Hines v. Thornton, 19945
| Decision Date | 12 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 19945,19945 |
| Parties | Roger HINES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Albert L. THORNTON and Beverly L. Thornton, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas D. Carver, Holden, Von Willer & Carver, Springfield, for appellants.
Christopher J. Stark, Springfield, for respondent.
Albert L. Thornton and Beverly L. Thornton (defendants) appeal a judgment awarding Roger Hines (plaintiff) damages for breach of implied warranty of habitability regarding the condition of a residence located on a parcel of land defendants sold plaintiff. Defendants contend there was no implied warranty of habitability because the home they sold was not a new home and they were not vendors-builders as that term is used in Smith v. Old Warson Dev. Co., 479 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. banc 1972).
This court reverses and remands with directions that judgment be entered for defendants.
Plaintiff entered into a contract to buy a parcel of real estate in Jasper County, Missouri, from defendants. The contract was dated March 6, 1985. The residence that is the subject of this appeal is located on the property. It is a single-family dwelling; a berm house with three sides and the roof covered with earth.
Defendants lived in the house for almost four years before they sold it to plaintiff. Albert Thornton designed the house. It is a poured concrete structure with 2 1/2 to 3 feet of earth covering its sides and top. Defendants contracted with another person to do most of the construction, including pouring the concrete and covering it with earth. Albert finished the inside of the house, including constructing the fireplace mantle, installing cabinets, finishing the bathroom and painting. Someone else built the fireplace.
Plaintiff first saw the house in February 1985. He inspected the house, looking in all the rooms except one bedroom. It was locked. Albert Thornton was in the process of repairing water damage on the ceiling in the living room while plaintiff was at the house. The contract that the parties entered into on March 6, 1985, gave plaintiff the right to inspect the premises. However, he made no further inspection prior to the sale closing.
After plaintiff took possession of the house, he discovered mold and mildew in the bedroom he had not entered when he looked at the house in February. In May 1985, a water line broke flooding the house.
The trial court found that defendants breached an implied warranty of habitability with respect to the house. Defendants contend the trial court erred in holding there was an implied warranty of habitability because "(A) Albert and Beverly Thornton were not 'builder/vendors' of the residence (B) Albert and Beverly Thornton had no notice of a structural defect in the residence, (C) Roger Hines was aware of the claimed defect following his inspection of the residence prior to its purchase and (D) the residence was not a 'new residence' as it must be in order for a warranty of habitability to exist."
A cause of action for implied warranty of habitability of a house was established in Smith v. Old Warson Dev. Co., supra. The court observed, quoting from Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554, 562 (Tex.1968), "The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home buying practices." Smith, 479 S.W.2d at 801. The cause of action is directed to structural defects that a builder-vendor has the opportunity to observe but fails to correct; defects that, through the construction process, become latent and not subject to discovery by inspection. Id.
The cause of action is available to the first buyer of a new house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albrecht v. Clifford
...during the construction process, see Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 194 Colo. 441, 444 (1978). See also Hines v. Thornton, 913 S.W.2d 373, 375 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) ("The cause of action is directed to structural defects that a builder-vendor has the opportunity to observe but fails t......
-
Cox v. Clark
...the house is to sell it. See Snowden v. Gaynor, 710 S.W.2d 481 (Mo.App.1986); Mobley v. Copeland, 828 S.W.2d at 717; Hines v. Thornton, 913 S.W.2d 373 (Mo.App.1996). Thus, in Mobley and Hines we held that to prevail on such theory it is essential that the sale be " 'commercial rather than c......
-
Parmely v. Hilderbrand, 20892.
...occupied it for four years before selling it, because he was not in the business of building homes for sale). See also Hines v. Thornton, 913 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. App.1996) (where a builder-owner lived in a house for almost four years prior to selling it, his purpose was to use the dwelling as a......
-
Murray v. Crank, 71046
...implied warranty of habitability is available only to the first buyer of a new house purchased from a builder-vendor. Hines v. Thornton, 913 S.W.2d 373, 375 (Mo.App.1996). The undisputed facts in this case indicate that buyers were the second purchasers of the ...