Opinion ID: 1134395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Construction of defendants' house; objections by plaintiffs.

Text: In January 1976 construction was started. The contractor testified that when they were staking out the house and before they started to build Mr. Drulard came out; that he showed Mr. Drulard all the plans showing the elevation of the house and the setbacks; and that he did not recall either approval or objection to the plans by Mr. Drulard, other than that he was concerned about where it was going to be placed on the lot. The contractor also testified that plaintiffs made no objections during the framing stage of the construction; that the first objections by plaintiffs were after the house had been framed and roofed, and that the basis of their complaint at that time was that they didn't like the roof line or the way the roof was framed. Mr. Drulard testified that he was in Florida from March 11 to 23 and that it was not until that stage of the construction that he was aware that the house they were building was going to be two stories and was not in accordance with the picture that had been previously shown to them. A meeting was then held in an attempt to work out some modification that would be acceptable to everybody. Mr. Rogers, the building-designer, testified that he then drew some sketches and made some changes on the roof and proposed moving the top portion of the roof down about a foot; that plaintiff Norman Drulard then said that everything is agreed, but I would like to have you lower those basement windows, and that the negotiations then broke down. Mr. LeTourneau testified to the same effect. That testimony was not denied by plaintiffs. Indeed, Mrs. Drulard testified that Mr. Rogers tried hard and what he said in court this morning was absolutely true. After those negotiations broke down this suit was filed.