SCOTT CAMPBELL, ET AL. v. WILLIAM H. TEAGUE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 31, 2010)
This is a construction case. Appellants/Builders appeal the trial court's award of damages to Appellees/Homeowners pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and arising from Appellants/Builders' breach of warranty and contract. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/campbells_033110.pdf
Showing posts with label TCPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TCPA. Show all posts
January 19, 2010
TCA overturns trial court ruling regarding TCPA
CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. CLIFFORD COLL (Tenn. Ct. App. January 19,2010)
A finance company that owned a security interest in a Hyundai excavator appeals the award of a judgment against it in favor of a consumer for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The consumer alleged in his complaint that the creditor and the equipment company that sold the excavator to the consumer had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, because the excavator was defective when it was delivered, it never worked properly, and the defendants failed to make repairs and refused to permit him to trade for another excavator. The financing company denied any wrongdoing and asserted the one-year statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. The equipment company that sold the excavator went out of business and dissolved prior to trial. The only claim tried was the consumer's TCPA claim against the finance company.
The trial court denied the finance company's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 motion for a directed verdict on the statute of limitations defense, finding that the TCPA claim was timely filed within the five-year statute of repose. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the consumer prevailed on his TCPA claim and the trial court awarded treble damages and attorneys' fees based on a finding the finance company "willfully and knowingly" violated the TCPA. We have determined the TCPA claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations; therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/citicapital_012010.pdf
A finance company that owned a security interest in a Hyundai excavator appeals the award of a judgment against it in favor of a consumer for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The consumer alleged in his complaint that the creditor and the equipment company that sold the excavator to the consumer had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, because the excavator was defective when it was delivered, it never worked properly, and the defendants failed to make repairs and refused to permit him to trade for another excavator. The financing company denied any wrongdoing and asserted the one-year statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. The equipment company that sold the excavator went out of business and dissolved prior to trial. The only claim tried was the consumer's TCPA claim against the finance company.
The trial court denied the finance company's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 motion for a directed verdict on the statute of limitations defense, finding that the TCPA claim was timely filed within the five-year statute of repose. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the consumer prevailed on his TCPA claim and the trial court awarded treble damages and attorneys' fees based on a finding the finance company "willfully and knowingly" violated the TCPA. We have determined the TCPA claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations; therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/citicapital_012010.pdf
December 09, 2009
Court vacates judgment in favor of plaintiff homeowner
FORREST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC v. JAMES L. LAUGHLIN, II, ET AL. v. THOMAS B. NAIVE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 9, 2009)
This action involves a variety of claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County. A homeowner, James Laughlin, entered into a cost plus contract with Forrest Construction Company, LLC to construct a home for he and his wife. Prior to the home being completed, Forrest Construction stopped work, filed a lien on the residence, and thereafter filed a breach of contract action against Mr. Laughlin and an action to recover damages based on the doctrine of quantum meruit against Mrs. Laughlin. Forrest Construction claimed that Mr. Laughlin was in breach of the contract for failure to pay according to the contract. Mr. and Mrs. Laughlin filed a counter-claim for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
The trial court found that Mr. Laughlin had materially breached the contract by failing to pay according to the terms of the contract, and awarded damages to Forrest Construction. Conversely, the trial court found for the Laughlins on their claim of negligent construction and awarded damages against Forrest Construction. Both parties appeal. Forrest Construction contends that the trial court erred in holding it liable for alleged defects because Mr. Laughlin committed the first material breach and failed to give Forrest Construction notice and the opportunity to cure the alleged defects. Mr. Laughlin contends the trial court erred in finding that he committed the first material breach. The Laughlins also contend the trial court erred in reducing the cost of the repairs to their residence and in failing to pierce the corporate veil.
We find that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by submitting requests for draws that were not properly supported by records of its costs and expenses as required by the contract, including submitting draws which erroneously included charges for work done on its other projects, and by failing to complete construction of the home. We, therefore, reverse the trial court's determination that Mr. Laughlin committed the first material breach and hold that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract. We affirm the trial court's determination that the Laughlins were excused from the duty to give notice of the alleged defects and an opportunity to cure; thus, the Laughlins are entitled to recover damages due to the negligent construction by Forrest.
As for the trial court's substantial reduction of the damages requested by the Laughlins for the cost to repair the yet unrepaired defects to their home, we are unable to determine whether the trial court considered or overlooked $55,000 of the estimated cost to repair the defects; therefore, we remand this issue to afford the trial court the opportunity to either restate its previous ruling or to increase the award of damages, if it so determines, based on the evidence presently in the record. As for the issue of piercing the corporate veil, we remand that issue for further proceedings.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/forrestconst_121009.pdf
This action involves a variety of claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County. A homeowner, James Laughlin, entered into a cost plus contract with Forrest Construction Company, LLC to construct a home for he and his wife. Prior to the home being completed, Forrest Construction stopped work, filed a lien on the residence, and thereafter filed a breach of contract action against Mr. Laughlin and an action to recover damages based on the doctrine of quantum meruit against Mrs. Laughlin. Forrest Construction claimed that Mr. Laughlin was in breach of the contract for failure to pay according to the contract. Mr. and Mrs. Laughlin filed a counter-claim for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
The trial court found that Mr. Laughlin had materially breached the contract by failing to pay according to the terms of the contract, and awarded damages to Forrest Construction. Conversely, the trial court found for the Laughlins on their claim of negligent construction and awarded damages against Forrest Construction. Both parties appeal. Forrest Construction contends that the trial court erred in holding it liable for alleged defects because Mr. Laughlin committed the first material breach and failed to give Forrest Construction notice and the opportunity to cure the alleged defects. Mr. Laughlin contends the trial court erred in finding that he committed the first material breach. The Laughlins also contend the trial court erred in reducing the cost of the repairs to their residence and in failing to pierce the corporate veil.
We find that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by submitting requests for draws that were not properly supported by records of its costs and expenses as required by the contract, including submitting draws which erroneously included charges for work done on its other projects, and by failing to complete construction of the home. We, therefore, reverse the trial court's determination that Mr. Laughlin committed the first material breach and hold that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract. We affirm the trial court's determination that the Laughlins were excused from the duty to give notice of the alleged defects and an opportunity to cure; thus, the Laughlins are entitled to recover damages due to the negligent construction by Forrest.
As for the trial court's substantial reduction of the damages requested by the Laughlins for the cost to repair the yet unrepaired defects to their home, we are unable to determine whether the trial court considered or overlooked $55,000 of the estimated cost to repair the defects; therefore, we remand this issue to afford the trial court the opportunity to either restate its previous ruling or to increase the award of damages, if it so determines, based on the evidence presently in the record. As for the issue of piercing the corporate veil, we remand that issue for further proceedings.
The full text of this opinion may be found on the TBA website at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/forrestconst_121009.pdf
June 28, 2007
Sellers must search and investigate the chain of title before purchasing land
This point is obvious, but in AARON BURKHART v. WELLS FARGO BANK WEST, N.A., ET AL., the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that the duty of a purchaser of land to discover and investigate matters of public record (in this case, a deed of trust at the courthouse) trumps the duty of the seller to disclose material facts affecting the property’s value known to the seller but not reasonably known to or discoverable by the buyer. Further, the Court held that failure to disclose said matters of public record does not constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under th Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, § 47-18-101 et seq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)