Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

Fecteau Residential Homes, Inc. (seller) was in the business of selling manufactured modular homes. In early November of 2010, Janet and Mark McKinstry (buyers) entered into a written contract with seller for the purchase of a demonstrator modular home on seller's lot. Buyers tendered a $5000 deposit toward the purchase price, obtained financing, and engaged a contractor to lay the necessary footings and foundation for the home. Shortly thereafter, however, seller's owner Vic Fecteau called buyers to offer them a new, identical modular home at the same price instead of the demonstrator model for which they had contracted for reasons related to financial difficulties in obtaining a replacement floor model from that particular manufacturer. Buyers rejected the offer, the parties argued, and Fecteau cancelled the deal and subsequently returned the $5000 deposit. Buyers purchased a slightly larger modular home from a different dealer, which required modifications to the partially completed foundation to install. Buyers then filed this action under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging that seller misrepresented its intention to sell them the demonstrator model for which they had contracted; that they relied to their detriment on the misrepresentation, in part by paying for a foundation "to meet the dimensions of the home sold to them by [seller]"; and that they incurred additional expenses when forced to install a different model. Buyers sought damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Seller moved for summary judgment, asserting that buyers had failed to establish an essential element of consumer fraud by showing a misrepresentation or omission of material fact at the time of contracting, failed to establish that they were "consumers" within the meaning of the Act, and failed to mitigate their damages. The trial court denied the motion. Following a two-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of buyers, finding that there consumer fraud, and awarded $1,000 in damages. Seller moved to offset any attorney's fee award by the $5000 deposit refunded to buyers in order to a "preclude double recovery" under the Act. The trial court found, "Given the minimal recovery, the fact that recovery was questionable from the start, and the lack of any public purpose served by this case," a reasonable fee award for recovery was $15,000. The court granted buyers' request for costs for a total of $1360. Turning to the $5000 offset, the court concluded that, under the Act, buyers were not entitled to both a return of their consideration and an award of damages, and determined that "the $5000 will be treated as a credit toward the attorney's fees." Seller subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to overturn the entire judgment. Buyers opposed the motion, and also moved for reconsideration of the attorney's fee award, asserting that the $5000 offset was improper. The Supreme Court found that the evidence was sufficient to find a misrepresentation or omission of material fact, and that the return of the deposit had nothing to do with buyers' claim that seller violated the Act. It found no basis for the $5000 set-off against attorney's fees ordered by the trial court. The $1000 damage award was affirmed. The attorney's fee award was modified to eliminate the $5000 set off, resulting in a total judgment of $17,360. View "McKinstry v. Fecteau Residential Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Jim Hein hired John Sott and his companies (collectively, Sott) to construct a log home for him and then, later, an addition to the home. Hein eventually filed a complaint against Sott alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The district court dismissed Hein’s claims related to the construction of the home as time-barred and then dismissed Hein’s remaining claims on the ground that Hein had not provided expert evidence that Sott’s work was either defective or caused Hein damage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that Hein’s negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims arising from water damage to his home were barred by the statute of repose; (2) did not err in determining that Hein’s CPA claims for damages arising two years before Hein filed his complaint were barred by the statute of limitations but erred in determining that Hein’s CPA claims based on alleged deceptive acts or practices in the performance of repairs occurring less than two years before Hein filed his complaint were barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) erred in determining that Hein was required to produce expert evidence for his CPA claim arising from Sott’s billing for work on the addition. View "Hein v. Sott" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Heidi and James Glassford appealed a superior court decision denying their motion for summary judgment and granting it to defendant Dufresne & Associates, P.C. on plaintiffs' claims of negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Plaintiffs were homeowners who purchased their home direct from the builder, D&L Homes by Design, LLC (D&L). D&L hired defendant to certify that the on-site mound sewage disposal system constructed for the home satisfied state permitting requirements. On April 19, 2005, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued a Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit for construction of the sewage disposal system on the property, subject to receiving a certification pursuant to 10 V.S.A 1973(e). On October 20, 2005, defendant's employee sent the certification required by the statute. On December 20, 2005, plaintiffs signed a purchase-and-sale agreement to purchase the home from D&L. Although the seller represented that the home and property had received all the necessary permits, plaintiffs never saw the certificate or the letter from the Agency stating that the certification requirement was satisfied. Sometime thereafter, plaintiffs hired an attorney in connection with the closing. On January 13, just prior, plaintiffs' attorney prepared a certificate of title that noted the wastewater and water supply permit. In February 2006, the sewage disposal system failed. In November 2008, plaintiffs hired defendant to investigate the system's failure because they knew defendant had inspected the system prior to their purchase. Defendant prepared a report stating that he had "completed the original" inspection in 2005 and found the system had been installed according to the permitted design. Plaintiffs received other opinions about the disposal system's failure both before and after hiring defendant to inspect the system. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging pecuniary losses from defendant's failure to properly inspect the sewage disposal system and subsequent misrepresentation about the construction of the system in the certification to the Agency. Upon review of the superior court decision, the Supreme Court found that the completion and filing of defendant's certificate was a prerequisite to D&L's ability to sell the home, the certificate was unrelated to the sale. The law required that it be sent only to the government agency that issued the permit. Furthermore, there was no allegation that D&L used the certificate as part of its sales pitch, and no allegation that defendant had any part in the sales. The standard for CPA liability required that a person be directly involved in the transaction that gave rise to the claimed liability. That standard was not met here. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Glassford v. Dufresne & Associates, P.C." on Justia Law

