Court Opinion

ID: 9589459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:44:48.780476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:12.703890
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Because the trial court properly granted a directed verdict to the contractor on the home buyer’s counterclaim for fraud in this construction case, I must respectfully dissent from the majority *317opinion.171 agree, however, that the evidence supported the award of attorney fees to the contractor.
1. The focus of the buyer’s fraud claim was her contention that she bought the house based on the contractor’s pre-closing assurance that he would fix certain problems, and that he made those promises without intending to fulfill them. But the record shows that the December 31, 2000 sales contract gave the contractor until March 15, 2001 to finish the construction, and the evidence is undisputed that the buyer made the contractor stop working a month before the completion date, although the parties dispute why the buyer made him stop. The property had been inspected numerous times before and after then — no fewer than eight inspectors testified for the contractor — and after the buyer dismissed him, the house sat for more than a year before anyone worked on it. One of the buyer’s contractors testified that no one worked on the house from February 2002 to at least December 2003, when he inspected it, and the new general contractor testified that he did not obtain an initial inspection of his work until February 2004.
Although “[a] promise made without a present intent to perform is a misrepresentation of a material fact sufficient to support an action for fraud [cit.],” Community Fed. Sav. &c. v. Foster Developers, Inc., 179 Ga. App. 861, 864 (1) (348 SE2d 326) (1986), “[a] builder may negligently construct a house or be in breach of his contract or of warranty and yet be free of the moral guilt of fraud.” Lively v. Garnick, 160 Ga. App. 591, 594 (1) (287 SE2d 553) (1981).
The buyer’s expert testified he found numerous construction errors which required extensive revisions, but he also testified that he changed many things because he did not like the esthetics. A subcontractor testified for the buyer that the contractor told him to cover up a problem two months before he sold the house, and the buyer argues this testimony is evidence that the contractor never intended to keep his promise to finish the house. But the contractor owned the property at the time, had no sales contract with the buyer, and sold the unfinished house for a fixed price, so he could not charge the buyer extra money to fix anything.
Further, the buyer did not testify that the contractor’s supervisor said the contractor would not make any repairs when she talked to him during a rainstorm in February 2002, but that she thought the repairs suggested were inadequate. Finally, the contractor’s expert testified that many of the areas that needed fixing were *318constructed properly, but had suffered damage because they had not been finished and were exposed to the elements for more than 13 months. For example, paint peeled because it had only been primed and not painted; water leaked through the doors and windows because they had not been finally set, caulked, or trimmed out; and wood rotted because finishes had not been applied. In his opinion, other problems, such as a path that did not drain properly, uneven concrete, or trim that did not meet squarely, could have easily been fixed if the contractor had been allowed to remain on the job for another month.
The evidence in the instant case reveals that in spite of the fact that the house had not been completed, the [buyer was] at least as anxious as [the contractor] to close the sale. All parties agreed that [$365,000] would not be disbursed to [the contractor] until the house was completed in accordance with the special stipulations of the contract. ... If the evidence shows anything, it shows a mere breach of contract. There is no evidence that [the contractor] did not intend to comply with the terms of the special stipulations at the time the promises were made at the closing.
Lively v. Garnick, supra, 160 Ga. App. at 596 (3).
Certainly the buyer had a valid breach of contract action, which the jury heard and resolved against her. But after 14 days of trial and 26 witnesses, some of whom testified more than once, the evidence does not raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the contractor induced the buyer to close by making a promise he never intended to keep.
2. As to the evidentiary issues raised by the buyer, I disagree that the trial court should have admitted certain hearsay statements.
(a) The buyer contends that the trial court erred in excluding as hearsay a subcontractor’s testimony that the supervisor told him to increase his bid because the buyer “was loaded.” While some statements are admissible to show that the statements were made and not for the truth of the statements, in this case, the truth of the statement — whether the supervisor told the subcontractor to pad his bill — was the issue, and thus the trial court properly excluded it.
(b) Regardless of whether the trial court erred in disallowing some of the buyer’s testimony that the supervisor told her after the closing that the contractor would not fix the roof, the buyer was allowed to testify that the repairs offered were insufficient.
(c) Finally, I agree with the majority that the trial court properly denied the buyer’s motion for a directed verdict on the contractor’s claim for attorney fees.
*319Decided November 26, 2008
Reconsideration denied December 16, 2008
Richard A. Childs, for appellant.
Tina M. Richards, for appellees.
Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part from the majority opinion.

 The trial court also granted summary judgment to the buyer on the contractor’s fraud claim, which the contractor has not appealed. This case went to the jury on the parties’ competing breach of contract claims, and the jury found for the contractor, awarding him $170,000 damages and $128,182 attorney fees.