SPRING CRESS REALTY, LLC v. LARRY E. BROWN DBA S&B ASSOCIATES ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2011)
This is an action by an owner/developer of real property, Spring Cress Realty, LLC, against its excavation contractor, Larry E. Brown dba S&B Associates. The primary factual allegation is that the excavator intentionally hid approximately 40,000 cubic yards of unsuitable soil in an "engineered fill." The complaint included a claim that Brown violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"), Tenn. Code Ann. section 47-18-101 et seq.(2001). After a bench trial, the court awarded Spring Cress a judgment against Brown for compensatory damages of $551,295, trebled under the TCPA to $1,653,885. Brown appeals raising issues as to the preponderance of the evidence and the statute of limitations applicable to the TCPA claim. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/springcress_051611.pdf
May 19, 2011
May 18, 2011
Court Reviews Whether A Builder Constructed a House in Accordance with "Good Building Practices"
ROGER WILKES, ET AL. v. SHAW ENTERPRISES, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2011)
This is an appeal of the trial court's determination on remand that the Appellee did not breach the parties' contract when it constructed the Appellant's house without through-wall flashing and weep holes, as required by the applicable building code. The parties' contract provided that the builder would construct the house in accordance with "good building practices." The trial court concluded the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code. We affirm this holding. The Appellants also appeal the trial court's failure to award them their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal. We remand this matter to the trial court with directions that it award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.
Opinion available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wilkesr_050511.pdf
This is an appeal of the trial court's determination on remand that the Appellee did not breach the parties' contract when it constructed the Appellant's house without through-wall flashing and weep holes, as required by the applicable building code. The parties' contract provided that the builder would construct the house in accordance with "good building practices." The trial court concluded the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code. We affirm this holding. The Appellants also appeal the trial court's failure to award them their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal. We remand this matter to the trial court with directions that it award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.
Opinion available here:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wilkesr_050511.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)