SMITH V. MARK COLEMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
594 So.2d 812 (1992)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Smith (P) sought review of decision contending that the award of
damages was inadequate. The trial court had awarded damages for a cosmetic masking of a
floor defect.
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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment