tangible net worth) and a minimum liquidity covenant. The minimum liquidity covenant, which is applicable for so long as our interest coverage ratio is less than 1.75x, requires us to maintain either (a) $120 million of unrestricted cash and borrowing base availability or (b) a ratio (the “Adjusted Coverage Ratio”) of adjusted cash flow from operations (defined in the agreement as cash flow from operations plus interest incurred) to interest incurred of at least 1.75x.

We believe that the elimination and relaxation of the financial maintenance covenants will permit us to comply with the amended covenants for the foreseeable future. However, further deteriorations in the housing market generally, or in our business particularly, could result in our having to seek additional amendments or waivers under the Revolving Credit Facility. To the extent that we default any of these covenants and we are unable to obtain waivers, the lenders under the Revolving Credit Facility could accelerate our obligations thereunder. Any such acceleration would result in an event of default under our Senior Notes described below and would permit the holders thereof to accelerate our obligations under the Senior Notes.

Senior Notes — The Senior Notes are unsecured obligations ranking pari passu with all other existing and future senior indebtedness. Substantially all of our significant subsidiaries are full and unconditional guarantors of the Senior Notes and are jointly and severally liable for obligations under the Senior Notes and the Revolving Credit Facility. Each guarantor subsidiary is a 100% owned subsidiary of Beazer Homes.

The indentures under which the Senior Notes were issued contain certain restrictive covenants, including limitations on payment of dividends. At June 30, 2008, under the most restrictive covenants of each indenture, no portion of our retained earnings was available for cash dividends or for share repurchases. Each indenture provides that, in the event of defined changes in control or if our consolidated tangible net worth falls below a specified level or in certain circumstances upon a sale of assets, we are required to offer to repurchase certain specified amounts of outstanding Senior Notes.

In March 2007, we voluntarily repurchased $10.0 million of our outstanding 8 5/8% Senior Notes and $10.0 million of our outstanding 8 3/8% Senior Notes on the open market. The aggregate purchase price was $20.6 million, or an average of 102.8% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest as of the purchase date. The repurchase of the notes resulted in a $562,500 pretax loss during the second quarter of fiscal 2007. On March 28, 2007, we repurchased an additional $10.0 million of our outstanding 8 5/8% Senior Notes which were cash settled on April 2, 2007 at a purchase price of $9.85 million, or an average of 98.5% of the aggregate principal amount of the notes repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest as of the purchase date. The repurchase of the notes resulted in a $150,000 pre-tax gain during the third quarter of fiscal 2007. Gains/losses from notes repurchased are included in other (expense) income, net in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. Senior Notes purchased by the Company were cancelled.

On October 26, 2007, we obtained consents from holders of our Senior Notes to approve amendments of the indentures under which the Senior Notes were issued. These amendments restrict our ability to secure additional debt in excess of $700 million until certain

conditions are met and enable us to invest up to $50 million in joint ventures. The consents also provided us with a waiver of any and all defaults under the Senior Notes that may have occurred on or prior to May 15, 2008 relating to filing or delivering annual and quarterly financial statements. Fees and expenses related to obtaining these consents totaled approximately $21 million. The recording of such fees and expenses has been deferred and will be amortized as an adjustment to interest expense in accordance with EITF 96-19 — “Debtor’s Accounting for a Modification or Exchange of Debt Instruments.”

Junior Subordinated Notes — On June 15, 2006, we completed a private placement of $103.1 million of unsecured junior subordinated notes which mature on July 30, 2036 and are redeemable at par on or after July 30, 2011 and pay a fixed rate of 7.987% for the first ten years ending July 30, 2016. Thereafter, the securities have a floating interest rate equal to three-month LIBOR plus 2.45% per annum, resetting quarterly. These notes were issued to Beazer Capital Trust I, which simultaneously issued, in a private transaction, trust preferred securities and common securities with an aggregate value of $103.1 million to fund its purchase of these notes. The transaction is treated as debt in accordance with GAAP. The obligations relating to these notes and the related securities are subordinated to the Revolving Credit Facility and the Senior Notes.

