142 So. 3d 1034
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- In March–April 2000 Rebecca and Peter Guillot bought an old house in Kentwood, LA for $50,000 after a pre-sale home inspection disclosed rot, damp crawlspace, and mold-related problems; price was reduced from the asking price.
- Shortly after moving in the Guillots and their child developed respiratory and other symptoms; Ms. Guillot’s health progressively worsened through 2000–2001.
- Ms. Guillot saw various physicians; an allergist in early 2001 diagnosed a mold allergy; in late 2001 she sought treatment from Dr. Andrew Campbell, who in January 2002 diagnosed toxic mold exposure and advised immediate relocation.
- A mold remediation firm’s January 28, 2002 report (Guarantee Systems) found widespread toxic mold in the home; plaintiffs filed suit on January 17, 2003 asserting redhibition and personal injury claims and alleging the sellers knew of prior flooding/mold and failed to disclose it.
- Trial court (2013) rescinded the sale, awarded return of purchase price and money damages ($100,000 to wife, $50,000 to husband) and rejected defendants’ prescription exception, finding continuing exposure until plaintiffs left in Jan 2002.
- The defendants appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred and whether the trial court erred on evidentiary and factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redhibition claim prescribed | Guillot contends sellers knew of mold/flooding; discovery rule applies so action within one year of discovery (Mar 2002) | Doughty contends plaintiffs knew or should have known earlier and suit (Jan 2003) is time-barred | Reversed: plaintiffs failed to prove sellers’ bad faith; redhibition governed by one-year rule from sale date and claim prescribed |
| Whether personal injury claims prescribed | Guillot argues discovery occurred Jan 2002 with Dr. Campbell’s diagnosis | Doughty argues Guillots had actual/constructive knowledge much earlier (e.g., April 2000 observations, 2001 allergist, questionnaires) | Reversed: court finds constructive/actual knowledge prior to Jan 2002; personal injury claims prescribed |
| Admissibility of pre-sale Lannon inspection report (hearsay) | Plaintiffs objected as hearsay | Defendants offered it to show plaintiffs’ knowledge of condition (non-hearsay purpose) | Appellate court held report admissible for notice/knowledge (not hearsay) and reversed trial court’s exclusion |
| Whether trial court properly found sellers knew of flooding/mold (facts) and applied continuing-tort doctrine | Plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony to show sellers had knowledge and exposure continued until Jan 2002 | Defendants pointed to lack of direct proof sellers knew of interior flooding and that key witnesses were available but not called | Appellate court found manifest factual error: evidence did not establish sellers’ bad faith or continuous actionable exposure up to Jan 2002; continuing-tort application improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1978) (standard of review for factual findings by trier of fact)
- Rey v. Cuccia, 298 So.2d 840 (La. 1974) (burden and proof in redhibition actions; direct and circumstantial evidence)
- Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for reversing factual findings — manifest error)
- Campo v. Correa, 828 So.2d 502 (La. 2002) (when prescription begins to run based on actual or constructive knowledge in delictual actions)
- Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (burden of proof for prescription generally rests with party pleading it)