Theron A. Starnes v. Specialty Hitches and Rv Center, LLC

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 30, 2008
• Docket: CA-0007-1037
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-1037

THERON A. STARNES

VERSUS

SPECIALTY HITCHES AND RV CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 224,258 HONORABLE HARRY RANDOW, DISTRICT JUDGE

OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Michael G. Sullivan, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

C.R. Whitehead, Jr. Whitehead Law Offices P. O. Box 697 Natchitoches, LA 71458-0697 (318) 352-6481 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Theron A. Starnes

Mark F. Vilar Aaron L. Green Faircloth, Vilar & Elliott, LLC P. O. Box 12730 Alexandria, LA 71315-2730 (318) 442-9533 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Specialty Hitches and RV Center, LLC Clayton Bullard DECUIR, Judge.

In this redhibition case, Theron A. Starnes (Starnes) appeals a judgment of the

trial court dismissing his claims against Specialty Hitches and RV Center (Specialty)

with prejudice.

FACTS

On April 21, 2005, Theron Starnes purchased a two-year-old Sierra Travel

Trailer from Specialty Hitches and RV Center for $19,100.00. Starnes also paid

$654.00 to purchase and have a fifth wheel hitch installed on his truck. Starnes

testified that he and his wife only spent about thirty minutes going over the trailer

prior to purchasing it, despite waiting for several hours while the hitch was installed.

The second time Starnes took the trailer out, some six to eight weeks after the

purchase, he encountered problems with the refrigerator, air conditioner, shower, hot

water heater, table mount, cable connection, and spare tire jack. In addition, Starnes

discovered holes in the side of the slide-out and what he believed was evidence that

the trailer had been involved in an accident. It is disputed whether Starnes notified

Specialty of the problems, but Starnes never brought the trailer in for Specialty to

make repairs.

After two more trips, Starnes parked the trailer and filed this suit in redhibition.

At the bench trial, Starnes testified that the refrigerator was working at the time of

purchase, and his wife testified that the air conditioner was operating as well. In fact,

Starnes testified that none of the issues involved appeared until some six to eight

weeks after the purchase when he was on his second outing with the trailer. Edwin

Dye, Specialty’s owner, testified that he had inspected the trailer prior to sale and

found none of the alleged defects. He also testified that Starnes did not notify him

of any defects prior to filing suit. In addition, Clayton Bullard, the original owner of the trailer, testified that none of the defects described existed at the time he sold the

vehicle and that it had never been involved in an accident.

Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found that Starnes had not

conducted a reasonable inspection or given Specialty an opportunity to repair the

trailer. Accordingly, the trial court found that Starnes’ action in redhibition could not

be maintained. Starnes lodged this appeal.

DISCUSSION

Starnes alleges on appeal that the trial court erred as a matter of law in

determining that he had not conducted a reasonable inspection and that he had ample

opportunity to conduct such an inspection. We disagree.

In Landaiche v. Supreme Chevrolet, Inc., 602 So.2d 1127, 1131 (La.App. 1 Cir.

1992) (citations omitted), the court said:

The existence of a redhibitory defect is a question of fact which cannot be disturbed unless the record as a whole establishes that the finding is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Similarly, the determination of whether a defect is apparent by reasonable inspection is a factual determination, which will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless manifestly erroneous.

After reviewing the evidence in the present case, it is apparent that the trial

court concluded that at least some of the defects alleged by Starnes were apparent and

would have been discovered had a reasonable inspection been conducted. The holes

in the slide-out and damaged spare tire jack, as well as the evidence of an accident,

seem to fall in this category. It is also apparent that the trial court concluded that

even if some of the remaining defects were in fact latent, Starnes did not give

Specialty an opportunity to make repairs to the trailer. The record before us supports

these conclusions. Accordingly, we find no manifest error on the part of the trial

court.

2 DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs

of these proceedings are taxed to appellant, Theron A. Starnes.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.