On April 30, 2008, we received a default notice from The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association, the trustee under the indenture governing these junior subordinated notes. The notice alleged that we were in default under the indenture because we had not yet furnished certain required information (including our annual audited and quarterly unaudited financial statements). The notice further alleged that this default would become an event of default under the indenture if not remedied within 30 days. The Company subsequently delivered the information that was subject to the default notice thereby curing any alleged default that may have occurred.

Other Secured Notes Payable — We periodically acquire land through the issuance of notes payable. As of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, we had outstanding notes payable of $50.4 million and $118.1 million, respectively, primarily related to land acquisitions. These notes payable expire at various times through 2012 and had fixed and variable rates ranging from 5.4% to 8.0% at June 30, 2008. These notes are secured by the real estate to which they relate. During the first nine months of fiscal 2008, we repaid $100.5 million of these secured notes payable. In connection with the exchange of our interest in two joint ventures to our joint venture partner, we also acquired that partner’s interest in two separate joint ventures. In connection with the acquisition of one of these ventures, we assumed the joint venture’s debt of approximately $22.7 million which is included in other secured notes payable as of June 30, 2008.

Model Home Financing Obligations - Due to a continuing interest in certain model home sale-leaseback transactions, we have recorded $86.4 million and $114.1 million of debt as of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, respectively, related to these “financing” transactions in accordance with SFAS 98 (As amended), Accounting for Leases. These model home transactions incur interest at a variable rate of one-month LIBOR plus 450 basis points, 7.0% as of June 30, 2008, and expire at various times through 2015.

(8) Income Taxes

On October 1, 2007 the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in the financial statements in accordance with SFAS 109, Accounting for Income Taxes . FIN 48 defines the threshold for recognizing the benefits of tax return positions as well as guidance regarding the measurement of the resulting tax benefits. FIN 48 requires a company to recognize for financial statement purposes the impact of a tax position, if a tax return position is “more likely than not” to prevail (defined as a likelihood of more than fifty percent of being sustained upon audit, based on the technical merits of the tax position). FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition. The cumulative effect of the adoption of FIN 48 was recorded as a $10.1 million reduction to retained earnings as of October 1, 2007. The total amount of gross unrecognized tax benefits as of October 1, 2007 was $72.5 million (which excludes interest, penalties, and the tax benefit relating to the deductibility of interest and state income tax). The adoption of FIN 48 also increased our gross deferred tax assets by approximately $65 million. The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the Company’s effective tax rate was $26.5 million, as of October 1, 2007.

Since the adoption of FIN 48 on October 1, 2007, there have been no material changes to the components of the Company’s total unrecognized tax benefit that, if recognized, would affect the Company’s effective tax rate. It is reasonably possible that, within the next 12 months, total unrecognized tax benefits may decrease as a result of the potential resolution with the IRS relating to issues stemming from fiscal year 2003 and 2004 federal income tax returns, in addition to the resolution of various state income tax audits and/or appeals. The change that could occur within the next 12 months, however, cannot be estimated at this time. The statute of limitations for the Company’s major tax jurisdictions remains open for examination for fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

The Company recognizes accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in the financial statements as a component of the income tax provision, consistent with the Company’s historical accounting policy. After the adoption of FIN 48, the total amount of gross accrued interest and penalties was $19.3 million. The Company recorded an additional $2.3 million and $4.1 million of gross interest and penalties during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008, respectively, in accordance with FIN 48, resulting in a $23.4 million accrued balance at June 30, 2008. The Company’s liability for unrecognized tax benefits combined with accrued interest and penalties is reflected as a component of other liabilities.

Primarily as a result of recording significant inventory impairment charges during fiscal 2007 and in the nine months ended June 30, 2008, the balance of our deferred tax assets increased substantially. The net deferred tax asset of $416.4 million as of June 30, 2008 assumes that the value of these assets will be realized. In assessing the recoverability of deferred tax assets, we analyze all evidence, both positive and negative. As of June 30, 2008, the positive evidence we considered included (1) the cyclical nature of the homebuilding industry; (2) our long history of profitability; (3) the determination that we are not in a cumulative loss position; (4) our experience that no NOLs have expired unutilized; (5) our ability to carryback NOLs; and (6) the steps we are taking to improve our future profitability. As of June 30, 2008, we considered the negative evidence including (1) our fiscal year-to-date 2008 loss and the expectation of losses in the remainder of fiscal 2008 and (2) the uncertainty as to the timing of when the homebuilding industry will rebound. After consideration of this evidence, we believe that as of June 30, 2008, it is more likely than not that our net deferred tax assets are recoverable. If market conditions within the homebuilding industry do not improve or continue to worsen and/or our assessment of the positive and negative evidence changes, it may affect our ability to fully realize the value of these assets, which may require a valuation adjustment and additional income tax expense in our consolidated statements of operations, and such expense could be material.

