Joseph Riccardi v. Carl Little Construction Company, Inc
E2020-00678-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- Riccardi purchased a newly built condominium on October 26, 2007 and shortly thereafter observed interior cracks and door misalignment.
- Carl Little Construction (Little), the builder, repeatedly repaired visible cracks and told Riccardi the problems were "natural settling," assuring him the house was well-built.
- Cracking recurred intermittently; in March 2014 Little, in the presence of a third party, admitted the house had been built on uncompacted fill.
- Engineering reports (April 2014) concluded differential settlement and inadequate compaction of fill under the foundation/porch caused structural damage requiring significant repairs.
- Riccardi sued on September 9, 2014 alleging negligent construction; the trial court granted summary judgment for Little as time‑barred by the 3‑year statute of limitations and 4‑year statute of repose, but held the Bridgewater POA responsible for porch/patio repairs.
- On appeal this Court vacated summary judgment against Little (finding genuine issues on accrual and fraudulent concealment/equitable estoppel) and affirmed the POA ruling limited to porches/patios.
Issues
| Issue | Riccardi's Argument | Little's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit was time‑barred under the 3‑year statute of limitations (accrual/discovery rule) | Riccardi argued accrual was delayed because Little’s repairs and assurances of "natural settling" reasonably concealed the injury until 2014 | Little argued Riccardi knew of the damage years earlier and suit filed after limitations | Vacated summary judgment; factual disputes about when Riccardi knew or should have known precluded summary judgment on accrual/tolling |
| Whether the 4‑year statute of repose bars the claim or is inapplicable because of fraud/wrongful concealment | Riccardi argued repose is unavailable where builder fraudulently concealed construction defects | Little invoked the repose bar (action filed nearly seven years after completion) | Vacated summary judgment; factual issues about builder’s knowledge/intent and concealment prevent application of repose as a matter of law |
| Whether Bridgewater POA must repair interior/foundation damage (beyond porches/patios) | Riccardi sought POA liability for foundation and interior repairs as well as exterior | POA relied on governing deed/covenants limiting POA responsibility | Affirmed: POA liable for porches/patios per Master Deed/restrictive covenants; record lacks basis to impose responsibility for interior/foundation damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (articulates discovery‑rule accrual and interplay with tolling doctrines)
- Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2001) (discovery rule and fraudulent concealment principles)
- Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (elements of wrongful/fraudulent concealment)
- Watts v. Putnam Cnty., 525 S.W.2d 488 (Tenn. 1975) (fraud/wrongful concealment can negate statute of repose)
- Prescott v. Adams, 627 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (accrual and knowledge are generally fact questions for the trier of fact)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment burdens and nonmoving‑party proof requirements)