ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Construction Law Blogs -> Womble Carlyle Constrution Industry Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Construction Law

: Womble Carlyle Constrution Industry Blog

Couple Runs Afoul with Implied Warranty of Habitability

ADVERTISEMENTS
A recent NC case arises from an Outer Banks construction lot in Duck, which according to an online resource on Duck is a town established in the 1870?s and named for the many ducks and water fowl in the area. A migratory town with around 500 full time residents, nearly a quarter million people flock there every summer.

Waddling through the tangled web of the case, Developer One built a bulkhead retaining wall around a lot fronting the Currituck Sound in Duck. Later, Mr./Mrs. Mancuso purchased the lot individually, and then had their company, Developer Two, build a house, swimming pool and second bulkhead. Buyers bought the house and less than a year later, Developer One?s first bulkhead sagged and bowed. Not wanting to pay the bill, Buyers filed suit against Mr./Mrs., but not their company Developer Two.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reaffirmed that North Carolina recognizes a claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability against a "vendor" who is in the business of building dwellings. The implied warranty covers recently constructed dwellings, including all "fixtures," so they are sufficiently free from major structural defects and constructed in a workmanlike manner.

After ruling the bulkhead a "fixture" due to its "annexation to the land", the court needed to find that Mr./Mrs. are "vendors" to hold them liable. Since (1) Mr./Mrs. signed the contract as individuals, (2) Buyers did not know that Mr./Mrs. intended to contract the construction to a separate company, and (3) Mr./Mrs. were actively involved in the construction, the court ruled that Mr./Mrs. were out of luck and could not duck their implied warranty responsibilities by contracting with their own corporation. (This entry posted by Ken Michael, a member of Womble Carlyle?s real estate development and construction law practice group.)

Source: Regis M. Burek and wife, Lynda G. Burek v. Bernard Mancuso, Jr. and wife, Frances Mancuso, 657 S.E.2d 446, 2008 WL 565112 (N.C. App. 2008)

Full post as published by Womble Carlyle Constrution Industry Blog on August 25, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0159 secs (new cache)