Our income tax receivable was $144.5 million and $64.0 million as of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, respectively. This receivable relates primarily to the carryback of losses incurred in fiscal 2007 and the nine months ended June 30, 2008 to open tax years in which we previously paid significant income taxes. During the nine months ended June 30, 2008, we received $56.6 million of federal income tax refunds related to open tax years in which we previously paid taxes.

(9) Contingencies

Beazer Homes and certain of its subsidiaries have been and continue to be named as defendants in various construction defect claims, complaints and other legal actions that include claims related to moisture intrusion.

Warranty Reserves — We currently provide a limited warranty (ranging from one to two years) covering workmanship and materials per our defined performance quality standards. In addition, we provide a limited warranty (generally ranging from a minimum of five years up to the period covered by the applicable statute of repose) covering only certain defined construction defects. We also provide a defined structural element warranty with single-family homes and townhomes in certain states.

Since we subcontract our homebuilding work to subcontractors who generally provide us with an indemnity and a certificate of insurance prior to receiving payments for their work, many claims relating to workmanship and materials are the primary responsibility of the subcontractors.

Our warranty reserves at June 30, 2008 and 2007 include accruals for Trinity Homes LLC (“Trinity”) moisture intrusion issues discussed more fully below. Warranty reserves are included in other liabilities and the provision for warranty accruals is included in home construction and land sales expenses in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. We record reserves covering anticipated warranty expense for each home closed. Management reviews the adequacy of warranty reserves each reporting period based on historical experience and management’s estimate of the costs to remediate the claims and adjusts these provisions accordingly. Our review includes a quarterly analysis of the historical data and trends in warranty expense by operating segment. An analysis by operating segment allows us to consider market specific factors such as our warranty experience, the number of home closings, the prices of homes, product mix and other data in estimating our warranty reserves. In addition, our analysis also contemplates the existence of any non-recurring or community-specific warranty related matters that might not be contemplated in our historical data and trends. As a result of our analyses, we adjust our estimated warranty liabilities. While we believe that our warranty reserves are adequate, historical data and trends may not accurately predict actual warranty costs, or future developments could lead to a significant change in the reserve. Our warranty reserves, which include amounts related to the Trinity moisture intrusion issues discussed below, are as follows (in thousands):

Trinity Claims — Beazer Homes and certain of our subsidiaries have been and continue to be named as defendants in various construction defect claims, complaints and other legal actions that include claims related to moisture intrusion. We have experienced a significant number of such claims in our Midwest region and particularly with respect to homes built by Trinity, a subsidiary which was acquired in the Crossmann acquisition in 2002.

As of June 30, 2008, there were four pending lawsuits related to such complaints received by Trinity. All suits are by individual homeowners, and the cost to resolve these matters is not expected to be material, either individually or in the aggregate. Additionally, a class action suit was filed in the State of Indiana in August 2003 against Trinity Homes LLC. The parties in the class action reached a settlement agreement which was approved by the court on October 20, 2004.

The settlement class includes, with certain exclusions, the current owners of all Trinity homes that have brick veneer, where the closing of Trinity’s initial sale of the home took place between June 1, 1998 and October 31, 2002. The settlement agreement establishes an agreed protocol and process for assessment and remediation of any external moisture intrusion issues at the homes which includes, among other things, that the homes will be repaired at Trinity’s expense. The settlement agreement also provides for payment of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and for Trinity to pay an agreed amount for engineering inspection costs for each home for which a claim is filed under the settlement.

