Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 10, 1985; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed against a trial court's decision awarding damages and attorney’s fees to plaintiffs, Dr. and Mrs. Alonzo H. Diodene, Jr., from defendants Blueridge, Inc., Cypress Builders, Inc., and their insurers. The plaintiffs purchased a new home from Blueridge for $140,000, which included costs for a library/study. Major defects in the home became apparent post-purchase, prompting the trial court to categorize the issues into six areas: minor punch list items, window leaks, a poorly designed balcony, a leaking chimney, a poorly cast slab, and issues with the library. The court awarded $7,853 for the defects, $2,500 for non-pecuniary damages, and attorney's fees of $4,500, along with $1,500 for expert witness fees. The award was reduced by $4,118, reflecting the balance owed for the library/study construction.
The trial court recognized numerous unaddressed punch list items, awarding $600 for their repair and an additional $600 for kitchen flooring replacement. Plaintiffs contended that the court undervalued the repair costs, with their expert estimating a total of $2,528, while the defendants’ expert did not address all items adequately. The appellate court found that the evidence supported the plaintiffs' expert's estimate and amended the punch list award to $2,528.
The balcony's design was criticized for lacking slope, causing water to enter the plaintiffs' bedroom during rain, highlighting a design flaw that contributed to the home's overall defects.
Defendant attempted to address a drainage issue by installing a drain in the porch floor, which the trial judge deemed ineffective and unsightly, suggesting alternatives like raising the threshold instead of rebuilding the balcony. The judge awarded plaintiffs $500 after inspecting the property and noting minimal water damage. However, evidence indicated that the balcony's problems persisted despite the drain, with plaintiffs asserting that reconstruction was necessary at a cost of $5,053. The judge concluded that the balcony was poorly designed and required rebuilding, accepting plaintiffs' firsthand storm experience over the defendant's witness testimony, which lacked observational context.
In a separate issue regarding mildew spots on the slab in the breakfast room, kitchen, and utility room, plaintiffs' witnesses claimed improper construction led to water accumulation beneath the house. The trial judge disagreed that the slab's slope warranted replacement but endorsed cutting a trough to redirect water away, awarding $1,000 for the trough and $500 for aesthetic damage. Defendants contested the award, arguing it was for a "non-defect" since water was carried away before reaching the house. Despite acknowledging some contradictions, the appellate review upheld the trial court's decision as reasonable given the evidence, confirming that the slab did not adhere to industry standards and that the discoloration was likely due to water accumulation. Plaintiffs' request for full slab replacement costs was denied as the trial court's remedy was deemed appropriate.
The trial court awarded $1,500 in expert witness fees to two plaintiffs’ witnesses, which defendants contested, arguing that the judge rejected all their testimony. However, the court found that while some opinions were rejected, the judge did rely on their testimony for certain aspects. The court upheld the trial court's discretion in awarding these fees, noting that it did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
In terms of attorney’s fees, the trial court granted $4,500 to plaintiffs, which defendants claimed was excessive compared to the total award. The plaintiffs’ counsel documented 65.5 hours of work prior to trial, totaling $4,585, and the trial lasted three and a half days. Defendants did not dispute the amount of work claimed. The court clarified that no legal requirement mandates a comparison of total awards to attorney’s fees, supporting the trial court's decision. Furthermore, the court awarded an additional $1,500 for attorney's fees related to the appeal.
Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the trial court awarded plaintiffs $2,500, which defendants challenged. The award was based on precedent allowing such damages in cases of distress due to poor construction. The court noted that this interpretation has broadened over time and upheld the trial court's decision. Plaintiffs requested an increase in non-pecuniary damages to $5,000, citing significant stress from living conditions exacerbated by leaks in their home and related family tensions. However, the trial judge found the issues somewhat exaggerated and maintained discretion in the award, leading the appellate court to affirm the trial court's decision without modifications in this regard.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision but made specific modifications: increasing the award for flooding damages from $500 to $5,023, and for repair of punch list items from $1,200 to $2,528. All costs were imposed on the defendants.
