Brown v. Bennett
Missouri Court of Appeals
136 S.W.3d 552 (2004)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Brent Bennett (defendant) and Angela Bennett (defendant), who were in the home construction business, sold their personal home to Wanda Brown (plaintiff) after representing to her that the home was free from defects, including flooding or grading problems. In reality, due to flawed grading, the home’s backyard was prone to extensive flooding and the Bennetts had complained to the city about the problem. Several weeks after Brown moved into the home, she discovered the flooding problem. The flooding caused pooling in the yard that prevented her from planting a flower garden, impeded her ability to mow the lawn, and made it impossible for Brown’s young relatives to play in the yard. Brown sued the Bennetts for fraud. At trial, testimony showed that the home was worth $140,000 in its current condition but would be worth $163,000 if the flooding problem were resolved. The court received conflicting evidence concerning the cost to repair the problem. Brent testified that regrading would fix the problem for $220. An engineer hired by Brown testified that more extensive repairs would be required at a cost of $17,825. Rather than award Brown the diminution in the property’s value, the trial court awarded repair costs totaling $17,825. The Bennetts appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lowenstein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.