Richard Briggs and Stephanie R. Briggs v. Riversound Limited Partnership, William S. Nix, D/B/A WEN Enterprises, General Partner, and Daryl Wagner
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
October 2, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
RI CHARD BRI GGS a nd ) KNOX CI RCUI T STEPHANI E R. BRI GGS, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9603- CV- 0011 5 )
)
Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s )
)
)
)
)
)
vs . ) HON. DALE C. WORKMAN ) J UDGE
)
)
)
)
)
RI VERSOUND LI M TED PARTNERSHI P, )
I REVERSED AND REMANDED W LLI AM S. NI X d/ b/ a W I SN ) ENTERPRI SES, GENERAL PARTNER, ) a n d DARYL WAGNER, )
)
De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s )
DAVI D N. GARST, Le wi s , Ki ng, Kr i e g & W l dr op, P. C. , Knoxvi l l e f o r
a
a pp e l l a nt .
DAVI D E. SM TH, Hodge s , Dought y & Ca r s on, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l e e .
I
O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J .
c ur
The s i ngl e i s s ue i n t hi s c a s e i s whe t he r a r e mot e pur c ha s e r o f a h o me ma y ma i nt a i n a ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns t t he bui l de r o f t he h o me de s pi t e a l a c k of c ont r a c t ua l pr i vi t y. The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d s umma r y j udgme nt i n f a vor of t he de f e nda nt a nd t hi s a pp e a l
r e s u l t e d. W r e ve r s e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t .
e
The Pl a i nt i f f s , Dr . a nd M s .
r Ri c h a r d M Br i ggs , . pur c ha s e d a
c o n d o mi ni um f r om t he De f e nda nt s , M . a nd M s . Edwa r d S. Al be r s i n r r
1
Apr i l 1 9 93. Da r yl W gne r Cons t r uc t i on Co. bui l t t he home i n 19 8 9 .
a
Th e c o n domi ni um wa s a pa r t of a de ve l opme nt by Ri ve r s ound Li mi t e d
Pa r t n e r s hi p, W l l i a m S. Ni x d / b/ a W Ent e r pr i s e s , Ge ne r a l Pa r t ne r .
i SN
The Br i g gs ' na me d t he s e pa r t i e s a s de f e nda nt s , a l l e gi ng ne gl i ge n c e i n t h e c ons t r uc t i on a dmi ni s t r a t i on, s upe r vi s i on, i ns pe c t i on a n d a c t ua l c ons t r uc t i on of t h e home . Spe c i f i c a l l y, t he p l a i nt i f f s c l a i m t h a t t he i r home wa s da ma ge d due t o a l e a ky ba s e me nt , wh i c h wa s c a u s e d by be l ow gr a de hol e s i n t he ba s e me nt wa l l s a nd t h e g e ne r a l f a i l ur e of t he c ont r a c t or t o i ns t a l l a de qua t e wa t e r pr oof i n g o f t h e ba s e me nt .
The Ci r c ui t Cour t f or Knox Count y gr a nt e d s umma r y j udgme n t t o
Ri v e r s o und Li mi t e d , WSN a nd Da r yl W gne r a Cons t r uc t i on, f i nd i n g
" t ha t t h e Pl a i nt i f f s ha ve not s t a t e d a c a us e of a c t i on a ga i n s t
1
A s e t t l e me n t a g r e e me n t wa s r e a c h e d wi t h t h e Al b e r s , a n d a v o l u n t a r y n o n s u i t wa s e n t e r e d a g a i n s t Do n Du n c a n , d / b / a Fr o n t i e r Ho me I n s p e c t i o n s , wh o i n s p e c t e d t h e h o me f o r t h e Br i g g s p r i o r t o t h e i r p u r c h a s e .
t he s e de f e nd a n t s b e c a us e t he Cour t f i nds t he y owe d no dut y t o a r e mo t e pur c ha s e r of a bui l di ng t he y c ons t r uc t e d t o e xe r c i s e d u e car e in t he c ons t r uc t i on to pr e ve nt s ubs e que nt da ma ge to or d e t e r i o r a t i on of s a i d pr ope r t y. "
The Br i ggs ' a ppe a l a nd pr e s e nt t h e f ol l owi ng i s s ue f or o u r c o n s i d e r a t i on:
W t he r a n owne r of a r e s i de nc e who l a c ks pr i vi t y he
wi t h t he bui l de r t he r e of ma y ma i nt a i n a n a c t i on a ga i ns t t he bui l de r f or ne gl i ge nc e i n t he c ons t r uc t i on of t he r e s i de nc e .
Be c a us e t he t r i a l c our t ba s e d i t s de c i s i on on a que s t i on o f l a w, our s c ope of r e vi e w i s de novo wi t h no pr e s u mpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s f or t he t r i al c our t ' s c onc l us i o n . Ada ms v. De a n
Ro o f i n g Co. , 715 S. W 2d . 341 ( Te nn. Ap p . 1986) ; Bi l l i ngt on v.
Cr o wd e r , 553 S. W 2d 590 ( Te nn. App. 1977) .
.