The respondents, Shared Towers VA, LLC and NH Note Investment, LLC, appealed, and petitioner Joseph Turner, individually and as trustee of the Routes 3 and 25 Nominee Trust, cross-appealed, Superior Court orders after a bench trial on petitioner’s petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale and for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties’ dispute stemmed from a commercial construction loan agreement and promissory note secured by a mortgage, pursuant to which petitioner was loaned $450,000 at 13% interest per annum to build a home. Respondents argued the trial court erred when it: (1) determined that they would be unjustly enriched if the court required the petitioner to pay the amounts he owed under the note from November 2009 until April 2011; (2) applied the petitioner’s $450,000 lump sum payment to principal; (3) excluded evidence of the petitioner’s experience with similar loans; (4) ruled that, because the promissory note failed to contain a "clear statement in writing" of the charges owed, as required by RSA 399-B:2 (2006), respondents could not collect a $22,500 delinquency charge on the petitioner’s lump sum payment of principal; and (5) denied the respondents’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously concluded that respondents’ actions did not violate the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: contrary to the trial court’s decision, petitioner’s obligation to make the payments was not tolled. Because the loan agreement and note remained viable, it was error for the trial court to have afforded the petitioner a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. The trial court made its decision with regard to the payment of $450,000 in connection with its conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. Because the Supreme Court could not determine how the trial court would have ruled upon this issue had it not considered relief under that equitable theory, and because, given the nature of the parties’ arguments, resolving this issue requires fact finding that must be done by the trial court in the first instance, it vacated that part of its order and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the trial court’s errors with regard to the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by respondents, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying them, and remanded for consideration of respondents’ request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s CPA claim. View "Turner v. Shared Towers VA, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert and Tracy Barrett appealed the grant of two summary judgments in favor of Carlos Roman d/b/a Carlos Roman Roofing ("Roman") and Bobby Beach d/b/a Just Brick Masonry ("Beach") on all of the Barretts' claims against Roman and Beach. The issues before the Supreme Court in this appeal required resolution of the same issues that were in claims pending in the circuit court against a third party. A November 2012 judgment disposed of all of the Barretts' claims against Beach and Roman, but it did not dispose of the Barretts' claims against the third party. Thus, the Court's consideration of the circuit court's summary judgments in favor of Beach and Roman as final would mean that the intertwined claims against the subcontractors named as defendants in this action would have been litigated in piecemeal fashion. "The piecemeal adjudication of the claims against the subcontractors pose[d] an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results. Therefore, we must conclude that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in certifying the summary judgments in favor of Beach and Roman as final." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Barretts' appeal.View "Barrett v. Roman" on Justia Law

