Case Name: Jerry DECKARD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Jimmy L. RATCLIFF and Norda Ratcliff, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below)
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1990-05-03
Citations: 553 N.E.2d 523
Docket Number: No. 53A01-9001-CV-1
Parties: Jerry DECKARD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Jimmy L. RATCLIFF and Norda Ratcliff, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below).
Judges: RATLIFF, C.J., concurs in result.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 553
Pages: 523–525

Head Matter:
Jerry DECKARD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Jimmy L. RATCLIFF and Norda Ratcliff, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below).
No. 53A01-9001-CV-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.
May 3, 1990.
Vincent S. Taylor, Taylor, Hoff & Bauer, Bloomington, for appellant.

Opinion:
ROBERTSON, Judge.
The defendant-appellant Jerry Deckard appeals from a $3000 judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of the plaintiffs, Jimmy L. and Norda L. Ratcliff. The Rat-cliffs filed a small claim against Deckard alleging a breach of an implied warranty on a home.
We reverse.
Deckard built a home in 1979 and lived in it for a period of about eight years. He built the home for his family to live in; however, because of a drop in his income, he sold the home to the Hendersons. About a year and one half later, the Hendersons sold the home to the Ratcliffs.
The Ratcliffs discovered that a sewer pipe was not properly vented, which caused problems with insects. The Ratcliffs had it repaired without consulting Deckard. Deckard admitted at trial that that was the way the house had been built, that it had caused no problems while he and his family lived there, and that when he built the house he did not use licensed plumbers because the house was not being built for resale.
Our first observation is that the Ratcliffs have not filed an appellee's brief; therefore, if Deckard makes a prima facie showing of reversible error the judgment will be reversed. Wagner Const. Co., Inc. v. Noonan (1980), Ind.App., 403 N.E.2d 1144.
We are of the opinion Deckard presents reversible error in his second issue in which he argues that he was never given the opportunity to repair the defect. The following from Wagner, 403 N.E.2d at 1150, is dispositive:
We hold that before a purchaser of a residence may seek damages from the builder-vendor for an alleged breach of implied warranty of fitness for habitation, wherein the damages sought are based upon the cost of repair or diminution in value of the residence, the purchaser must, as a condition precedent to recovery, give notice of the defect and alleged breach of warranty to the builder-vendor thus affording the builder-ven dor an opportunity to remedy the defect. No particular form of notice is required, but the purchaser must at least inform the builder-vendor of the problem and give him a reasonable opportunity to cure or repair. [Ratcliff] did not meet the test of this condition precedent and, therefore, the judgment in his favor must be reversed on this ground.
403 N.E.2d at 1150.
We have a serious question as to whether Deckard was, in fact, a builder-vendor; however, if he was not he would be held to an even lower standard of warranty of habitability. See, e.g., Callander v. Sheridan (1989), Ind.App., 546 N.E.2d 850.
Judgment reversed.
RATLIFF, C.J., concurs in result.
STATON, J., concurs in result with separate Opinion.