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
July 31, 2012
July 27, 2012
Court reviews a case against Blount County for flood damage caused by a school construction project
CHARLES RAYMOND LOVEDAY ET AL. v. BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2012)
Charles Raymond Loveday and his wife, Virginia Hope Loveday (collectively “the Plaintiffs”), filed this action in January 2011 against Blount County and the Blount County School Board (collectively “the Defendants”) to recover for flood damage to their property allegedly caused by the construction of a new school next to the Plaintiffs’ property. The school was built in 2007. The Plaintiffs allegedly sustained “permanent” damage in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the action was barred by the statute of limitations for a taking. The trial court granted the motion. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lovedayc_072412.pdf
Charles Raymond Loveday and his wife, Virginia Hope Loveday (collectively “the Plaintiffs”), filed this action in January 2011 against Blount County and the Blount County School Board (collectively “the Defendants”) to recover for flood damage to their property allegedly caused by the construction of a new school next to the Plaintiffs’ property. The school was built in 2007. The Plaintiffs allegedly sustained “permanent” damage in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the action was barred by the statute of limitations for a taking. The trial court granted the motion. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/lovedayc_072412.pdf
July 25, 2012
Court reviews whether a homeowner's septic tanks violated the restrictive covenants of his subdivision
ROGER D. ROACH, et al., v. DON BUNCH, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 23, 2012)
Plaintiffs who own homes in Mallard Baye subdivision, brought this action against defendants who had constructed a septic system on several of the residential lots serving other properties, alleging that defendants acted in violation of the restrictive covenants of their subdivision. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court held that the defendants' construction of the septic system violated the subdivision restrictive covenants, and the defendants appealed. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/roachr_072312.pdf
Plaintiffs who own homes in Mallard Baye subdivision, brought this action against defendants who had constructed a septic system on several of the residential lots serving other properties, alleging that defendants acted in violation of the restrictive covenants of their subdivision. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court held that the defendants' construction of the septic system violated the subdivision restrictive covenants, and the defendants appealed. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/roachr_072312.pdf
July 05, 2012
Court reviews a claim brought by a contractor against a subcontractor under the statute of repose
THE COUNTS COMPANY, v. PRATERS, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2012)
Plaintiff, was general contractor for the renovation of a private club, and employed defendant to install flooring at the club. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages incurred when plaintiff was sued by the club which obtained judgment for damages against plaintiff for the defective floor, as well as for attorney's fees for defending the action and other expenses. Defendant moved to dismiss the action, relying on the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. §28-3-202. The Trial Court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the action, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/counts_062512.pdf
Plaintiff, was general contractor for the renovation of a private club, and employed defendant to install flooring at the club. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages incurred when plaintiff was sued by the club which obtained judgment for damages against plaintiff for the defective floor, as well as for attorney's fees for defending the action and other expenses. Defendant moved to dismiss the action, relying on the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. §28-3-202. The Trial Court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the action, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/counts_062512.pdf
July 02, 2012
Court reviews a case involving a municipal construction project in Chattanooga
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. HARGREAVES ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 21, 2012)
The plaintiffs in this matter, the city and a redevelopment group, filed this action against the defendant entities involved in the design and construction of a large municipal project on the city’s waterfront. Also named as a defendant was the development manager for the project. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-105. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cityofchatt_062112.pdf
The Dissenting opinion is available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cityofchatt_DISS_062112.pdf
The plaintiffs in this matter, the city and a redevelopment group, filed this action against the defendant entities involved in the design and construction of a large municipal project on the city’s waterfront. Also named as a defendant was the development manager for the project. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-105. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cityofchatt_062112.pdf
The Dissenting opinion is available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cityofchatt_DISS_062112.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)