Petersen v. Hubschman Const. Co., Inc.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RYAN
• Citation: Petersen v. Hubschman Const. Co., Inc., 76 Ill.2d 31, 389 N.E.2d 1154 (Ill. 1979)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1979
• Docket Number: No. 50206,50206
• Parties: , 27 Ill.Dec. 746 Raymond S. PETERSEN et al., Appellees, v. HUBSCHMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant.

Page 1154

389 N.E.2d 1154

76 Ill.2d 31, 27 Ill.Dec. 746

Raymond S. PETERSEN et al., Appellees, v. HUBSCHMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant.

No. 50206.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 18, 1979.

Jerome H. Torshen, of Jerome H. Torshen, Ltd., Paul Bernstein and Henry A. Waller, of Bernstein & Waller, Chicago, for appellant Hubschman Const. Co.

Stephen H. Katz, Waukegan, for appellees Raymond S. Petersen and Delores E. Petersen.

RYAN, Justice:

This case involves the dual issues of "implied warranty of habitability" and "substantial performance" as they apply to a contract of sale of a new home by a builder-vendor. The purchasers, Raymond S. Petersen and Delores E. Petersen, sued the builder-vendor, Hubschman Construction Company, Inc., in the circuit court of Lake County for the return of the $10,000 earnest money they had paid on the contract for the purchase of a new house, and for the value of the labor and materials supplied by Petersen. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for.$19,000. The appellate court affirmed. (53 Ill.App.3d 626, 11 Ill.Dec. 436, 368 N.E.2d 1044.) We granted leave to appeal.

In April 1972, the plaintiffs, Raymond and Delores Petersen, entered into a $71,000 contract with the defendant, Hubschman Construction Company, Inc., for the purchase of a piece of land and for the construction of a new home on that land. Later, the parties agreed to an offset from the contract price for work to be done on the home by Petersen. The plaintiffs paid $10,000 earnest money. In the fall of 1972 the Petersens became dissatisfied with Hubschman's performance, and Hubschman later agreed to repair or correct numerous items on a "punch list" but failed to satisfactorily carry out this agreement. The trial court found that the defects included: a basement floor pitched in the wrong direction away from a drain; improperly installed siding; a defective and ill-fitting bay window; a seriously defective front door and the door frame; and deterioration and "nail-popping" in the drywall on the interior. Testimony at the trial by the Petersens and by one of Hubschman's former employees indicated that repair of these items would involve major amounts of work. However, no one disputes that the house was at least habitable in that the Petersens could live in it and it was not dangerously unsafe. The Petersens proposed that Hubschman deposit $1,000 in escrow to guarantee completion of the repairs, but the suggestion was rejected. The Petersens refused to accept the home, and no closing of the transaction occurred; that is, the balance of the purchase price was not paid and no deed was delivered. Hubschman then invoked the contract forfeiture provision and notified the Petersens that they had forfeited both the $10,000 deposit and approximately $9,000 worth of labor and materials supplied by Petersen. The Petersens sued Hubschman. The trial court ruled that there were "defects in substance in the construction" of the house and that Hubschman had not substantially performed and could not declare a forfeiture. The court held that the Petersens were entitled to recover the earnest money and the value of the labor and materials provided.

Usually it is the builder-vendor who urges that, by reason of Caveat emptor or merger, there is no warranty which the vendee of a new house can assert against a builder-vendor. In our case, however, it is the builder-vendor who urges the existence of the implied warranty of habitability. Hubschman, however, asserts that the implied warranty of habitability can be asserted by a vendee of a new house only if the defects in the structure render it unfit for habitation. Since in our case the defects complained of did not render the house uninhabitable, Hubschman contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of the Petersens. In this regard, Hubschman relies on Goggin v. Fox Valley Construction Corp. (1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 103, 8 Ill.Dec. 271, 365 N.E.2d 509. In that case the court, after remanding the case to the trial court, stated, in Dicta, what that court conceived to be the nature of the warranty of habitability as follows:

"The primary function of a new home is to shelter its inhabitants from the elements. If a new home does not keep out the elements because of a substantial defect of construction, such a home is not habitable within the meaning of the implied warranty of habitability. (Citation.) Another function of a new home is to provide its inhabitants with a reasonably safe place to live, without fear of injury to person, health, safety, or property. If a new home is not structurally sound because of a substantial defect of construction, such a home is not habitable * * * . If a new home is not aesthetically satisfying because of a defect of construction, such a defect should not be considered as making the home uninhabitable." Goggin v. Fox Valley Construction Corp. (1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 103, 106, 8 Ill.Dec. 271, 273, 365 N.E.2d 509, 511.

