Court Opinion

ID: 9556862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 21:00:44.906245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:00.267878
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2360     Doc: 42         Filed: 08/17/2023   Pg: 1 of 5

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-2360

        EVELYN CABELL; BILLY CABELL, her son,

                    Plaintiffs – Appellants,

              v.

        CMH HOMES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; CMH MANUFACTURING, INC.,
        a Tennessee Corporation; SOUTHERN OHIO CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Ohio
        limited liability company; JOHN DOE, an unknown person or entity,

                    Defendants - Appellees.

                                               No. 22-1018

        EVELYN CABELL; BILLY CABELL, her son,

                    Plaintiffs – Appellees,

              v.

        CMH HOMES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; CMH MANUFACTURING, INC.,

                    Defendants – Appellants,

              and

        SOUTHERN OHIO CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company;
        JOHN DOE, an unknown person or entity,

                    Defendants.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2360      Doc: 42         Filed: 08/17/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
        at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00507)

        Submitted: January 13, 2023                                       Decided: August 17, 2023

        Before KING, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO, DEL GIUDICE & LAFON,
        Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Jason J. Stemple, OXLEY
        RICH SAMMONS, Huntington, West Virginia; W. Scott Simpson, Spenser Templeton,
        SIMPSON, MCMAHAN, GLICK & BURFORD, PLLC, Hoover, Alabama, for
        Appellees/Cross-Appellants CMH Homes & CMH Manufacturing. Sarah A. Walling,
        Robert H. Sweeney, Jr., Alexis A. Wright, JENKINS FENSTERMAKER, PLLC,
        Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee Southern Ohio Construction, LLC.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2360       Doc: 42        Filed: 08/17/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               This case centers on a home sale that went bad. Evelyn and Billy Cabell bought a

        modular home from CMH Homes, Inc. 1 That home was then manufactured by CMH

        Manufacturing, Inc. and built on the Cabells’ property by Southern Ohio Construction,

        LLC. The Cabells now allege that their home was constructed badly and they sued CMH

        Homes, CMH Manufacturing, and Southern Ohio alleging various state contract and tort

        claims. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. We

        agree and so affirm. 2

               The Cabells first contend that CMH Homes breached their sales contract “by failing

        to construct the Modular Home on the Property in a reasonably prudent manner.” J.A. 123.

        The problem with this argument is that, as the district court correctly found, CMH Homes

        never agreed to construct the Cabells’ home. 3 While the contract itself is ambiguous as to

        who bears the responsibility for constructing the house, emails between Billy Cabell and

        CMH Homes definitively show that the Cabells agreed to take it on, as does the form they

        filed with the state laying out the parties’ home-installation responsibilities. See Stewart

               1
                 Billy purchased the home with Evelyn’s money. She authorized him to complete
        the transaction. Billy planned to live in the home.

               Since we affirm the district court, we do not address any of the issues raised by the
               2

        defendants’ contingent cross-appeal.
               3
                  On appeal, the Cabells argue that their breach-of-contract claim alleged a failure
        to properly construct the home, a failure to properly manufacture the home, and a breach
        of the implied warranty of merchantability. But the Complaint alleges only one of these
        things: a failure to properly construct the home on the Cabells’ property. So, like the
        district court, we address only the merits of that claim.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2360       Doc: 42          Filed: 08/17/2023    Pg: 4 of 5

        v. Blackwood Elec. Steel Corp., 130 S.E. 447, 449 (W. Va. 1925) (“[W]here the written

        contract is ambiguous and uncertain, parol evidence is admissible to show . . . the practical

        construction given by the parties.”). So the Cabells’ breach-of-contract claim against CMH

        Homes fails. John D. Stemp & Assoc. v. Cunningham Mem’l Park, 419 S.E.2d 699, 707

        (W. Va. 1992) (explaining that courts “must construe the writing” if the contract is

        ambiguous but parol evidence resolves the ambiguity); Goodman v. Resolution Tr. Corp.,

        7 F.3d 1123, 1126 (4th Cir. 1993).

               The Cabells next allege that CMH Homes, CMH Manufacturing, and Southern Ohio

        negligently constructed their house. But succeeding on a negligence claim requires

        showing that the defendants breached a duty they owed the plaintiffs. Lockhart v. Airco

        Heating & Cooling, Inc., 567 S.E.2d 619, 623 (W. Va. 2002). And, under West Virginia

        law, that duty cannot depend solely on a contract. Id. at 624. Since the Cabells do not

        point to any duty that the defendants owed them other than alleged contractual duties, the

        district court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants on this claim.

               The Cabells also assert that CMH Homes and CMH Manufacturing negligently

        hired Southern Ohio to construct their house, or in the alternative, negligently

        recommended that they hire Southern Ohio to construct their house. But nothing in the

        record suggests that either CMH entity hired Southern Ohio. And West Virginia does

        not—and likely would not—recognize a negligent referral claim in this context. See Pied

        Piper, Inc. v. Datanational Corp., 901 F. Supp. 212, 214–15 (S.D. W. Va. 1995). So the

        district court rightly rejected this claim.

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2360        Doc: 42         Filed: 08/17/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

                 Lastly, the Cabells argue that they were the third-party beneficiaries of a contract

        between CMH Homes or CMH Manufacturing and Southern Ohio, and that Southern Ohio

        breached that contract by constructing their home badly. But, to sue for breach of contract

        as a third-party beneficiary, the Cabells needed to show that Southern Ohio contracted with

        a CMH entity “for [the Cabells’] sole benefit.” See W. Va. Code § 55-8-12. As the record

        contains no evidence that this happened, the Cabells’ third-party-beneficiary claim also

        fails.

                 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process. The district court’s order is

                                                                                       AFFIRMED.

                                                      5