Stutts v. Melton
2013 La. LEXIS 2240
| La. | 2013Background
- Chad and Lauren Melton built a residential home in Walker, Louisiana, completed in 2004, and lived there ~9 months before selling to James and Lisa Stutts on Sept. 30, 2005.
- At sale, Meltons provided a Residential Property Disclosure Statement under RPDA claiming no roof defects, though a prior settlement with Atlas Roofing Corporation had paid for a roof replacement due to a defect.
- The Meltons kept the settlement funds instead of replacing the roof and later the Stutts discovered color bleeding from roofing defects in 2006.
- Stutts sued Meltons for fraud and misrepresentation, asserting the roof defect was disclosed or disclosed via RPDA, and sought replacement roof costs plus related damages and fees.
- The trial court awarded damages for fraud; the court of appeal reversed, holding NHWA exclusive remedy barred RPDA/ fraud claims; this Court granted the writ to resolve the conflict.
- The NHWA provides exclusive remedies between builder and owner for home construction defects, but the RPDA remains applicable to claims arising from disclosures by a builder-seller who occupied the home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NHWA bar RPDA fraud claims between seller-builder and purchaser? | Stutts contends NHWA exclusive remedies apply only to construction defects, not RPDA fraud. | Meltons contend NHWA exclusivity precludes RPDA/fraud claims arising from disclosures. | NHWA is not exclusive; RPDA fraud claims survive. |
| Does RPDA require disclosure of known defects discovered during builder occupancy? | RPDA requires good-faith disclosure of known defects discovered during occupancy. | Disclosures are limited to known defects and not liability for willful misrepresentation. | RPDA requires disclosure of known defects; willful misrepresentation constitutes fraud. |
| May a seller be liable for attorney fees for fraud under RPDA when rescission is not sought? | Fraud liability includes damages and attorney fees under Article 1958 to punish fraud. | Attorney fees require statute or contract; no direct damages for fraud without rescission. | Attorney fees awarded; equity allows punitive-like recovery for fraud under RPDA and related articles. |
| What damages are recoverable where fraud is proven but rescission is not sought for a specific item (roof)? | Damages for the roof replacement and related costs should be recoverable along with fees. | Damages should be limited to contract-based remedies unless specifically authorized by statute. | Damages including attorney fees and roof replacement costs are recoverable; equity supports outcome. |
| Is the RPDA sufficient to support a fraud claim distinct from NHWA remedies? | RPDA creates a separate fraud liability independent of NHWA. | NHWA exclusivity limits remedies to builder-owner disputes, not RPDA claims. | RPDA fraud claims are independent of NHWA remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stutts v. Melton, 118 So.3d 373 (La. 2013) (Supreme Court affirming RPDA/fraud claims alongside NHWA considerations)
- Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 186 (La. 2008) (attorney fees and damages standards in insurance/fraud context)
- Rivet v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 680 So.2d 1154 (La. 1996) (damages and attorney fees in governmental liability context)