Under the settlement, subject to Trinity’s timely performance of the specified assessments and remediation activities for homeowners who file claims, each homeowner releases Trinity, Beazer Homes Investment, LLC and other affiliated companies, including Beazer Homes, from the claims asserted in the class action lawsuit, claims arising out of external moisture intrusion, claims of improper brick installation, including property damage claims, loss or diminution of property value claims, and most personal injury claims, among others. No appeals of the court’s order approving the settlement were received by the court within the timeframe established by the court. The Company sent out the claims notices on December 17, 2004, and the class members had until February 15, 2005 to file claims. A total of 1,310 valid claims were filed (of the 2,161 total class members), of which 613 complaints had been received prior to our receipt of the claim notices. Class members who did not file a claim by February 15, 2005 are no longer able to file a class action claim under the settlement or pursue an individual claim against Trinity. As of June 30, 2008, we have completed remediation of 1,755 homes related to 1,853 total Trinity claims.

Our warranty reserves at June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 include accruals for our estimated costs to assess and remediate all homes for which Trinity had received complaints related to moisture intrusion. Warranty reserves also include accruals for class action claims received, pursuant to the settlement discussed above, from class members who had not previously contacted Trinity with complaints.

The cost to assess and remediate a home depends on the extent of moisture damage, if any, that the home has incurred. Homes for which we receive complaints are classified into one of three categories: 1) homes with no moisture damage, 2) homes with isolated moisture damage or 3) homes with extensive moisture damage.

As of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, we accrued for our estimated cost to remediate homes that we had assessed and assigned to one of the above categories, as well as our estimated cost to remediate those homes for which an assessment had not yet been performed. For purposes of our accrual, we have historically assigned homes not yet assessed to categories based on our expectations about the extent of damage and trends observed from the results of assessments performed to date. In addition, our cost estimation

process considers the subdivision of the claimant along with the categorization discussed above. Once a home is categorized, detailed budgets are used as the basis to prepare our estimated costs to remediate such home.

During fiscal 2004, we initiated a program under which we offered to repurchase a limited number of homes from specific homeowners. The program was concluded during the first quarter of fiscal 2005. We have repurchased a total of 54 homes under the program. During the nine months ended June 30, 2008, the Company sold six of the repurchased homes, bringing the total homes sold to date to 43. The remaining 11 homes are included in owned inventory at a net realizable value totaling $2.6 million.

The following accruals at June 30, 2008 represent our best estimates of the costs to resolve all asserted complaints associated with Trinity moisture intrusion issues. We regularly review our estimate of these costs. Since the commencement of the remediation program, our remediation cost per home has continued to decrease as homes requiring more extensive repairs were addressed first and our internal processes and procedures, including enhanced contractor bid negotiations and inspections, improved as experience gained in addressing these issues has yielded meaningful benefits on a per home basis. As a result, we adjust our estimate of warranty liabilities for each new claim and our estimate of the remaining expenditures to remediate the remaining homes in the class. Changes in the accrual for Trinity moisture intrusion issues during the period were as follows (in thousands):

Actual costs to assess and remediate homes in each category and subdivision, the extent of damage to homes not yet assessed, estimates of costs to sell the remaining repurchased homes, and losses on such sales could differ from our estimates. As a result, the costs to resolve existing complaints could differ from our recorded accruals and have a material adverse effect on our earnings in the periods in which the matters are resolved. Additionally, it is possible that we will incur additional losses related to these matters, including additional losses related to homes for which we have not yet received complaints.

Guarantees

Construction Completion Guarantees

We and our joint venture partners are generally obligated to the project lenders to complete land development improvements and the construction of planned homes if the joint venture does not perform the required development. Provided the joint venture and the partners are not in default under any loan provisions, the project lenders would be obligated to fund these improvements through any financing commitments available under the applicable loans.

Loan to Value Maintenance Agreements

We and our joint venture partners generally provide credit enhancements to acquisition, development and construction borrowings in the form of loan to value maintenance agreements, which can limit the amount of additional funding provided by the lenders (although not generally requiring repayment of the borrowings) to the extent such borrowings plus construction completion costs exceed a specified percentage of the value of the property securing the borrowings. During the nine months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, we were not required to make any payments on the loan to value maintenance guarantees. At June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 respectively, we had total loan to value maintenance guarantees of $6.0 million and $7.7 million related to our unconsolidated joint venture borrowings. This amount represents the Company’s maximum exposure to loss from such loan to value maintenance guarantees without regard to the underlying value of the collateral and any defenses that may be available to us against any attempted enforcement of such guarantees.