The Leonards entered into contracts with Centennial for the sale of a log home kit and construction of a custom log home. The Leonards later released Centennial from any claims for damages for defective construction or warranty arising out of the home's construction. Greg and Elvira Johnston held a thirty-six percent interest in the property at the time the release was signed. Eventually, all interest in the property was transferred to the Elvira Johnston Trust. A few years later, because of a number of construction defects affecting the structural integrity of the house, the Johnstons decided to demolish the house. The Johnstons sued Centennnial for negligent construction, breach of statutory and implied warranties, and other causes of action. The district court granted summary judgment for Centennial, finding that the Johnstons' claims were time-barred and were waived by the Leonards' release. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court's ruling that the Johnstons' claims were time-barred and directed that the decision on remand apply only to the interest owned by the Johnstons at the time the release was executed; and (2) affirmed the district court's conclusion that the release was binding on the Leonards' sixty-four percent interest, later transferred to the Trust. View "Johnston v. Centennial Log Homes & Furnishings, Inc." on Justia Law

Homeowners obtained a default judgment against an LLC. Although the LLC's manager (Manager) was listed as an individual defendant, the default was only against the LLC. A partial satisfaction of the judgment was later entered. Afterwards, the trial court issued an order stating that any other claims against Manager were dismissed with prejudice. Later, LLC unsuccessfully challenged the amount of the partial satisfaction of judgment. Thereafter, Manager, individually and on behalf of the LLC, filed a notice of appeal appealing four separate orders made in the case. Homeowners moved to dismiss, arguing that the appeal was untimely, Manager was not an attorney and could not represent the LLC, and Manager was not an aggrieved party. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) the appeal of three of the orders was untimely; (2) a non-licensed attorney is not permitted to appear pro se to represent an LLC; and (3) because all of the claims against Manager were dismissed, he was not an aggrieved party and could not appeal the remaining order, the partial satisfaction of judgment order. View "Smith v. Rustic Home Builders, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing their putative class action complaint, claiming that LP negligently designed and manufactured Trimboard, a composite building product designed and marketed for use as exterior trim around windows and doors, and violated the provisions of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1 et seq. The court held that the district court did not err in deciding that plaintiffs' negligence claims were barred by North Carolina's economic loss rule (ELR); the district court properly dismissed the UDTPA claim; and the district court properly dismissed the declaratory judgment claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ellis v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp." on Justia Law

In 2007, Scottie and Dawn Pederson (the Pedersons) and Rocky Mountain Bank (the Bank) entered into a construction loan agreement pursuant to which the Bank agreed to lend the Pedersons several thousand dollars. In 2008, the Pedersons and the Bank agreed to finance the construction loan through three short term loans. In 2009, the Pedersons tried to refinance their loans but were unable to do so. Due to alleged failures on the part of the Bank, the Pedersons brought suit against the Bank in 2011, asserting claims for, inter alia, negligence, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. After it was served with the complaint, the Bank filed a Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, asserting the statutes of limitations had run on all of the Pedersons' claims. The district court granted the Bank's motion and dismissed the Pedersons' claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable statutes of limitations began to run in 2008 because the Pedersons' claims had accrued and they had discovered the facts constituting the claims; and (2) by filing their complaint more than three years later, the Pedersons failed to commence their action within any of the applicable statutes of limitations. View "Pederson v. Rocky Mountain Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, David and Barbara Smith, asserted various claims arising out of the construction of their home against Defendants, Donald L. Mattia, Inc. (DLM), Donald Mattia, and Barbara Joseph (Barbara). The Chancery Court (1) granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on (i) Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and (ii) Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim; (2) denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment on (i) Plaintiffs' claim for misappropriation of Plaintiffs' backfill and money paid to DLM that was not applied to their project and (ii) Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs to purchase excess lumber and misappropriated $8,836 in connection with the purchase of excess lumber; (2) granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, as Defendants did not articulate a viable cause of action in their counterclaim; and (3) denied Barbara's motion for Chan. Ct. R. 11 sanctions where there was no evidence that Plaintiffs' attorney did not have a good faith belief in the legitimacy of the claims asserted against Barbara. View "Smith v. Donald L. Mattia, Inc." on Justia Law