Smith v. Mark Coleman Construction, Inc.

Facts

P contracted with Mark (D) to build a house at a construction price of $266,614. The house, when completed contained numerous defects. P filed a breach of contract action against D. After a nonjury trial, the trial judge awarded damages for approximately nine items of repairs. This appeal involves only the damages awarded for humps in the floor of two second-story bedrooms. Prominent humps exist which are obvious to the naked eye. The hump is in the center of the two bedrooms and remains a hump across the floor to the wall in these bedrooms. There is approximately a one and three-eighths inch rise between the height of the floor at the bedroom doorways and the level of the floor at the hump. Apparently, the trusses were not sealed properly, and the humps appeared when tiles were placed on the roof, causing the trusses to become unaligned. The Smiths discovered the humps three or four months before the completion of the house and brought this to the attention of D. D installed a series of lag bolts to prevent further deterioration of the alignment. The repair, however, did nothing to eliminate the hump. D continued construction on the house to completion. P tried to present the testimony of a real estate appraiser as to the market value of the home with the hump to support their claim that they were entitled to receive an award of the diminution of the market value between a house like theirs with no hump and their house as it existed with a hump in two bedrooms. The trial court disallowed the testimony. P presented the testimony of a general contractor to support their alternative theory of damages which was the cost of removing the hump. D presented the testimony of a general contractor who testified to the cost of disguising the hump effect. The judge awarded $3,640 for a cosmetic masking of the floor defect. P appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.