Ordinarily, it is the position of the buyer that Caveat emptor or merger does not prohibit recovery from a builder-vendor for latent defects in a new house because of the warranty of habitability. However, in our case, the Petersens contend that the warranty of habitability is not involved since title to the property had not passed to them. It is their position that the builder-vendor had not substantially performed the contract to construct the new house and therefore they were entitled to repudiate the contract and to recover a money judgment.

This court has not considered the implied warranty of habitability as it relates to a contract for sale of a new house by a builder-vendor. That question was involved in Coutrakon v. Adams (1964), 31 Ill.2d 189, 201 N.E.2d 100, but this court decided that case on other grounds. This court has recognized an implied warranty of habitability in a landlord-tenant relationship. (Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little (1972), 50 Ill.2d 351, 280 N.E.2d 208.) The appellate courts of this State, however, have had the opportunity on several occasions to consider the implied warranty of habitability in cases involving the sale of new homes by a builder-vendor, but the results have not been uniform. See Weck v. A:M Sunrise Construction Co. (1962), 36 Ill.App.2d 383, 184 N.E.2d 728; Coutrakon v. Adams (1963), 39 Ill.App.2d 290, 188 N.E.2d 780; Narup v. Higgins (1964), 51 Ill.App.2d 102, 200 N.E.2d 922; Hanavan v. Dye (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 576, 281 N.E.2d 398; Garcia v. Hynes & Howes Real Estate, Inc. (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 479, 331 N.E.2d 634; Conyers v. Molloy (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 17, 7 Ill.Dec. 695, 364 N.E.2d 986; Goggin v. Fox Valley Construction Corp. (1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 103, 8 Ill.Dec. 271, 365 N.E.2d 509.

The implied warranty of habitability in cases involving the sale of new homes by a builder-vendor is a judicial innovation of rather recent origin used to avoid the harshness of Caveat emptor and the doctrine of merger and to afford a degree of relief to vendees of new homes who subsequently discover latent defects in the structure. This represents a distinct departure from accepted principles of real estate law that were based on reasons founded in antiquity. The vendee took the property at his risk. If he failed to discover defects, Caveat emptor prevented him from maintaining an action against the vendor. The principle of merger produced the same result. All agreements between a vendee and the vendor were said to have merged in the deed, and if reservations were not contained in that instrument the doctrine of merger would prevent relief to the aggrieved vendee after receipt of the deed. (See Roeser, The Implied Warranty of Habitability in the Sale of New Housing: The Trend in Illinois, 1978 S.I.U.L.J. 178.) In Illinois, however, certain exceptions to the merger doctrine have been created. Reasoning that the merger doctrine evolved solely to protect the security of land titles, the Illinois courts have held that when the deed embraced and contained all of the subjects of the executory contract, the contract merged with the deed. However, an executory agreement for the performance of separate and distinct provisions did not merge with the deed. The prior contract is superseded only as to such of its provisions as are covered by the conveyance made pursuant to its terms. Fitzpatrick v. Allied Contracting Co. (1962), 24 Ill.2d 448, 182 N.E.2d 183; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Wabash-Randolph Corp. (1943), 384 Ill. 78, 51 N.E.2d 132; Trapp v. Gordon (1937), 366 Ill. 102, 7 N.E.2d 869; Biewer v. Mueller (1912), 254 Ill. 315, 98 N.E. 548; Shelby v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R.R. Co. (1892), 143 Ill. 385, 32 N.E. 438; Laflin v. Howe (1885), 112 Ill. 253; Ludeke v. Sutherland (1877), 87 Ill. 481; Brownell v. Quinn (1964), 47 Ill.App.2d 206, 197 N.E.2d 721.

Although of recent origin, the implied warranty of habitability has found substantial acceptance in the various jurisdictions, and the commentators have voiced their approval and have examined the nature and basis of the implied warranty. See cases collected in Annot., 25 A.L.R.3d 383 (1969); see also Bearman, Caveat Emptor In Sales of Realty Recent Assaults Upon The Rule, 14 Vand.L.Rev. 541 (1961); Roberts, The Case Of The Unwary Home Buyer: The Housing Merchant Did It, 52 Cornell L.Q. 835 (1967); Haskell, The Case For An Implied Warranty Of Quality In Sales Of Real Property, 53 Geo.L.J. 633 (1965); Jaeger, The Warranty of Habitability, 46 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 123 (1969); 47 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 1 (1970).

Because of the vast change that has taken place in the method of constructing and marketing new houses, we feel that it is appropriate to hold that in the sale of a new house by a builder-vendor, there is an implied warranty of habitability which will support an action against the builder-vendor by the vendee for latent defects and which will avoid the unjust results of Caveat emptor and the doctrine of merger. Many...