Asuamah v. Cendant Mobility Financial Corp.

690 S.E.2d 861, 301 Ga. App. 879, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 100, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 15
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 7, 2010
DocketA08A0210
StatusPublished

This text of 690 S.E.2d 861 (Asuamah v. Cendant Mobility Financial Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Asuamah v. Cendant Mobility Financial Corp., 690 S.E.2d 861, 301 Ga. App. 879, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 100, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Mikell, Judge.

In Cendant Mobility Financial Corp. v. Asuamah, 1 the Supreme Court reversed Division 4 (b) of our decision in Asuamah v. Haley, 2 in which we held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Cendant, the non-builder/seller, on the plaintiff/ *880 purchaser’s claim of negligent repairs. 3 In reversing, the Supreme Court concluded that

Decided January 7, 2010. Leon A. Van Gelderen, for appellant. Scoggins & Goodman, David L. Rusnak, Scott H. Michalove, for appellee.
the “negligent construction” exception to caveat emptor exempts from the defense of caveat emptor only a negligence claim by a homeowner seeking recovery against the builder/seller of the home for latent building construction defects about which the purchaser/homeowner did not know and in the exercise of ordinary care would not have discovered, which defects either were known to the builder/seller or in the exercise of ordinary care would have been discovered by the builder/seller. Inasmuch as Cendant is not a builder/seller of the dwelling purchased by Asua-mah, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Cendant. 4

Accordingly, we vacate Division 4 (b) of our opinion, adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court as our own, and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Divisions 1 through 4 (a) and Division 5 of our opinion were not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision and thus remain in effect. 5

Judgment affirmed.

Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.
1

285 Ga. 818 (684 SE2d 617) (2009).

2

293 Ga. App. 112 (666 SE2d 426) (2008).

3

Id. at 124-126 (4) (b).

4

(Citation omitted.) Id. at 822.

5

See Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563-564 (1) (554 SE2d 465) (2001).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shadix v. Carroll County
554 S.E.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Cendant Mobility Financial Corp. v. Asuamah
684 S.E.2d 617 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2009)
Asuamah v. Haley
666 S.E.2d 426 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
690 S.E.2d 861, 301 Ga. App. 879, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 100, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asuamah-v-cendant-mobility-financial-corp-gactapp-2010.