Repayment Guarantees

We and our joint venture partners have repayment guarantees related to certain joint venture’s borrowings. These repayment guarantees require the repayment of all or a portion of the debt of the unconsolidated joint venture in the event the joint venture defaults on its obligations under the borrowing or files for bankruptcy. During the nine months ended June 30, 2008, we were not required to make payments related to any portion of the repayment guarantees. At June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 respectively, we had

repayment guarantees of $39.1 million and $42.3 million related to the borrowings on these applicable unconsolidated joint ventures, some of which are only triggered upon bankruptcy of the joint venture.

Environmental Indemnities

Additionally, we and our joint venture partners generally provide unsecured environmental indemnities to joint venture project lenders. In each case, we have performed due diligence on potential environmental risks. These indemnities obligate us to reimburse the project lenders for claims related to environmental matters for which they are held responsible. During the quarters ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, we were not required to make any payments related to environmental indemnities.

In general, we have not recorded a liability for the non-contingent aspect of any of these guarantees as such amounts are not material. In assessing the need to record a liability for the contingent aspect of these guarantees in accordance with FIN 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others , we consider our historical experience in being required to perform under the guarantees, the fair value of the collateral underlying these guarantees and the financial condition of the applicable unconsolidated joint ventures. In addition, we monitor the fair value of the collateral of these unconsolidated joint ventures to ensure that the related borrowings do not exceed the specified percentage of the value of the property securing the borrowings. To date, we have not incurred any obligations related to the aforementioned guarantees. Based on these considerations, we have determined that it is remote that we will have to perform under the contingent aspects of these guarantees and, as a result, have not recorded a liability for the contingent aspects of these guarantees. To the extent the recording of a liability related to such guarantees would be required, the recognition of such liability would result in an increase to the carrying value of our investment in the associated joint venture.

Other Matters

In November 2003, Beazer Homes received a request for information from the EPA pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act seeking information concerning the nature and extent of storm water discharge practices relating to certain of our projects completed or under construction. The EPA has since requested information on additional projects and has conducted site inspections at a number of locations. In certain instances, the EPA or the equivalent state agency has issued Administrative Orders identifying alleged instances of noncompliance and requiring corrective action to address the alleged deficiencies in storm water management practices. As of June 30, 2008, no monetary penalties had been imposed in connection with such Administrative Orders. The EPA has reserved the right to impose monetary penalties at a later date, the amount of which, if any, cannot currently be estimated. Beazer Homes has taken action to comply with the requirements of each of the Administrative Orders and is working to otherwise maintain compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

In 2006, we received two Administrative Orders issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The Orders allege certain violations of wetlands disturbance permits. The two Orders assess proposed fines of $630,000 and $678,000, respectively. We have met with the Department to discuss their concerns on the two affected projects and have requested hearings on both matters. We believe that we have significant defenses to the alleged violations and intend to contest the agency’s findings and the proposed fines. We are currently pursuing settlement discussions with the Department. A hearing before the judge has been postponed pending settlement discussions.

We and certain of our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various claims, complaints and other legal actions, most relating to construction defects, moisture intrusion and related mold claims and product liability. Certain of the liabilities resulting from these actions are covered in whole or part by insurance. In our opinion, based on our current assessment, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We have accrued $18.5 million and $17.6 million in other liabilities related to these matters as of June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007, respectively.

We had performance bonds and outstanding letters of credit of approximately $447.7 million and $60.8 million, respectively, at June 30, 2008 related principally to our obligations to local governments to construct roads and other improvements in various developments in addition to the letters of credit of approximately $13.3 million relating to our land option contracts discussed in Note 3. We do not believe that any such letters of credit or bonds are likely to be drawn upon.

Investigations and Litigation

We and our subsidiary, Beazer Mortgage Corporation, are under criminal and civil investigations by the United States Attorney’s office in the Western District of North Carolina, the SEC and other federal and state agencies. We and certain of our current and former employees, officers and directors have been named as defendants in securities class action lawsuits, lawsuits regarding ERISA claims, and derivative shareholder actions. In addition, certain of our subsidiaries have been named in class action and multi-party lawsuits regarding claims made by homebuyers. We cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of the governmental investigations

or the lawsuits or the effect that any adverse findings in the investigations or adverse determinations in the lawsuits may have on us. While we are cooperating with the governmental investigations, developments, including the expansion of the scope of the investigations, could negatively impact us and could divert the efforts and attention of our management team from the operation of our business, and/or result in further departures of executives or other employees. An unfavorable determination resulting from any governmental investigation could result in the filing of criminal charges, the payment of substantial criminal or civil fines, the imposition of injunctions on our conduct or the imposition of other penalties or consequences, including the Company adjusting, curtailing or terminating the conduct of certain of our business operations. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. An unfavorable determination in any of the lawsuits could result in the payment by us of substantial monetary damages which may not be fully covered by insurance. Further, the legal costs associated with the investigations and the lawsuits and the amount of time required to be spent by management and the Board of Directors on these matters, even if we are ultimately successful, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See the discussion below for details related to these investigations and related litigation.

Investigations

United States Attorney, State and Federal Agency Investigations . Beazer Homes and its subsidiary, Beazer Mortgage Corporation, are under criminal and civil investigations by the United States Attorney’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina and other state and federal agencies concerning the matters that were the subject of the independent investigation by the Audit Committee of the Beazer Homes’ Board of Directors (the “Investigation”) as more fully described Notes 14 and 17 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of our 2007 Form 10-K. The Company is fully cooperating with these investigations.

Securities and Exchange Commission Investigation. On July 20, 2007, Beazer Homes received from the SEC a formal order of private investigation to determine whether Beazer Homes and/or other persons or entities involved with Beazer Homes have violated federal securities laws, including, among others, the anti-fraud, books and records, internal accounting controls, periodic reporting and certification provisions thereof. The SEC had previously initiated an informal investigation in this matter in May 2007. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC investigation.

Independent Investigation . The Audit Committee of the Beazer Homes Board of Directors has completed the Investigation of Beazer Homes’ mortgage origination business, including, among other things, investigating certain evidence that the Company’s subsidiary, Beazer Mortgage Corporation, violated U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) regulations and may have violated certain other laws and regulations in connection with certain of its mortgage origination activities. The results of the Investigation are fully described in Notes 14 and 17 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of our 2007 Form 10-K.

Mortgage Origination Issues

The Investigation found evidence that employees of the Company’s Beazer Mortgage Corporation subsidiary violated certain federal and/or state regulations, including U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) regulations. Areas of concern uncovered by the Investigation include: down payment assistance programs; the charging of discount points; the closure of certain HUD Licenses; closing accommodations; and the payment of a number of realtor bonuses and decorator allowances in certain Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insured loans and non-FHA conventional loans originated by Beazer Mortgage dating back to at least 2000. The Investigation also uncovered limited improper practices in relation to the issuance of a number of non-FHA Stated Income Loans. We reviewed the loan documents and supporting documentations and determined that the assets were effectively isolated from the seller and its creditors (even in the event of bankruptcy). Based on that information, management continues to believe that sale accounting at the time of the transfer of the loans to third parties was appropriate.

We intend to attempt to negotiate a settlement with prosecutors and regulatory authorities that would allow us to quantify our exposure associated with reimbursement of losses and payment of regulatory and/or criminal fines, if they are imposed. See Notes 14 and 17 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of our 2007 Form 10-K for additional discussion of this matter. At this time, we believe that although it is probable that a liability exists related to this exposure, it is not reasonably estimable and would be inappropriate to record a liability as of June 30, 2008.

Effective February 1, 2008, we exited the mortgage origination business and entered into an exclusive preferred lender arrangement with a national third-party mortgage provider. This exclusive arrangement will continue to offer our homebuyers the option of a simplified financing process while enabling us to focus on our core competency of homebuilding.

Litigation

Securities Class Action. Beazer Homes and certain of our current and former officers (the “Individual Defendants”), as well as our Independent Registered Accounting Firm, are named as defendants in putative class action securities litigation pending in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Three separate complaints were initially filed between March 29 and May 21, 2007. The cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs. On June 27, 2008, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (“Consolidated Complaint”), which purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the securities of Beazer Homes during the period January 27, 2005 through May 12, 2008. The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and prospects, including, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged improper lending practices in our mortgage origination business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning our land investments and inventory. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act. Lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the action is properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.

