MARK T. WICKHAM v. SOVEREIGN HOMES, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. September 25, 2012)
Plaintiff homeowner brought an action against Defendant builder alleging, inter alia, breach of warranty and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant builder. We affirm summary judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim; reverse summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Consumer Protection Act claim; and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/wickhamm_092512.pdf
Showing posts with label breach of warranty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breach of warranty. Show all posts
September 25, 2012
June 28, 2012
Court reviews whether a home builder failed to construct a home in a workman like manner, in breach of contract, warranty, and the TN Consumer Protection Act
DAN C. RAY ET AL. v. SADLER HOMES, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2012)
Plaintiff-homeowners filed this action for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act against the builder and seller of their home alleging that the home was not constructed in a workmanlike manner.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the defendant breached the contract and the express and implied warranties, and violated the TCPA. The court awarded damages of $90,000 for the diminution in value of the home. The court also held Plaintiffs were entitled to recover their attorney’s fees pursuant to the TCPA.
Defendant appealed arguing that Plaintiffs failed to prove causation, that the trial court erred in awarding damages in the amount of $90,000 for the diminution in value of the home, and erred in finding it violated the TCPA for which the trial court awarded attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty and affirm the trial court’s determinations as to damages; however, we find the evidence preponderates against the finding of a violation of the TCPA and therefore the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rayd_061512.pdf
Plaintiff-homeowners filed this action for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act against the builder and seller of their home alleging that the home was not constructed in a workmanlike manner.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the defendant breached the contract and the express and implied warranties, and violated the TCPA. The court awarded damages of $90,000 for the diminution in value of the home. The court also held Plaintiffs were entitled to recover their attorney’s fees pursuant to the TCPA.
Defendant appealed arguing that Plaintiffs failed to prove causation, that the trial court erred in awarding damages in the amount of $90,000 for the diminution in value of the home, and erred in finding it violated the TCPA for which the trial court awarded attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty and affirm the trial court’s determinations as to damages; however, we find the evidence preponderates against the finding of a violation of the TCPA and therefore the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rayd_061512.pdf
May 08, 2012
Court reviews whether damages were asses based on a contractual standard of workmanship or an implied warranty of workmanship
CONSULTING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. JOHN H. FRIEDMANN, SR. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 23, 2012)
This suit arises as a result of the installation of tile flooring in a home. Homeowners sued the contractor for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The trial court awarded $106,103.92 to homeowners and assessed $4,252.00 in discretionary costs.
Contractor appeals asserting that, in finding liability, the trial court failed to apply the standard of performance set forth in the contract and that the court erred in calculating and measuring the damages. We have determined that the trial court applied an implied warranty or workmanship rather than the contractual standard; however we have reviewed the evidence de novo and modify the judgment to hold that the contractor breached the contractual standard. We remand the case for a determination of the appropriate amount of damages.
Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/consulting_042312.pdf
This suit arises as a result of the installation of tile flooring in a home. Homeowners sued the contractor for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The trial court awarded $106,103.92 to homeowners and assessed $4,252.00 in discretionary costs.
Contractor appeals asserting that, in finding liability, the trial court failed to apply the standard of performance set forth in the contract and that the court erred in calculating and measuring the damages. We have determined that the trial court applied an implied warranty or workmanship rather than the contractual standard; however we have reviewed the evidence de novo and modify the judgment to hold that the contractor breached the contractual standard. We remand the case for a determination of the appropriate amount of damages.
Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/consulting_042312.pdf
September 01, 2011
Court reviews a case involving a breach of implied warranty dispute over unimproved real property
JERRY ANN WINN v. WELCH FARM, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. September 1, 2011)
The buyer of unimproved real property sued the sellers for breach of implied warranties, imposition of a permanent nuisance, and diminution in value of the property; buyer also sought damages for alleged violations of the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act, the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and negligence.
The trial court held that Tennessee does not provide a cause of action for breach of implied warranty in the sale of unimproved real property; the court also held that buyer had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lot was "unbuildable." The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the buyer appealed. Buyer asserts that the sellers had a duty to disclose "possible adverse soil conditions." She also urges this Court to adopt a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of suitability for residential construction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/winnj_090111.pdf
The buyer of unimproved real property sued the sellers for breach of implied warranties, imposition of a permanent nuisance, and diminution in value of the property; buyer also sought damages for alleged violations of the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act, the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and negligence.
The trial court held that Tennessee does not provide a cause of action for breach of implied warranty in the sale of unimproved real property; the court also held that buyer had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lot was "unbuildable." The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the buyer appealed. Buyer asserts that the sellers had a duty to disclose "possible adverse soil conditions." She also urges this Court to adopt a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of suitability for residential construction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/winnj_090111.pdf
March 31, 2010
Court reviews whether trial court properly awarded damages pursuant to the TN Consumer Protection Act
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 available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/campbells_033110.pdf
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 available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/campbells_033110.pdf
March 07, 2008
Home purchaser must prove that homebuilder had actual knowledge of facts behind alleged misrepresentation to overcome 4-year statute of repose
SELMA P. GRIFFIN v. MUNFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND CHARLES WALKER (Tenn.Ct.App. March 6, 2008).
