Utz v. Moss, 71--423
| Decision Date | 21 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--423,71--423 |
| Citation | 503 P.2d 365,31 Colo.App. 475 |
| Parties | Edward Scott UTZ and Judith L. Utz, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald R. MOSS and Eileen Pryor, Individually and d/b/a Pryor-Moss Realtors, Defendants-Appellees, Custom Builders, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Sonheim, Whitworth & Helm, Arvada, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Holley, Boatright & Villano, David C. Deuben, Wheat Ridge, for defendants-appellees.
Robert W. Caddes, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Pryor-Moss Realtors (Pryor-Moss), principally engaged in the business of real estate sales, owned, among other properties, two lots in Jefferson County upon which they desired to have a house constructed for immediate resale. They contracted with Custom Builders, Inc., (Custom) for the construction. In the written contract, Custom expressly warranted that any defects in the construction would be remedied by Custom for a period of one year.
Upon completion of all construction specified by the contract, Pryor-Moss sold the property to plaintiffs. Within six months after taking possession, plaintiffs noticed defects in the building and the grading which surrounded it and reported these defects to Pryor-Moss and Custom. When nothing was done to remedy the defects, a complaint alleging separate claims in negligence, breach of warranty, and fraudulent concealment was filed against Pryor-Moss and Custom. Answers were filed by Pryor-Moss and Custom. Pryor-Moss asserted a cross-claim against Custom which alleged that their contract with Custom provided that Custom was liable for the particular damage claimed by plaintiffs.
Trial was to the court, who found that there was an implied warranty running from Custom to plaintiffs, that the house would be built in a workmanlike manner and suitable for habitation, and that a like express warranty ran from Pryor-Moss to the plaintiffs.
The court further found that the rough grading on a portion of the property was done in an unworkmanlike manner, causing water drainage into the crawl space beneath the house. Items of unworkmanlike construction in the house itself were also noted in the court's findings.
Judgment was entered against Pryor-Moss and Custom for the damages. The trial court also held for Pryor-Moss on its cross-claim for the entire amount of the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs. No findings were made with reference to the negligence or fraud claims. The judgment was rendered solely on the basis of breach of warranty. Custom appeals.
Custom first maintains that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the rough grading was done in an unworkmanlike manner, causing damage to plaintiffs. Testimony regarding this alleged defect was contradictory, but there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the elevations of the land surrounding the building were graded toward the house rather than away from it and that this condition was responsible for the water collecting beneath the house, affecting the habitation of the structure. The evidence supports the judgment against Custom on this allegation. Shiffers v. Cunningham Shepherd Builders Co., 28 Colo.App. 29, 470 P.2d 593.
Custom, in reliance on Wright v. Creative Corporation, 30 Colo.App. 575, 498 P.2d 1179, next claims that even if there were a breach of express or implied warranties attributable to it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lempke v. Dagenais
...in negligence for economic damages but disallowed recovery for implied warranty because of lack of privity.). But see Utz v. Moss, 31 Colo.App. 475, 503 P.2d 365 (1972) (extension of warranty when contractor should have known that realty company would not be first purchaser). However, numer......
-
Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 80SC260
...(1978) (where a builder repurchases used home and then resells, implied warranty extends to a subsequent purchaser); Utz v. Moss, 31 Colo.App. 475, 503 P.2d 365 (1972) (where house was intended for resale to consumer although originally purchased by realty company, warranty extends to consu......
-
Brooktree Vill. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Brooktree Vill., LLC
...and Builder, as the entity that constructed townhomes and common areas at the development during that time. See Utz v. Moss , 31 Colo. App. 475, 478, 503 P.2d 365, 367 (1972).a. The Direct Purchasers Received Implied Warranties from Builder ¶31 Developer and Builder contend that Builder can......
-
Erickson v. Oberlohr
...Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo.1983); Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 194 Colo. 441, 578 P.2d 637 (1978); Utz v. Moss, 31 Colo.App. 475, 503 P.2d 365 (1972). However, for purposes of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction, a "builder-vendor" is any seller who "either b......
-
Let the Builder-vendor Beware: the Demise of Caveat Emptor in Colorado-part I
...Under limited circumstances, later purchasers may assert such warranties against the builder. See, Duncan, supra, note 6; Utz v. Moss, 31 Colo. App. 475,503 P.2d 365 (1972). 9. Colorado courts have not addressed whether this warranty applies to commercial buildings. Other states similarly h......
-
Liability for Soils Problems in Residential Construction
...530, 400 P.2d 447. 21. Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 7 Colorado Lawyer 465 (Jan. 9, 1978). Cf. Utz v. Moss,___ Colo. App. ___, 503 P.2d 365 (nsfop). 22. C.R.S. 1973, § 13-80-127. 23. Tamblyn v. Mickey and Fox, Inc., 7 Colorado Lawyer 1249 (May 8, 1978). 24. Strader v. Beneficial Fi......