Opinion ID: 886003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 15 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on the implied warranty of habitability? ¶ 16 The Satterfields argue the District Court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the implied warranty of habitability. Under Montana law, an implied warranty of habitability with respect to the sale of a new home is imposed on a builder-vendor. In this case, however, the parties agree that Medlin was not a builder-vendor; Medlin was a builder-contractor. The Satterfields already owned the land on which the home was built when they contacted Medlin about constructing the home. The home was not a spec home. ¶ 17 At trial, the debate about whether the implied warranty of habitability instruction should be given was focused on whether the warranty should be extended to a builder-contractor. We need not address that issue to resolve the present appeal. Instead, our discussion shall focus on whether an implied warranty of habitability jury instruction would have been justified at all in this case. ¶ 18 This Court has held that [t]he implied warranty of habitability of a dwelling house is limited to defects which are so substantial as reasonably to preclude the use of the dwelling as a residence. Samuelson v. A.A. Quality Construction, Inc. (1988), 230 Mont. 220, 223, 749 P.2d 73, 75. For example, in Chandler v. Madsen (1982), 197 Mont. 234, 642 P.2d 1028, due to problems caused by a condition of the soil upon which the house was built, doors and locks failed to operate, walls cracked, floors bulged, windows broke, plumbing bent, fixtures and walls separated, and the foundation lowered as much as 3.6 inches in spots. In that case we affirmed the determination of the District Court that the house was uninhabitable. ¶ 19 Here, Satterfields' house was not uninhabitable. In fact, Todd and Susan Satterfield moved into the house in June of 1997 and lived there until summer of 1999. After they moved out, a friend of the Satterfields moved into the house and lived in it until April of 2000. ¶ 20 Furthermore, two engineers testifying as expert witnesses on behalf of the Satterfields and Medlin, respectively, stated that the house was safe to live in with temporary modifications. ¶ 21 In light of the testimony of the engineers, combined with the fact that the Satterfields, and then their friend, lived in the house for almost three years, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury regarding implied warranty of habitability. The Satterfields did not present enough evidence at trial to justify an implied warranty of habitability instruction, even if we assume that the theory extends beyond a builder-vendor.