Derivative Shareholder Actions . Certain of Beazer Homes’ current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a derivative shareholder suit filed on April 16, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint also names Beazer Homes as a nominal defendant. The complaint, purportedly on behalf of Beazer Homes, alleges that the defendants (i) violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; (ii) breached their fiduciary duties and misappropriated information; (iii) abused their control; (iv) wasted corporate assets; and (v) were unjustly enriched. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages against the individual defendants and in favor of Beazer Homes. An additional lawsuit was filed subsequently on August 29, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting similar factual allegations. A motion to consolidate the two Georgia derivative actions is pending, and the plaintiffs are expected to designate the operative complaint within five days after the court consolidates the actions. Additionally, on September 12, 2007, another derivative suit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in that Delaware action on October 26, 2007. The Delaware complaint raises similar factual and legal claims as those asserted by the plaintiffs in the Georgia derivative actions. The defendants have moved to dismiss the Delaware action, or in the alternative, to stay the case pending resolution of the derivative litigation pending in Georgia. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these actions.

ERISA Class Actions. On April 30, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes USA, Inc. 401(k) Plan. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, including those set forth in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), as a result of the investment of retirement monies held by the 401(k) Plan in common stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants were allegedly not provided timely, accurate and complete information concerning Beazer Homes. Four additional lawsuits were filed subsequently on May 11, 2007, May 14, 2007, June 15, 2007 and July 27, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia making similar allegations. The court consolidated these five lawsuits, and on June 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants Beazer Homes, our chief executive officer, certain current and former directors of the Company, including the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and certain employees of the Company who acted as members of the Company’s 401(k) Committee. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions.

Homeowners Class Action Lawsuits and Multi-Plaintiff Lawsuit. Beazer Homes’ subsidiaries, Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on March 23, 2007 in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. The complaint was filed as a putative class action. The purported class is defined as North Carolina residents who purchased homes in subdivisions in North Carolina containing homes constructed by the defendants where the foreclosure rate is allegedly significantly higher than the state-wide average. The complaint alleged that the defendants utilized unfair trade practices to allow low-income purchasers to qualify for loans they allegedly could not afford, resulting in foreclosures that allegedly diminished plaintiffs’ property values. Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and also requested that any damage award be trebled. On April 25, 2008, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed all causes of action with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On July 21, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a consent motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, and the Court of Appeals entered an order of dismissal and mandate the same day. This case is now concluded.

A second putative homeowner class action lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division. The complaint alleged that Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation illegally

facilitated the financing of the purchase of homes sold to low-income purchasers, who allegedly would not have otherwise qualified for the loans. Certain of the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ practices resulted in foreclosures that allegedly diminished plaintiffs’ property values. The complaint demanded an unspecified amount of damages, including damages for alleged violations of federal RICO statutes and punitive damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and the District Court dismissed all causes of action with prejudice on September 10, 2007. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration which the District Court denied. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal, and this case is now concluded.

An additional putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation. The Complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (“RESPA”) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 by (1) improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program, and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement services sold by Beazer Homes Corp. The purported class consists of all residents of North Carolina who purchased a home from Beazer, using mortgage financing provided by and through Beazer that included seller-funded down payment assistance, between January 1, 2000 and October 11, 2007. The Complaint demands an unspecified amount of damages, equitable relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. The defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 4, 2008. On July 25, 2008, in lieu of a response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading or motion, but intends to vigorously defend this action.

Beazer Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation are also named defendants in a lawsuit filed on July 3, 2007, in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, but remanded on April 23, 2008 to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina. The complaint was filed on behalf of ten individual homeowners who purchased homes from Beazer in Mecklenburg County. The complaint alleges certain deceptive conduct by the defendants and brings various claims under North Carolina statutory and common law, including a claim for punitive damages. On June 27, 2008 a second amended complaint, which added two plaintiffs to the lawsuit, was filed. The case has been designated as “exceptional” pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice of the North Carolina Superior and District Courts and has been assigned to the docket of the North Carolina Business Court. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 30, 2008 and intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Beazer Homes’ subsidiaries Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit originally filed on March 12, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Placer. The lawsuit was amended on June 2, 2008 and named as defendants Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and Security Title Insurance Company. The purported class is defined as all persons who purchased a home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the assistance of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25, 1999 to the present where Security Title Insurance Company received any money as a reinsurer of the transaction. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and asserts claims under a number of state statutes alleging that defendants engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of giving and/or accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses including affiliated and/or recommended title insurance companies. The complaint also alleges a number of common law claims. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages under RESPA, unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants removed the action to federal court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action.

