ILNews

Transfer vacated in builder negligence suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court vacated transfer in an order dated March 4 to a case involving homeowners and companies that performed work on their house.

The suit, Lawrence and Judy Lynn Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc. by Wagler and Menno D. Wagler, et al., No. 76A03-0609-CV-407, had been addressed by the Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court before the appeals court issued its opinion June 27, 2008.

The Gunkels hired Renovations to build their home. After construction began, they noticed water leaked into the home through doors and windows. Renovations claimed that once J & N installed the stone facade, the problem would be fixed. Water still entered and the couple had to hire a different contractor to fix the issue. They filed suit against Renovations for breach of contract and fraud.

In the June 2008 not-for-publication opinion, the appellate court affirmed the trial court properly denied the Gunkels' negligence claims and properly awarded prejudgment interest. It reversed the court's refusal to award the damages on the Gunkels' breach of contract claims and remanded for further consideration and that the trial court make proper findings with respect to its award of attorney fees to Renovations. The Court of Appeals ruled Renovations was entitled to appellate attorney fees and remanded for trial court to determine the proper amount.

The Supreme Court granted transfer January 15, 2009. After further review, and oral arguments, the justices unanimously agreed to vacate transfer.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT