CHARLES PESCE v. EAST TENNESSEE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 28, 2011)
Charles Pesce ("the Owner") is a practicing dentist. He contracted with East Tennessee Construction Services, Inc. ("the Builder") to build him a new office for his practice on a lot owned by him. The Builder constructed the building, but with numerous undisputed defects.
The Owner filed this action which culminated in a bench trial that lasted several days. Based upon diminution in value, the trial court awarded the Owner $282,000 in damages. The trial court expressly found that the cost to repair the structure was an unacceptable measure of damages because it "is disproportionate . . . to the difference in the value of the structure actually constructed and the one contracted for." The court awarded the Owner discretionary costs of over $10,000.
The Owner appeals challenging the measure of damages as well as the amount awarded under the diminution in value measure. The Owner also challenges the trial court's failure to order the Builder to reimburse him for fees charged by one of the Owner's experts in connection with his discovery deposition taken by the Builder. The Builder challenges the award of discretionary costs and argues that the damages awarded are excessive. We reverse in part and affirm the remaining judgment as modified.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pescec_022811.pdf
SWINEY concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pescec_CON_022811.pdf
February 28, 2011
Court Reviews Whether a City Council Acted Illegally in Approving a Planned Development and a Street Closure
NATHAN E. STEPPACH, JR. v. WILLIAM H. THOMAS, JR., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 28, 2011)
This is the second appeal of this case, which arises from the grant of a writ of certiorari by the Shelby County Chancery Court. Upon review of the Memphis City Council's record, the trial court found that the Appellee City had not acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or illegally in either approving a planned development, or in approving the companion street closure.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City, thereby affirming the City Council's action in approving the planned development. The issue of the companion street closure proceeded to hearing, with the trial court ultimately affirming the City Council's decision. Appellant appeals, arguing that the City Council's decision was made in violation of the Memphis City Charter and ordinances, and that the decision was the product of corruption within the City Council. Discerning no error, we affirm the action of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/steppachn_022811.pdf
This is the second appeal of this case, which arises from the grant of a writ of certiorari by the Shelby County Chancery Court. Upon review of the Memphis City Council's record, the trial court found that the Appellee City had not acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or illegally in either approving a planned development, or in approving the companion street closure.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City, thereby affirming the City Council's action in approving the planned development. The issue of the companion street closure proceeded to hearing, with the trial court ultimately affirming the City Council's decision. Appellant appeals, arguing that the City Council's decision was made in violation of the Memphis City Charter and ordinances, and that the decision was the product of corruption within the City Council. Discerning no error, we affirm the action of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/steppachn_022811.pdf
February 27, 2011
Court Reviews a Case Involving a Non-Performing Construction Company, a Developer, and Homeowners
DANIEL CAVANAUGH, et al., v. AVALON GOLF PROPERTIES, LLC. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 24, 2011)
Plaintiffs purchased a residential lot from defendant developer, but the purchase contract required plaintiffs to use defendant construction company to build their home. Before the home was completed, defendant construction company defaulted on paying materialmen and suppliers and abandoned the project.
Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that developer knew, or should have know, that the construction company was incapable of performing the required construction services, and that the developer owed plaintiff a fiduciary duty to provide a contractor who could perform the work in a good, workmanlike manner. They further alleged a breach of contract, in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
A default judgment was entered against the construction company, and the developer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court ultimately granted against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cavanaugh_022411.pdf
Plaintiffs purchased a residential lot from defendant developer, but the purchase contract required plaintiffs to use defendant construction company to build their home. Before the home was completed, defendant construction company defaulted on paying materialmen and suppliers and abandoned the project.
Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that developer knew, or should have know, that the construction company was incapable of performing the required construction services, and that the developer owed plaintiff a fiduciary duty to provide a contractor who could perform the work in a good, workmanlike manner. They further alleged a breach of contract, in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
A default judgment was entered against the construction company, and the developer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court ultimately granted against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/cavanaugh_022411.pdf
February 25, 2011
Court Reviews the Allocation of Responsibility Between Developers in a Case Involving Construction of a Road
THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY v. BARRY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 25, 2011)
This matter is before the court for a second time. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County initiated suit to compel two developers to complete an unfinished portion of a road in a planned unit development or to recover damages equal to the cost of completing the road if it completed the road itself.
The trial court dismissed the action, finding that the amended complaint did not provide a legal basis for requiring either developer to complete the road. On appeal this Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for the court to consider the appropriate allocation of responsibility for construction of the road between the two developers.
While the appeal was pending, the Metropolitan Government acquired the land and subsequently completed the unfinished portion of the road. On remand, the trial court assessed costs of constructing the road to the developers equally, but assessed the land-acquisition costs entirely to one developer. The Metropolitan Government appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's allocation of responsibility, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/barryconstruction_022511.pdf
This matter is before the court for a second time. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County initiated suit to compel two developers to complete an unfinished portion of a road in a planned unit development or to recover damages equal to the cost of completing the road if it completed the road itself.
The trial court dismissed the action, finding that the amended complaint did not provide a legal basis for requiring either developer to complete the road. On appeal this Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for the court to consider the appropriate allocation of responsibility for construction of the road between the two developers.
While the appeal was pending, the Metropolitan Government acquired the land and subsequently completed the unfinished portion of the road. On remand, the trial court assessed costs of constructing the road to the developers equally, but assessed the land-acquisition costs entirely to one developer. The Metropolitan Government appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's allocation of responsibility, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/barryconstruction_022511.pdf
February 20, 2011
Court Reviews Negligent and Fraudulent Misrepresentation in a Case Involving the Failure to Disclose Defects in a Home
EDMOND CATO ET AL. v. D. L. BATTS ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 18, 2011)
Purchasers of home filed this action against the sellers for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation for the failure to disclose defects in the home. The trial court found for the purchasers on their claim of negligent misrepresentation but denied their claim of fraudulent misrepresentation and their request for rescission. Purchasers appealed contending the trial court erred by not finding fraudulent misrepresentation and partially denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment in which they sought to introduce new evidence. We affirm the ruling of the trial court in all respects.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/catoe_021811.pdf
Purchasers of home filed this action against the sellers for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation for the failure to disclose defects in the home. The trial court found for the purchasers on their claim of negligent misrepresentation but denied their claim of fraudulent misrepresentation and their request for rescission. Purchasers appealed contending the trial court erred by not finding fraudulent misrepresentation and partially denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment in which they sought to introduce new evidence. We affirm the ruling of the trial court in all respects.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/catoe_021811.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)