For each of the above actions, no accrual has been recorded as of June 30, 2008 or September 30, 2007, as losses, if any, related to these matters are not both probable and estimable.

Bond Indenture Trustee Litigation . On September 10, 2007, we filed an Amended Complaint For Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief in an action pending in the United States District Court in Atlanta, Georgia against the trustees under the indentures governing our outstanding senior and convertible senior notes. We sought, among other relief, a declaration from the court against the trustees that the delay in filing with the SEC our Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 did not constitute a default under the applicable indentures and that the delay would not give rise to any right of acceleration on the part of the holders of the senior and convertible senior notes. On October 29, 2007, we notified the court and the trustees that we had successfully concluded a consent solicitation concerning the notes at issue. The consents provided us with a waiver of any and all defaults under the indentures at issue that may have occurred or may occur prior to May 15, 2008, due to our failure to file or deliver reports or other information we would be required to file with the SEC. On May 15, 2008, we completed the filing of all our previously past due periodic reports with the SEC. We thereafter delivered copies of all such reports to the trustees, pursuant to the applicable indentures. On June 25, 2008, the trustees and we filed a stipulation dismissing the litigation without prejudice. This case is now concluded.

(10) Stock Repurchase Program

On November 18, 2005, as part of an acceleration of Beazer Homes’ comprehensive plan to enhance stockholder value, our Board of Directors authorized an increase in our stock repurchase plan to ten million shares of our common stock. Shares may be purchased for cash in the open market, on the NYSE or in privately negotiated transactions. We did not repurchase any shares in the open market during the three or nine months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. At June 30, 2008, we are authorized to purchase approximately 5.4 million additional shares pursuant to the plan. We have currently suspended our repurchase program and any resumption of such program will be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

(11) Segment Information

As defined in SFAS 131, “ Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information ”, we have 31 homebuilding operating segments operating in 21 states and one financial services segment. Revenues in our homebuilding segments are derived from the sale of homes which we construct and from land and lot sales. Revenues in our financial services segment are derived primarily from mortgage originations provided predominantly to customers of our homebuilding operations. We have aggregated our homebuilding segments into four reportable segments, described below, for our homebuilding operations and one reportable segment for our financial services operations. The segments reported have been determined to have similar economic characteristics including similar historical and expected future operating performance, employment trends, land acquisition and land constraints, and municipality behavior and meet the other aggregation criteria in SFAS 131. The reportable homebuilding segments, and all other homebuilding operations not required to be reported separately, include operations conducting business in the following states:

West: Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico

Mid-Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia

Florida

Southeast: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Nashville, Tennessee

Other Homebuilding: Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas and Memphis, Tennessee

During fiscal 2008, we have decided to exit certain homebuilding markets that do not meet our investment strategies. These markets include Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, Charlotte, North Carolina and Fresno, California.

Management’s evaluation of segment performance is based on segment operating income, which for our homebuilding segments is defined as homebuilding and land sale revenues less the cost of home construction, impairments, if any, land development and land sales, depreciation and amortization and certain selling, general and administrative expenses which are incurred by or allocated to our homebuilding segments. Segment operating income for our Financial Services segment is defined as revenues less costs associated with our mortgage operations and certain selling, general and administrative expenses incurred by or allocated to the Financial Services segment. The accounting policies of our segments are those described in Note 1 herein and the notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of our 2007 Form 10-K. The following information is in thousands:

(12) Supplemental Guarantor Information

As discussed in Note 7, our obligation to pay principal, premium, if any, and interest under certain debt are guaranteed on a joint and several basis by substantially all of our subsidiaries. The guarantees are full and unconditional and the guarantor subsidiaries are 100% owned by Beazer Homes. We have determined that separate, full financial statements of the guarantors would not be material to investors and, accordingly, supplemental financial information for the guarantors is presented. In June 2008, Beazer Mortgage Corp. became a guarantor of the Revolving Credit Facility and certain of the Company’s Senior Notes.