Court Opinion

ID: 8027699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 02:48:49.562264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:36:52.245020
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HARRISON,
dissenting:
I dissent. In Chandler v. Madsen (1982), 197 Mont. 234, 642 P.2d 1028, this Court took a giant step forward in holding that a builder-vendor of a new home impliedly warrants that the residence is constructed in a workman-like manner and is suitable for habitation. We note that two major policy considerations support such a warranty. The first being that the buyer is in an unequaled bargaining position, and second that the builder-vendor is in a better position to discover, examine, and prevent defects. I feel the majority’s holding in this opinion has taken a giant step backwards in protecting the consumer.
The Samuelsons had just paid $155,000 for their home. The affected areas in their basement included a guest bedroom, a storage area, and a recreation room. To find that their home was not damaged sufficiently to warrant our following the case of Chandler, shocks my credibility. As noted in the facts of this opinion, it cost $11,158.90 to properly remedy the problems and make the home livable. To hold that having as much as six inches of water in the basement in a new home does not violate the warranty of habitability is, in my view, a mistake. Had the basement not been repaired at a cost of over $11,000 by another contractor, about all that it could have been used for would have been a fishery during the periods that it leaked. Surely, a homeowner is entitled to more than that.
MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY joins in the foregoing dissent of MR. JUSTICE HARRISON.