Jones v. Abriani
| Decision Date | 29 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--575A92,1--575A92 |
| Citation | 350 N.E.2d 635,169 Ind.App. 556 |
| Parties | , 19 UCC Rep.Serv. 1102 Jack JONES et al., Appellants (Defendants below), v. Richard C. ABRIANI and Jayanne B. Abriani, Appellees (Plaintiffs below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Frederick T. Bauer, Terre Haute, for appellants.
James P. Savage, Clinton, for appellees.
This action arose as the result of the sale of a defective mobile home by defendants-appellants Addison Industries, Inc. (manufacturer) and their agents, Jack Jones and Lorene Jones, d/b/a Jonesy's Mobile Home Sales (sellers) to plaintiffs-appellees Richard and Jayanne Abriani (buyers). The Abrianis recovered judgment of $5,000.00 compensatory damages and $3,000.00 punitive damages, and the defendants appealed, claiming that the judge's decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.
An examination of the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, reveals the following. Richard and Jayanne began shopping for a mobile home in the spring of 1971 just prior to their marriage. They viewed several models on various occasions in the Terre Haute and Indianapolis areas, and finally settled on the Spanish style Eagle mobile home that was on display at Jonesy's Mobile Home Sales because 'it was fancier than most we had seen, and . . . looked to be better constructed than most we looked at for the price.' Since a new mobile home could be purchased for the same price as the model home they had viewed they decided to order a new home rather than purchasing the display unit. The new home was to be identical with the model home but for a few optional accessories and different colored sinks and carpeting.
A contract to purchase was signed by Richard. Jayanne had quickly scanned the document, but Richard himself did not read the contract, later saying 'I was young, you know how everybody starts off young and I figured we could at least trust the Jones' or somebody that would watch out for us.' A down payment of $1,000.00 was made, and the mobile home was ordered by the sellers from the manufacturer in Alabama.
When the home arrived, the abrianis inspected the home, but were disappointed in what they found. The carpet was a different color than the one ordered, a sink was chipped, a curtain was missing, a shutter was missing, the floor plan was different from what had been ordered, the bathrooms did not have double sinks, and in general, the quality of the construction and furnishings was substantially below what they had expected. They immediately contacted Mrs. Jones to tell her that they did not want the home in that condition. She informed them that if they did not take the mobile home they would lose their down payment.
Inasmuch as the Abrianis could not afford to lose the $1,000.00, they decided that they had no choice but to take the mobile home on condition that the sellers would take care of their problems. Sellers installed the mobile home on a lot owned by sellers and rented to the Abrianis.
Over the next year, complaints were made to the sellers every time the rent was paid about the different problems that arose in the mobile home. Sellers eventually replaced the chipped sink, supplied the missing shutter, and connected the dryer vent free of charge. A missing curtain in the bedroom was ordered, but a correct match could not be found so that a whole new set of curtains was sent almost a year later. Although these curtains were the wrong size, the Abrianis were tired of complaining and made no further mention of the problem. Similar difficulty was experienced in gaining delivery of six missing or damaged screens, and only four were eventually received.
About four months after delivery of the home, Jayanne called Mrs. Jones to complain about a leak in the roof. Mrs. Jones informed her that the roof had to be sealed every two years, and Jayanne responded that they had only had the home for a few months, and that it should not need that kind of maintenance so soon. Mrs. Jones refused to fix the leak unless the Abrianis paid for the service. In the same call, Jayanne listed once again all of the other uncorrected problems that they had found in the home after living there for several months. They discovered that the doors were all crooked and would not shut properly. Further, the carpeting was literally falling apart and had several bald spots and a large cut. The chair was broken inside, causing the upholstery to tear. The bathtubs both leaked. All of the cabinet doors were out of alignment. The holes had been cut too large for most of the light switches. The paneling was starting to fall off, the molding was popping off, the ceiling was being damaged by the leak, there was a gas leak in the furnace, and the hot water heater element went out. There was trouble with the wiring, and a fuse was blown at least once a month. No attempt was made to remedy any of these defects.
