JIM SUZICH v. FRANK BOOKER and wife, BEVERLY BOOKER and JOHN S. BOMAR, Trustee, KATIE WINCHESTER, Trustee, and FIRST CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2012)
This appeal involves a construction loan obtained by the plaintiffs for the construction of a new home. The loan proceeds were exhausted prior to the completion of the home. The plaintiffs then sued the lender bank for breach of contract, alleging that the bank had a duty to inspect the construction prior to disbursing funds, and that its failure to complete inspections resulted in improper disbursement of the loan funds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank upon concluding that the bank had no contractual duty to inspect the construction of the residence. The plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/suzichj_072712.pdf
Showing posts with label home construction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label home construction. Show all posts
July 31, 2012
May 09, 2012
Court determines whether a contractor or a homeowner breached a construction contract following a dispute
BOBBY D. WALL v. SELMA CURTIS (Tenn. Ct. App. April 24, 2012
Homeowner and Contractor entered into an agreement for the construction of a new house. The contract provided that no changes would be made to the terms and specifications of the contract without a writing describing the changes signed by both parties. The parties ignored this provision and made changes without preparing change orders. Before the house was completed the parties had a dispute, and the homeowner contracted with someone else to complete her house.
Homeowner alleged Contractor breached the contract by walking off the job and refusing to complete the house, and Contractor alleged Homeowner fired him and told him not to return to her property. Contractor sued Homeowner for breach of contract and sought to recover his damages, which included expenses he incurred for materials and labor that Homeowner refused to pay. Homeowner counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to recover as damages the amount she paid other contractors to complete her house. The trial court found Homeowner committed the first breach and entered judgment for Contractor in the amount of $21,120.69. Homeowner appealed, arguing the evidence did not support the trial court’s judgment. Concluding the evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.
Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/wallb_042412.pdf
Homeowner and Contractor entered into an agreement for the construction of a new house. The contract provided that no changes would be made to the terms and specifications of the contract without a writing describing the changes signed by both parties. The parties ignored this provision and made changes without preparing change orders. Before the house was completed the parties had a dispute, and the homeowner contracted with someone else to complete her house.
Homeowner alleged Contractor breached the contract by walking off the job and refusing to complete the house, and Contractor alleged Homeowner fired him and told him not to return to her property. Contractor sued Homeowner for breach of contract and sought to recover his damages, which included expenses he incurred for materials and labor that Homeowner refused to pay. Homeowner counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to recover as damages the amount she paid other contractors to complete her house. The trial court found Homeowner committed the first breach and entered judgment for Contractor in the amount of $21,120.69. Homeowner appealed, arguing the evidence did not support the trial court’s judgment. Concluding the evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.
Opinion available at: https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/wallb_042412.pdf
October 13, 2011
Court reviews whether the seller of a home should indemnify the builder for damages relating to a breach of contract dispute
TRIANGLE AMERICAN HOMES v. SAMUEL B. HARRISON, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 13, 2011)
In this indemnity case, Jere Krieg ("Builder"), through Triangle American Homes, Inc., initially filed a complaint for attachment and damages against Samuel and Lauren Harrison (collectively "the Harrisons") relating to the construction of a modular home. When the Harrisons filed a counterclaim, arguing that Builder had failed to perform pursuant to their contract, Builder brought a third-party complaint against All American Homes of Tennessee, LLC ("Seller"), alleging that Seller should indemnify Builder.
Builder and the Harrisons entered into a settlement agreement. In the remaining suit for indemnification, Seller argued that Builder was not entitled to indemnity because the damages and losses sustained by Builder were a result of Builder's actions. Following a bench trial, the trial court held that Builder was entitled to damages in the amount of $45,000 and attorney fees in the amount of $45,000, for a total award of $90,000. Seller appeals. We modify the award of attorney fees to $18,084 and affirm the decision of the trial court in all other respects.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/triangle_101311.pdf
In this indemnity case, Jere Krieg ("Builder"), through Triangle American Homes, Inc., initially filed a complaint for attachment and damages against Samuel and Lauren Harrison (collectively "the Harrisons") relating to the construction of a modular home. When the Harrisons filed a counterclaim, arguing that Builder had failed to perform pursuant to their contract, Builder brought a third-party complaint against All American Homes of Tennessee, LLC ("Seller"), alleging that Seller should indemnify Builder.
