Case Name: Steven P. ALEXANDER v. The HENDERSON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2000-12-27
Citations: 778 So. 2d 627
Docket Number: No. 99-CA-2906
Parties: Steven P. ALEXANDER v. The HENDERSON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.
Judges: Court composed of Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge STEVEN R. PLOTKIN, Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge MIRIAM G. WALTZER and Judge JAMES F. McKAY III.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 778
Pages: 627–636

Head Matter:
Steven P. ALEXANDER v. The HENDERSON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.
No. 99-CA-2906.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Dec. 27, 2000.
Writ Denied March 23, 2001.
Jack Edward Morris, Metairie, LA, for plaintif^appellant.
Gregory S. Lacour, Lawrence J. Ernst, Christovich & Kearney, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for defendant/appellee.
Court composed of Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge STEVEN R. PLOTKIN, Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge MIRIAM G. WALTZER and Judge JAMES F. McKAY III.

Opinion:
11 ARMSTRONG, Judge.
This is a suit by the purchaser-owner of a condominium unit. He asserts several legal theories. Factually, his complaint is that the unit is noisy when a rooftop clubhouse and jacuzzi area above his unit are in use. The contract for the purchase and sale of the unit and the act of sale for the unit contained prominent, explicit and strongly-worded waivers of warranty. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.
Plaintiff Stephen P. Alexander purchased a condominium unit, Unit 301, in the Henderson Condominiums at 700 Commerce Street in New Orleans. The building had been rental apartments but had been converted to condominium units.
On September 11, 1995, Mr. Alexander entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale which included the following waiver of warranty provision:
Vendor's Warranty As To The Unit is Limited As Follows:
VENDOR AGREES TO ONLY WARRANT AND WILL ONLY CAUSE TO BE CORRECTED ANY DEFECTS IN THE APPLIANCES IN THE UNIT, WHICH DEFECTS ARE DUE TO IMPROPER WORKMANSHIP OR MATERIAL, PROVIDED AND ON THE CONDITION THAT VENDOR IS NOTIFIED OF SUCH DEFECT, IN WRITING, BY THE | .VENDEE OF SAID UNIT NO LATER THAN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE CLOSING OF THE TITLE FOR SUCH UNIT. VENDOR'S OBLIGATION AS TO WARRANTY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FOREGOING. VENDOR IS NOT A BUILDER WITH RESPECT TO ANY ASPECT OF THE CONDOMINIUM AND ITS STATUS IS LIMITED TO THAT OF A VENDOR UNDER LOUISIANA LAW. EXCEPT AS EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH. THE UNIT HEREIN CONVEYED AND THE CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY IN GENERAL (INCLUDING COMMON ELEMENTS, LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS AND SPECIAL COMMON ELEMENTS), ARE SOLD AND TRANSFERRED TO VENDEE "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY SUCH WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS FOR INTENDED PURPOSE OR ANY SUCH WARRANTIES AGAINST VICES AND DEFECTS EVEN HIDDEN OR LATENT DEFECTS THAT COULD NOT BE DISCOVERED BY AN INSPECTION.
In addition to signing the contract, Mr. Alexander initialed next to the waiver of warranty provision.
Mr. Alexander moved into Unit 301 sometime during the first ten days of October, 1995. On October 27, 1995, the parties entered into an Act of Sale which contained a waiver of warranty virtually identical to that included in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and quoted above.
In November or December, 1995, Mr. Alexander began to hear noises in the condominium unit which disturbed him, particularly when they occurred at night. The noises were coming from a rooftop clubhouse and jacuzzi area used by other unit owners.
Mr. Alexander argues that the occurrence of these noises constitutes a breach of contract, a redhibitory defect, a tortious nuisance and a violation of the New Home Warranty Act. He sued 700 Commerce General Partnership and its several member partners. The defendants moved for summary judgment based upon the above-quoted waiver of warranty. Of course, summary judgment may be granted only if, based upon the affidavits, discovery materials, etc. filed, there is no [3genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 966.
We agree with the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment. The waiver of warranty is clear, explicit and strongly worded. The waiver of warranty expressly limits any warranty to the appliances, and provides that the unit is sold "as is", without any warranty whatsoever, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, any such warranties with respect to fitness for intended purpose or any such warranties against vices and defects, even hidden or latent defects that could not be discovered by inspection. This waiver of warranty was brought to Mr. Alexander's attention by requiring him to initial next to it. Mr. Alexander, who has an M.B.A., cannot be heard to say that he did not understand the waiver of warranty.
The only serious attack that Mr. Alexander makes upon the waiver of warranty provision is a claim that he entered into the purchase and act of sale due to error induced by fraud. Specifically, Mr. Alexander states that, prior to his purchase of Unit 301, he was told by representatives of the sellers that there had never been a complaint about Unit 301. Mr. Alexander then states that, in late summer or the fall of 1998, he spoke to a former tenant of Unit 301 who told Mr. Alexander that, while a tenant, he had complained to the management about noise in Unit 301. We need not decide whether, if proven at trial, these alleged facts would be sufficient to vitiate the waiver of warranty because the testimony by Mr. Alexander as to what he was told by the former tenant in Unit 301 is clearly hearsay and, as such, cannot be considered in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. La.Code Civ.Proc. arts. 966-967.
LLastly, Mr. Alexander argues that, under the New Home Warranty Act, R.S. 9:3141 et. seq., there was no waiver of warranty as to a "major structural defect". R.S. 9:3143(5); 9:3144.A(3); 9:3144.C.
We need not decide the applicability of the New Home Warranty Act to the condominium unit or to the defendants because it is clear that the noise caused by the neighbor's use of the clubhouse and jacuzzi area is not a "major structural defect", R.S. 9:3143(5), if for no other reason than the absence of any allegation of any "actual physical damage."
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents with written reasons.
JONES, J., dissents with reasons assigned by Judge PLOTKIN.