Court Opinion

ID: 9768968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:00:12.853804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:51.421254
License: Public Domain

ELLIS, Justice,
dissenting.
Finding myself in disagreement with the other members of the panel, I would like to record my respectful dissent.
In their suit the McAdams alleged that Brighton Homes misrepresented the qualify and workmanship of the home and breached the warranty to repair latent defects. A jury found that defects caused a decrease in fair market value of the house, that $39,000 would compensate Mr. and Mrs. McAdams for the decrease in value, and that the reasonable and necessary costs of repair of the defects would be $20,000. Upon motion of Brighton Homes *345for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court disregarded the jury’s response to the issues regarding fair market value and entered judgment for $85,000, representing cost of repairs of $20,000, trebled as required by the DTPA, plus attorneys’ fees of $25,000.
The majority opinion modified the trial court’s judgment insofar as it omitted the damages found by the jury in the amount of $39,000 for diminished fair market value, and rendered judgment in the total amount of $202,000 plus interest from the date of judgment.
The result of the opinion awarded the McAdams a double recovery. They received $39,000 for the decrease in fair market value of the house plus $20,000 for reasonable and necessary costs of repair. The sum of $59,000 was then tripled under the DTPA and $25,000 attorneys’ fees added for a total sum of $202,000.
The measure of damages for permanent injury to a building, short of total destruction, is the difference between market value before the injury and market value immediately after the injury. The measure of damages for a reparable injury to a building is the amount necessary to restore the building to its condition immediately prior to its injury, plus interest from the date of the injury to the time of trial. Stafford v. Thornton, 420 S.W.2d 153 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Following these principles, the McAdams should not recover damages for the decreased market value of their home. The testimony of the McAdams’ expert witnesses indicated that any structural defects to their home were reparable, that repairs were feasible, and that at least one method of repair did not involve unreasonable economic waste. Therefore, cost of repair, rather than decrease in fair market value, is the proper measure of damages in this case. De Los Santos v. Alamo Lumber Co., 683 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, no writ).
Furthermore, there was no evidence in the record of the amount of the decrease in fair market value of the home at the time of Brighton Homes’ alleged violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment in its entirety.