Johnson v. Black Brothers, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00878-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 03-11-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Evidence of damages - Economic waste - Diminished value of home - Punitive damages Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2003 Appealed from: Choctaw County Chancery Court Judge: John Love, Jr. Disposition: CHANCELLOR DETERMINED THE DIMINISHED VALUE OF NEW HOME DUE TO DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION AND AMOUNT NEEDED TO REPAIR HOME. CHANCELLOR OFF-SET AWARD TO PLAINTIFF BY AMOUNT OWED TO DEFENDANT AND RENDERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF. Case Number: 2000-157 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Janie Johnson, as Executrix of the Estate of Walter Johnson |
THOMAS BUCHANAN HOOD
ANDREW J. KILPATRICK
MATT RAYMOND WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | Black Brothers, Inc. | J. NILES MCNEEL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Evidence of damages - Economic waste - Diminished value of home - Punitive damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Johnsons contracted with Black Brothers, Inc., for the construction of a home. Janie Johnson, in her capacity as executrix of the estate of her husband, Walter Johnson, filed a complaint against Black Brothers alleging intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, negligent construction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Johnson also sought removal of a construction lien against the property in addition to attorney's fees, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Black Brothers counter-claimed for unpaid debts as well as interest and attorney's fees. The chancellor held that Johnson should recover $25,000 for the diminished value of the house due to the uneven floor and ceiling and $33,400 for the cost to repair other defects. However, having previously found that Johnson was indebted to Black Brothers in the amount of $20,475.60 for construction of the driveway, the chancellor reduced Johnson's net award to $37,924.40. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidence of damages Johnson argues that the chancellor erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence offered at the first trial to determine her damages. There was no specific testimony as to how much it would cost to fix the defects that the chancellor found needed to be corrected. Therefore, the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in determining that there was insufficient evidence to prove the amount of damages. Issue 2: Economic waste Johnson argues that the chancellor erred in determining that the cost of repairs constituted economic waste and that the chancellor should have awarded her the amount of $228,000 in damages. The chancellor found that to completely redo the kitchen and family areas would be unreasonable in light of the testimony concerning the diminished value of the house and because other witnesses testified as to other less expensive means to repair the defects. Although Johnson did not put on any testimony as to the diminished value of the house, the expert called by Black Brothers was able to give an estimate as to the value of the house with the uneven floor. Given the evidence, the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in determining that it would be unreasonable to award Johnson $228,000 in damages. Issue 3: Diminished value of house Johnson argues that nothing in the record supported the amount of $25,000 as a reasonable award for the diminished value of the house. The chancellor determined that the diminished value of $25,000 was more appropriate as the value of the house without the uneven floor was estimated to be $250,000 and, with the uneven floor, $225,000. Given the evidence, the chancellor did not err. Issue 4: Punitive damages Johnson argues that the chancellor should have awarded her punitive damages as well as attorney's fees. Punitive damages are warranted only where the plaintiff has demonstrated that the defendant’s actions amounted to a willful or malicious wrong or the gross, reckless disregard for the rights of others. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Black Brothers intentionally or fraudulently misrepresented the damage. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