Th e Pl a i nt i f f s ' a r gue t ha t s i nc e t hi s i s a ne gl i ge nc e c l a i m, p r i v i t y i s not r e qui r e d t o ma i nt a i n t hi s a c t i on unde r Te nne s s e e ' s a n t i - p r i vi t y s t a t ut e , c odi f i e d a t Te nne s s e e Code Annot a t e d § 29- 3 4 - 1 0 4 , wh i c h s t a t e s :
Pr i vi t y not r e qui r e d. - - I n a l l c a us e s of a c t i on f or p e r s ona l i nj ur y or pr ope r t y da ma ge br ought on a c c ount of n e gl i ge nc e , s t r i c t l i a bi l i t y o r wa r r a nt y, i n c l udi ng
a c t i ons br ought unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t h e Uni f or m Co mme r c i a l Code , pr i v i t y s ha l l not be a r e qui r e me nt t o ma i nt a i n s a i d a c t i on.
We a gr e e wi t h t he Pl a i nt i f f s ' c ont e nt i on t ha t s i nc e t he y a l l e ge d pr ope r t y da ma ge t o t he i r home a s a r e s ul t of ne gl i ge nc e of t he d e f e nda nt s , pr i vi t y is not r e qui r e d unde r t he s t a t ut e . Al t h o u g h t r a di t i ona l l y t hi s s t a t ut e ha s be e n a s s oc i a t e d wi t h p r o d u c t l i a bi l i t y a c t i ons , i t s pl a i n l a ngua ge i n no wa y l i mi t s i t s a p p l i c a t i on i n a wa y t ha t woul d pr e c l ude i t f r om be i ng a ppl i e d t o s u b s e q u e nt pur c ha s e r s of a r e s i de nc e .
Thi s Cour t ha s pr e vi ous l y a ddr e s s e d t hi s i s s ue in Re d b u d
Co o p e r a t i ve Cor p. v. Cl a yt on, 700 S. W 2d 551 ( Te nn. App. 1985) .
. In
Re d b u d, a home owne r ' s a s s oc i a t i on a nd i ndi vi dua l home owne r s s ue d a d e v e l o p e r ove r dr a i na ge pr obl e ms . The Cour t a f f i r me d t he a wa r d o f d a ma g e s a ga i ns t t he de ve l ope r on a ne gl i ge nc e t he or y, e ve n t ho u g h t h e r e c or d s howe d t ha t s ome home owne r s we r e s ubs e que nt pur c ha s e r s a n d t h u s l a c ke d pr i vi t y wi t h t he de ve l ope r . The Cour t f ound t h a t s i nc e t he j udgme nt c oul d be s u s t a i ne d ba s e d upon a ne gl i ge n c e t he o r y , t he a nt i - pr i vi t y s t a t ut e a ppl i e d. I d. a t 559.
Our Supr e me Cour t ha s r e c ogni z e d t he e xi s t e nc e of cer t ai n i mp l i e d wa r r a nt i e s of ne wl y c ons t r uc t e d home s i n Di xon v. Mount a i n
Ci t y Co n s t r uc t i on Co . , 632 S. W 2d 538 ( Te nn.
. 1982) . The Cou r t
l i mi t e d t hos e wa r r a nt i e s t o t he i ni t i a l pur c ha s e r s a nd l i mi t e d t o a c t i o n s on a n i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y t he or y. Thi s c a s e , howe ve r , i s no t a wa r r a nt y c a s e but i s ba s e d upon ne gl i ge nc e . I n vi e w of t he a n t i - p r i vi t y s t a t ut e s e t a bout a bove , we s e e no r e a s on pr i vi t y s houl d b e
r e q u i r e d t o ma i nt a i n a n a c t i on f or ne gl i ge nc e . W hol d t h a t e a
s u b s e q u e nt pur c ha s e r ma y ma i nt a i n a ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns t t h o s e who c on s t r uc t e d a r e s i de nc e , i f t he de f e c t s c l a i me d t o ha ve c a us e d t he i n j ur y a r e l a t e nt one s , not known or r e a s ona bl y di s c ove r a bl e t o e i t he r t he pr e vi ous own e r s or oc c upi e r s , or t he s ubs e qu e n t pur c ha s e r . Si nc e pr e vi ous owne r s ma y c a us e da ma ge t ha t a s ub s e - que nt p ur c ha s e r mi ght mi s t a ke nl y a t t r i but e to t he bui l de r , or wo r s e n a c ondi t i on c a us e d by t he bui l de r , we be l i e ve i t onl y f a i r to r e qui r e l ack of knowl e dge by t he pr e vi ous owne r f or t he s u b s e q u e nt pur c ha s e r s t o s t a t e a c l a i m f or ne gl i ge nc e a s t o t h e bui l de r .
W do not be l i e ve t ha t our de c i s i on t oda y a nd t ha t i n Re d b u d
e
c ont r a di c t s in a ny wa y t he Di xon case. Al t hough a c l a i m of n e g l i g e nc e i n t he c ons t r u c t i on of a home i s s i mi l a r t o a cl ai m u n d e r a n i mpl i e d wa r r a nt y, t he r e a r e di f f e r e nc e s t ha t di s t i ngu i s h t h e t wo . The Supr e me Cour t of Col or a do di s c us s e d t he di f f e r e n c e s
b e t we e n t he t wo t he or i e s i n Cos mopol i t a n Home s , I nc . v. W l l e r , 6 6 3
e
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Richard Briggs and Stephanie R. Briggs v. Riversound Limited Partnership, William S. Nix, D/B/A WEN Enterprises, General Partner, and Daryl Wagner (Richard Briggs and Stephanie R. Briggs v. Riversound Limited Partnership, William S. Nix, D/B/A WEN Enterprises, General Partner, and Daryl Wagner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.