This case involves the statute of repose for actions based on improvements to real property. The defendant developer purchased and developed a lot for sale as part of a residential development. The plaintiff purchased the lot by warranty deed. The developer represented to the plaintiff that the lot was suitable for the construction of a residential dwelling. Relying on this representation, the plaintiff purchased the lot and built a house on it. Two years after the purchase, the house began to develop cracks in the foundation and exterior walls. Over the next two years, the problems worsened, so the plaintiff obtained an evaluation by professional engineers. The engineers informed the plaintiff that the house's structural problems may have arisen because the soil on which the house was built was unsuitable to support such construction.
The plaintiff then sued the development company and its president, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the four-year statute of repose on claims involving improvements to real property barred the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff argued that the statute of repose was not applicable because her claims were based on misrepresentation. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff failed to introduce evidence that any of the defendants had knowledge that the soil conditions were unsuitable to support a residential dwelling at the time the alleged misrepresentations were made.
Opinion available at the Tennessee Bar Association website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/griffins_030608.pdf
"In their statement of undisputed facts, the Defendants noted that Munford Development sold Lot 414 to Griffin on June 5, 2001; that Griffin began seeing cracks and other defects in the walls, floors, and foundation of her house in 2003; and that Griffin’s complaint was not filed until October 3, 2005. In light of these facts, the Defendants argued that the four-year statute of repose, set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-202, barred Griffin’s action. In Griffin’s response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, she argued that because the Defendants had engaged in fraud, Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-205 precluded them from relying on section 28-3-202." Id.
"In Griffin’s response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, on the issue of the Defendants’ knowledge, Griffin did not point to overlooked evidence, produce additional evidence, or request additional time for discovery. We have only Griffin’s evidence of the unsuitable soil conditions and her bare assertions regarding the Defendants’ knowledge and intent. Under these circumstances, we must find that Griffin failed to carry her burden to articulate specific facts showing that Defendants Walker and Munford Development had sufficient knowledge to support a finding by the trier of fact that their alleged misrepresentation about the suitability of the soil for construction was either intentional or reckless. Accordingly, Griffin cannot rely on Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-205(b), and the trial court properly concluded that the four-year statute of repose is applicable to Griffin’s cause of action." Id.
This case involves the statute of repose for actions based on improvements to real property. The defendant developer purchased and developed a lot for sale as part of a residential development. The plaintiff purchased the lot by warranty deed. The developer represented to the plaintiff that the lot was suitable for the construction of a residential dwelling. Relying on this representation, the plaintiff purchased the lot and built a house on it. Two years after the purchase, the house began to develop cracks in the foundation and exterior walls. Over the next two years, the problems worsened, so the plaintiff obtained an evaluation by professional engineers. The engineers informed the plaintiff that the house's structural problems may have arisen because the soil on which the house was built was unsuitable to support such construction.
The plaintiff then sued the development company and its president, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the four-year statute of repose on claims involving improvements to real property barred the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff argued that the statute of repose was not applicable because her claims were based on misrepresentation. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff failed to introduce evidence that any of the defendants had knowledge that the soil conditions were unsuitable to support a residential dwelling at the time the alleged misrepresentations were made.
Opinion available at the Tennessee Bar Association website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/griffins_030608.pdf
"In their statement of undisputed facts, the Defendants noted that Munford Development sold Lot 414 to Griffin on June 5, 2001; that Griffin began seeing cracks and other defects in the walls, floors, and foundation of her house in 2003; and that Griffin’s complaint was not filed until October 3, 2005. In light of these facts, the Defendants argued that the four-year statute of repose, set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-202, barred Griffin’s action. In Griffin’s response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, she argued that because the Defendants had engaged in fraud, Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-205 precluded them from relying on section 28-3-202." Id.
"In Griffin’s response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, on the issue of the Defendants’ knowledge, Griffin did not point to overlooked evidence, produce additional evidence, or request additional time for discovery. We have only Griffin’s evidence of the unsuitable soil conditions and her bare assertions regarding the Defendants’ knowledge and intent. Under these circumstances, we must find that Griffin failed to carry her burden to articulate specific facts showing that Defendants Walker and Munford Development had sufficient knowledge to support a finding by the trier of fact that their alleged misrepresentation about the suitability of the soil for construction was either intentional or reckless. Accordingly, Griffin cannot rely on Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-205(b), and the trial court properly concluded that the four-year statute of repose is applicable to Griffin’s cause of action." Id.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)