ILNews

Court properly preserved home habitability claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found that a Clark County case can continue involving claims against a home construction company. The former homeowners allege that the company defectively built their home and that mold and water damage occurred, leading to loss of habitability.

In Arc Construction Management, LLC, and Alan Muncy v. John Zelenak and Cecilia Zelenak, No 10A01-1106-CT-247, the appellate court affirmed a Clark Superior Court’s ruling to not dismiss the case involving a newly constructed home in Floyd County.

John and Cecilia Zelenak bought the home in 2004. Four years later, they filed a complaint against ARC Construction Management that alleged the company breached the contract by not constructing the home in a structurally sound manner and building it contrary to building code. Specifically, the suit alleged the windows and doors weren’t properly installed or were defective, the lintels remain unpainted, one rafter was missing, electrical wires were left exposed, and there was water intrusion that damaged personal property inside. The Zelenaks wanted ARC to cover the losses and pay punitive damages in order to deter similar conduct in the future.

In 2010, the Zelenaks foreclosed on their home and ARC filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that they lacked standing after foreclosing on their ownership. Although the Zelenaks conceded the foreclosure barred most of their claims, they argued that they still had standing to bring a claim concerning the loss of use and enjoyment in the house during their time there due to the water intrusion. The trial court preserved that claim but granted summary judgment in ARC’s favor on the remaining issues, and the court then certified the order for interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the three-judge panel found that ARC had adequate notice of the implied warranty breach claim because it was alleged in the amended complaint. The court found the Zelenaks have standing because they are alleging damage sustained as a result of ARC’s defective construction, and the panel determined a genuine issue exists for trial on that claim of habitability.

The court also denied a request for attorney fees from the Zelenaks, finding that ARC’s failure to include exhibits in its appendix weren’t so flagrant or significant to warrant those fees.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT