Court Opinion

ID: 9709781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:54:36.700292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.460188
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 17] It was obviously a mistake to attempt to resolve these construction contract disputes by summary judgment. It seems to me that the developer is attempting impermissible short cuts, first with construction and now with the law.
[¶ 18] First, the developer wants to provide cash instead of providing utilities to the lot line. Secondly, the developer claims it has performed its obligation of providing “a roughed road to the property” even though it does not even own or have legal rights to the road. Thirdly, to provide sheet piling to the lot but not to the lots on each side of the ■ property may do no good at all at keeping the water in the canal from eroding the property. Why not require proof of workmanlike construction now through a trial? To grant summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact exist as to the adequacy of the construction seems premature, inefficient and will probably result in a multiplicity of lawsuits. I would reverse and remand for a trial, at least on the issues relating to the road and the piling.