Title: Jones v. Centex Homes

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Jones v. Centex Homes, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1001.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-1001 
JONES ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CENTEX HOMES, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Jones v. Centex Homes, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1001.] 
A home builder’s duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner using 
ordinary care is a duty imposed by law, and a home buyer’s right to 
enforce that duty cannot be waived. 
(No. 2010-1826—Submitted October 4, 2011—Decided March 14, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 09AP-1032 and 
09AP-1033, 189 Ohio App.3d 668, 2010-Ohio-4268. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
A home builder’s duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner using 
ordinary care is a duty imposed by law, and a home buyer’s right to 
enforce that duty cannot be waived.  (Velotta v. Leo Petronzio 
Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 433 N.E.2d 147 (1982), paragraph 
one of the syllabus, and Mitchem v. Johnson, 7 Ohio St.2d 66, 218 N.E.2d 
594 (1966), paragraph three of the syllabus, clarified and followed.) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J. 
{¶ 1} The sole question before this court is whether a home buyer can 
waive his right to enforce a home builder’s legal duty to construct a house in a 
workmanlike manner.  We hold that he cannot. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 2} Appellants Paul Jones and Latosha Sanders purchased a new house 
from appellee, Centex Homes, in 2004.  After moving into their new home, they 
discovered that their computers, cordless telephones, and televisions did not 
operate properly.  They alleged that metal joists in the house are magnetized and 
are causing the problems. 
{¶ 3} Apparently, efforts to resolve the problem were unavailing, 
because they filed suit against Centex Homes, alleging various causes of action, 
including breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, 
and failure to perform in a workmanlike manner.  On April 30, 2008, that case 
was consolidated with a nearly identical case filed by Eric and Ginger Estep, who 
are also appellants in this case.  Centex Homes moved for summary judgment, 
arguing that appellants had waived all warranties, whether express or implied, 
except the specific limited warranty that Centex Homes provided in the sales 
agreements.  The trial court agreed and granted the motion for summary 
judgment, finding “as a matter of law that the Limited Home Warranty is not 
unconscionable.” 
{¶ 4} On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, 
stating:  
 
[W]e find no error with the trial court’s determination that both the 
sale agreement and the limited warranty adequately explained in 
“numerous places that the Limited Home Warranty covers all 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
defects in materials and workmanship and that there are no other 
warranties either expressed or implied.” 
 
Jones v. Centex Homes, 10th Dist. Nos. 09AP-1032 and 09AP-1033, 189 Ohio 
App.3d 668, 2010-Ohio-4268, 939 N.E.2d 1294, ¶ 30. 
{¶ 5} We granted appellants’ discretionary appeal.  Jones v. Centex 
Homes, 127 Ohio St.3d 1531, 2011-Ohio-376, 940 N.E.2d 985. 
Analysis 
A.  The duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner 
{¶ 6} The duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner has been 
imposed by law on all home builders in Ohio since at least 1966.  In Mitchem v. 
Johnson, 7 Ohio St.2d 66, 218 N.E.2d 594 (1966), home buyers sought 
compensation for water damage resulting from their house having been built in a 
low portion of a lot with surface-water problems and without a foundation 
drainage system.  Notwithstanding the fact that no warranty covered the alleged 
defect, we concluded that the home buyers were entitled to recover damages if 
they could establish that the home builder had not constructed the house in a 
workmanlike manner, stating: 
 
A duty is imposed by law upon a builder-vendor of a real-
property structure to construct the same in a workmanlike manner 
and to employ such care and skill in the choice of materials and 
work as will be commensurate with the gravity of the risk involved 
in protecting the structure against faults and hazards, including 
those inherent in its site.  If the violation of that duty proximately 
causes a defect hidden from revelation by an inspection reasonably 
available to the vendee, the vendor is answerable to the vendee for 
the resulting damages. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
 
Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 7} In determining that a duty to construct a house in a workmanlike 
manner exists, the court plowed the wide fertile plain between two extreme 
concepts: caveat emptor and strict liability.  Id. at 70-72.  Without expressly 
saying so, the court appears to have determined that it would be unfair for it to 
apply either of these standards.  See id. at 70-73.  The court also stated that “[t]he 
requirement of workmanlike performance is no more than that which the law 
imposes upon the builder of a structure on land owned by another, unless, of 
course, a higher duty may be fairly implied from the terms of the contract itself.”  
Id. at 69, citing 17A Corpus Juris Secundum, Contracts, Section 515, at 851.  The 
court specifically stated that an implied warranty was not being imposed.  Id. at 
paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 8} In Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Bonnie Built Homes, 64 Ohio St.2d 269, 
270-271, 416 N.E.2d 623 (1980), we stated that the “duty of the builder-vendor to 
build a structure in a workmanlike manner is a duty arising out of the contract of 
sale and not out of a general duty owed to the public at large,” and held that the 
duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner did not extend to subsequent 
buyers of the house.  Just three years later, we recanted.  In McMillan v. Brune-
Harpenau-Torbeck Builders, Inc., 8 Ohio St.3d 3, 4, 455 N.E.2d 1276 (1983), we 
overruled Bonnie Built, stating, “ No sound policy reasons exist to prevent the 
extension of this duty to all subsequent vendees as well.”  Our decision was 
grounded in two policy considerations: “extension of the duty of care in the real 
property context follows the trend of strong legal precedent in the area of products 
liability” and “[i]mproved workmanship and accountability are promoted by an 
expansion of the scope of the duty * * *.”  Id. at 5. 
{¶ 9} Between Bonnie Built and McMillan, we further explored the 
ramifications of the duty to construct in a workmanlike manner in Velotta v. Leo 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 433 N.E.2d 147 (1982).  The 
court clearly differentiated an implied warranty of suitability, which in effect 
would hold a builder strictly liable for defects in the structure, from the duty to 
construct in a workmanlike manner, which essentially holds a builder liable only 
for negligence.  Id. at 377-378.  We concluded that although the obligation to 
construct in a workmanlike manner may arise from a contract, the cause of action 
is not based on contract but on a duty imposed by law.  Id. at 378-379.  Thus, we 
held that the duty applied in Velotta, even though no oral or written warranties 
had been offered or agreed to.  Id. at 377.  In fact, the house had been sold “as is.”  
Id. at 376. 
{¶ 10} We conclude that in Ohio a duty to construct houses in a 
workmanlike manner using ordinary care is imposed by law on all home builders. 
B.  Can a home buyer waive his right to enforce the home builder’s 
duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner? 
{¶ 11} Appellants and Centex Homes agree that the purchase contracts 
associated with this case contain provisions that waive all implied warranties.  In 
place of whatever implied warranties might otherwise be in effect, Centex Homes 
offered a detailed limited warranty.  Although we see no legal impediment to such 
an arrangement, that issue is not squarely before us.  We are called upon only to 
determine whether a home buyer can waive his right to enforce the builder’s legal 
duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care. 
{¶ 12} At oral argument, Centex Homes repeatedly referred to the 
requirement that a home builder construct a house in a workmanlike manner as an 
“implied warranty,” while appellants repeatedly referred to it as a “duty.”  In 
Mitchem, we referred to the requirement as a “duty,” but we also said that it was 
an “implied term of the sale” that the builder would complete the house in a 
workmanlike manner.  Mitchem at paragraph three of the syllabus and 73.  It is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
clear, based on the discussion above, that we conclude that the requirement is not 
an implied warranty, but instead is a duty imposed by law. 
{¶ 13} To determine whether a home buyer can waive his right to enforce 
this duty, we again turn to Mitchem and Velotta.  In Mitchem, we stated that all 
persons must “measure their conduct by that of the ordinarily prudent person 
under all the circumstances, which include the risk of harm from the natural and 
probable consequences of that conduct.”  Id. at 72.  Having enunciated this 
general rule, we stated that it applied to home builders.  Id.  In Velotta, we stated 
that the duty owed by a builder-vendor “is the duty imposed by law on all persons 
to exercise ordinary care.”  Velotta at 378.  And we held that the duty applied 
even though the house had been sold “as is” and there had been no express or 
implied warranties.  Id. 
{¶ 14} We conclude that the duty to construct a house in a workmanlike 
manner using ordinary care is the baseline standard that Ohio home buyers can 
expect builders to meet.  The duty does not require builders to be perfect, but it 
does establish a standard of care below which builders may not fall without being 
subject to liability, even if a contract with the home buyer purports to relieve the 
builder of that duty.  Accordingly, we conclude that a home builder’s duty to 
construct a house in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care is a duty imposed 
by law, and a home buyer’s right to enforce that duty cannot be waived. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the 
cause to the court of common pleas for a trial on appellants’ tort claims that 
Centex Homes breached its duty to construct their homes in a workmanlike 
manner using ordinary care.  The various other issues decided by the trial court 
and the court of appeals are unaffected by our opinion. 
Judgment reversed  
and cause remanded. 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
CUPP, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
Steve J. Edwards, for appellants. 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Michael G. Long, and Jonathan P. 
Corwin, for appellee. 
Kristen L. Klaus, urging affirmance for amici curiae, National Association 
of Home Builders and Ohio Home Builders Association. 
______________________