About a year later, and after the continual assurances of repairs failed to materialize, the Abrianis wrote the Attorney General seeking help in the matter. They listed all of their complaints, including these additional problems: the bedroom windows would not raise; the window frames seemed to be out of alignment; the sliding doors on the bathtub would not fold correctly; there were no filters with the furnace; the legs on the end tables and coffee table wobbled and were about to fall off; the upholstery on the furniture was all wearing out; both mattresses were cheap and had broken springs; everytime the carpet was vacuumed the sweeper bag filled up with lint.
The only response to the letter that the Abrianis received was a printed warranty card from the manufacturer that provided that the warranty registration had to be returned within five days of purchase in order for the ninety day warranty to be effective. Jayanne had earlier told Mrs. Jones that they had never received any information about the warranty. Since both time limits on the warranty card had long since passed, the Abrianis turned to legal counsel, and this action resulted soon thereafter.
Shortly after the Abrianis sent their letter to the Attorney General, they decided to move their home to a different lot in case any trouble arose because of the letter. At this time, the moving company pointed out a dent or bow in the A-frame hitch of the home. There was also testimony that one front panel of aluminum siding on the home 'looked like it had been repaired and had buckled all up.' They also discovered that the aluminum roof panel had large 'wrinkles' or bulges in it, although the exact location of the leak could not be determined.
Inasmuch as the defendants have based their appeal on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we have found it necessary to recite this rather complete summary of the evidence. From this evidence, the trial judge made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which stated in relevant part as follows:
'(7) The Court further finds that the defendants, with obvious intent to deceive, did not deliver the manufacturer's warranty to plaintiffs, and although demand for same was made from time to time, such manufacturer's warranty was not delivered to plaintiffs until June of 1972 after repeated demands had been made upon the defendants by plaintiffs, including intervention by the Attorney General of the State of Indiana, and until long after the period of warranty enforcement had expired.
'(8) The Court further finds that plaintiffs were forced to accept the delivery of the mobile home from the defendants, being financially committed, and accepted possession of the mobile home only upon the conditions that the defendants would make good the defects of said mobile home.
'(9) The Court further finds that in addition to the apparent defects in said mobile home, plaintiffs subsequently discovered hidden damage to the frame and roof of the mobile home, which damage was called to the attention of the defendants by notice to Jack Jones and Lorene P. Jones, all of which demands defendants willfully and fraudulently refused to acknowledge, and which damage defendants willfully and fraudulently refused to repair.
'(10) The Court further finds that on March 15, 1972, eleven months after the purchase agreement was signed, defendant ADDISON INDUSTRIES delivered to defendants Jack Jones and LoRene P. Jones, d/b/a JONESY'S MOBILE HOME SALES, two window screens and certain drapery items which were to have been delivered with the mobile home, but at no other time has either defendant recognized any of the plaintiffs' complaints, and they have repeatedly ignored all attempts of plaintiffs to seek relief.
complaints from time to time, all of which were ignored by defendants to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co.
...letters complaining of such defects to the landlord's lender, thereby disparaging the former's reputation]; Jones v. Abriani (1976) 169 Ind.App. 556, 350 N.E.2d 635, 649 [punitive damages upheld when defendant mobile home salesman threatened to forfeit plaintiffs' down payment if plaintiffs......
-
Koehrer v. Superior Court
...of a defense. Such conduct goes beyond the mere breach of contract. It offends accepted notions of business ethics. (See Jones v. Abriani (1976) 169 Ind. [App.] 556 .) Acceptance of tort remedies in such a situation is not likely to intrude upon the bargaining relationship or upset reasonab......
-
Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.
...of a defense. Such conduct goes beyond the mere breach of contract. It offends accepted notions of business ethics. (See Jones v. Abriani (1976) 169 Ind. [App.] 556 .) Acceptance of tort remedies in such a situation is not likely to intrude upon the bargaining relationship or upset reasonab......
-
Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil
...of a defense. Such conduct goes beyond the mere breach of contract. It offends accepted notions of business ethics. (See Jones v. Abriani (1976) 169 Ind. [App.] 556 .) Acceptance of tort remedies in such a situation is not likely to intrude upon the bargaining relationship or upset reasonab......