Stewart v. Bradley
Decision Date | 14 November 2008 |
Docket Number | 2070575.,2070574. |
Citation | 15 So.3d 533 |
Parties | Randall STEWART v. James BRADLEY and Mary Bradley. Larry Morgan v. James Bradley and Mary Bradley. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James A. Kee, Jr., and Angela Collier Shields of Kee & Selby, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant Randall Stewart.
Joseph H. Driver and Kathy R. Davis of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant Larry Morgan.
W. Brian Collins, Birmingham; and H. Arthur Edge III, Birmingham, for appellees.
Randall Stewart and Larry Morgan appeal separately from a judgment entered on a jury's verdict in favor of James Bradley and Mary Bradley. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
On May 6, 2003, James Bradley and Mary Bradley sued Randall Stewart and Larry Morgan seeking damages arising from the alleged negligent construction of their house. In their complaint, the Bradleys asserted claims of negligent failure to warn, negligent installation and construction, negligent supervision, misrepresentation, suppression, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract, and "third party beneficiary."
The trial court entered summary judgments in favor of Stewart and Morgan as to all claims asserted against them except the claims asserting negligent installation and construction, negligent supervision, and breach of contract. The case was tried before a jury on August 13, 2007. At the conclusion of the Bradleys' case, Stewart and Morgan filed separate motions for a judgment as a matter of law. Both Stewart and Morgan again moved for a judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of all the evidence.
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Bradleys. On September 12, 2007, the trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, awarding the Bradleys damages in the amount of $200,000. Morgan and Stewart filed separate postjudgment motions for a judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motions for a new trial. Those motions were denied by operation of law on December 17, 2007. See Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P. On January 23, 2008, Stewart and Morgan each appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court; that court transferred the appeals to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975. We have consolidated the appeals.
On appeal, both Stewart and Morgan challenge the denial of their motions for a judgment as a matter of law and the trial court's refusal to give certain of their requested jury charges. Stewart and Morgan also challenge the denial of their motions for a new trial.
Stewart and Morgan are licensed home builders. In 2001, they collaborated on a "spec" house on Funderburg Bend Road. On June 19, 2001, the Bradleys entered into a "Sales Contract" with Stewart and Morgan in which the Bradleys agreed to purchase the house.
On June 29, 2001, the parties attended a real-estate closing regarding the property. At that closing, the Bradleys executed a document entitled "Limited Warranty Agreement," which provided, in part:
(Capitalization and underlining in original.)
According to the Bradleys, they moved into the house in the fall of 2001 and they immediately had problems with the house. It is undisputed that the Bradleys contacted Stewart and Morgan complaining of problems with the house during the fall of 2001. Stewart and Morgan described Mary Bradley's initial complaint as involving only "punch list" items. However, Mary described her initial complaints as involving, among other things, cracking, loose molding, and unlevel floors. Mary testified as to her communications with Stewart and Morgan concerning problems with the house:
James testified that he telephoned either Stewart or Morgan and that
James testified that Stewart and Morgan came back "again and again" and that he thought that "they sent somebody out there just about all the time to look at it every time you would say something about it but they never did fix it." Mary acknowledged that, after her contacts with Stewart and Morgan in the fall of 2001, her next contact with them had occurred in December 2002. It is undisputed that Stewart and Morgan talked with the Bradleys in January 2003 about their complaints.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adtrav Corp. v. Duluth Travel, Inc.
...had accepted those calls and promised to repair, and that seller's efforts to repair had been unsuccessful).Stewart v. Bradley, 15 So. 3d 533, 543-44 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). This rule applies equally to waiver of the provision in a written contract that it may be modified or amended only by ......
-
Standifer v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
...under which they will be bound, and such clearly manifested limitations will be recognized by the courts."); Stewart v. Bradley , 15 So.3d 533, 543 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (enforcing warranty that disclaimed home builders liability for negligence, mental anguish, and implied warranties of hab......
-
McLeod v. State
...a “ ‘[w]aiver is ... the voluntary surrender or relinquishment of some known right, benefit, or advantage,’ ” Stewart v. Bradley, 15 So.3d 533, 543 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Waters v. Taylor, 527 So.2d 139, 141 (Ala.Civ.App.1988), citing in turn City of Montgomery v. Weldon, 280 Ala. 463,......
-
Hughes v. Mitchell Co., Inc.
...a right may be found where one's course of conduct indicates the same or is inconsistent with any other intention.' "Stewart v. Bradley, 15 So.3d 533, 543 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Waters v. Taylor, 527 So.2d 139, 141 (Ala.Civ.App.1988)). It is clear from the face of the purchase and sale......