Builder and the Harrisons entered into a settlement agreement. In the remaining suit for indemnification, Seller argued that Builder was not entitled to indemnity because the damages and losses sustained by Builder were a result of Builder's actions. Following a bench trial, the trial court held that Builder was entitled to damages in the amount of $45,000 and attorney fees in the amount of $45,000, for a total award of $90,000. Seller appeals. We modify the award of attorney fees to $18,084 and affirm the decision of the trial court in all other respects.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/triangle_101311.pdf
August 01, 2011
Court reviews whether a valid contract existed between home buyer and seller for the repair of a drain
DENISE JEREMIAH and TIMOTHY JEREMIAH v. WILLIAM BLALOCK (Tenn. Ct. App. August 1, 2011)
The plaintiff home buyer and defendant home seller entered into an agreement to repair a drain at some future date because it had been improperly piped out of the buyer's house. When the time for performance came, the drain was not moved, resulting in damages to the buyer's home. The buyer sued for breach of contract. The circuit court granted a directed verdict to the defendant on the ground that there was no consideration to support the contract. We find that the mutual promises made by the parties constituted adequate consideration. We accordingly reverse the trial court and remand this case for such further proceedings as necessary.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/jeremiahd_080111.pdf
The plaintiff home buyer and defendant home seller entered into an agreement to repair a drain at some future date because it had been improperly piped out of the buyer's house. When the time for performance came, the drain was not moved, resulting in damages to the buyer's home. The buyer sued for breach of contract. The circuit court granted a directed verdict to the defendant on the ground that there was no consideration to support the contract. We find that the mutual promises made by the parties constituted adequate consideration. We accordingly reverse the trial court and remand this case for such further proceedings as necessary.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/jeremiahd_080111.pdf
June 15, 2011
Court Reviews a Dismissed Cased Involving a Dispute Arising from the Construction of Two Houses
TERRY LAKE AND LINDA OUSLEY V. LOUIS HAYNES, BARBARA HAYNES AND RUNNING BEAR CONSTRUCTION (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011)
This is a construction case. The plaintiffs hired the defendant construction company to build two residential houses. Disputes arose during construction over completion of the work and the plaintiffs did not make some payments to the construction company. After the plaintiffs terminated the contract, they sued the defendant construction company. The construction company filed a counter-complaint. After a trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and the defendants' counter-complaint. However, the trial court failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/laket_060911.pdf
This is a construction case. The plaintiffs hired the defendant construction company to build two residential houses. Disputes arose during construction over completion of the work and the plaintiffs did not make some payments to the construction company. After the plaintiffs terminated the contract, they sued the defendant construction company. The construction company filed a counter-complaint. After a trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and the defendants' counter-complaint. However, the trial court failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/laket_060911.pdf
April 26, 2010
Court reviews whether construction company was relieved of its contractual obligation due to a material breach as a result of prospective buyers' failure to pay
COREY GERULIS AND WIFE SARA FELMLEE v. DANIEL A. JACOBUS, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. April 26, 2010)
Prospective buyers entered into a contract with construction company for purchase of a home; the contract was amended to provide that a garage would be constructed. A letter was subsequently prepared specifying a time for the buyers to tender payment for the garage. The buyers failed to secure a loan to finance construction of the garage until a year after closing. When the construction company refused to build the garage for the amount specified in the contract amendment, the buyers initiated this action.
The trial court found that the letter clarified the amendment by setting a time for performance and that the buyers' failure to pay within that time was a breach of the agreement which relieved the construction company of its contractual obligations; the court consequently dismissed buyers' action. Finding that there was not an agreement between the parties, the trial court's determination that the letter clarified the amendment is reversed. Finding that a reasonable time for performance was 90 days from closing on the home, and that the buyers' failure to tender payment within such period was a material breach, we affirm the trial court's determination that the construction company was relieved of its contractual obligations.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gerulisc_042610.pdf
Prospective buyers entered into a contract with construction company for purchase of a home; the contract was amended to provide that a garage would be constructed. A letter was subsequently prepared specifying a time for the buyers to tender payment for the garage. The buyers failed to secure a loan to finance construction of the garage until a year after closing. When the construction company refused to build the garage for the amount specified in the contract amendment, the buyers initiated this action.
The trial court found that the letter clarified the amendment by setting a time for performance and that the buyers' failure to pay within that time was a breach of the agreement which relieved the construction company of its contractual obligations; the court consequently dismissed buyers' action. Finding that there was not an agreement between the parties, the trial court's determination that the letter clarified the amendment is reversed. Finding that a reasonable time for performance was 90 days from closing on the home, and that the buyers' failure to tender payment within such period was a material breach, we affirm the trial court's determination that the construction company was relieved of its contractual obligations.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/gerulisc_042610.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)