March 25, 2011

Court Reviews the Dismissal and Abatement of a Counterclaim in a Case Involving the Demolition and Construction of a Residential Garage

DAVID BATES D/B/A DAVID BATES CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CAROLINE BENEDETTI (Tenn. Ct. App. March 22, 2011)

David Bates d/b/a David Bates Construction Co. ("Plaintiff") sued Caroline Benedetti ("Defendant") for breach of a construction contract involving demolition of an existing residential garage and construction of a new one. Defendant answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim.

After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia,
(1) that Plaintiff had not proven damages,
(2) that Defendant had failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. section 66-36-103 with regard to her counterclaim and, therefore, pursuant to the statute her counterclaim should be abated, and
(3) that Defendant also had failed to give notice and an opportunity to cure pursuant to the common law and that her counterclaim should be dismissed for that reason as well.

Defendant appeals the abatement and dismissal of her counterclaim. We find that Tenn. Code Ann. section 66-36-103 does not apply to the case at hand, but that the Trial Court correctly dismissed Defendant's counterclaim. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court's order.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/batesd_032211.pdf

March 14, 2011

Court Reviews whether Defendant Violated the Consumer Protection Act in a Cases Involving the Construction of a Home

ROBERT SHROUT, et al., v. HALL CONSTRUCTION, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 14, 2011)

This case arose over the construction of a home for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the construction company and a bank and several individuals. The Trial Court resolved the issues as to defendants, except Mark Rodriguez, prior to trial. The plaintiffs' case against Rodriguez was tried by the Trial Court who directed a verdict at the end of plaintiffs' proof. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

Plaintiffs insisted that material evidence established a violation of the Consumer Protection Act by defendant, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the Trial Judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and we affirm the Trial Court's Judgment.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/shroutr_031411.pdf

Court Reviews a Contractor's Claim for Lien Enforcement Against Homeowners

WISE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ET AL. v. THOMAS BOYD, ET AL (Tenn. Ct. App. March 14, 2011)

This appeal involves a home construction dispute between an LLC contractor and the homeowners. The contractor entered into a written contract with the homeowners for the construction of a 6000 square foot home. Upon the relationship between the parties becoming strained, the homeowners claim the contractor told them to find another builder. The contractor contends it was fired from the project. The instant action was commenced by the contractor to enforce a lien. The trial court found in favor of the contractor. The homeowners appeal. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wiseconstruction_031411.pdf

SWINEY dissenting
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wiseconstruction_DIS_031411.pdf