Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowners Association v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing LC
Supreme Court of Utah
221 P.3d 234 (2009)
- Written by Sheri Dennis, JD
Facts
Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC (Developer) (defendant) constructed a building development with individual units for sale. The common areas of the development were maintained by Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowner Association (Association) (plaintiff). At some point, the Association learned of problems with the buildings in the development. Specifically, water was seeping into the buildings through walls, doors, windows, window boxes, and roofs. This water seepage caused damage to the buildings’ stucco. A building specialist inspected the premises and informed the Association that the water seepage was due to faulty design, faulty workmanship, defective materials, improper construction, and noncompliance with building codes. The Association also learned that the Developer had previously obtained a study that warned the soil under the development was collapsible and could subside. The Association repeatedly requested that the Developer repair these defects, but the Developer refused. The Association sued the Developer for breaching the implied warranty of workmanlike manner and habitability. The trial court granted the Developer’s motion to dismiss. The Association appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Durham, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.