In D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Heron’s
Landing Condo. Assn. of Jacksonville, Inc., No. 1D17-1941, 2018 WL 6803698
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 1st Dist. 2018), the First District Court of
Appeals of Florida affirmed a Florida Circuit Court’s ruling that a breach of
the implied warranty of habitability did not require a condominium to be
uninhabitable.
D.R. Horton was the developer and general
contractor of Heron’s Landing, a condominium project comprised of 240
residential units in twenty buildings. The Condominium Association at Heron’s
Landing brought suit alleging that D.R. Horton violated the Florida Building
Code, breached warranties, and was negligent in its construction of the
project.
At the trial, Heron’s Landing had
several of its residents testify to various issues, including, but not limited
to, wet carpets, drywall issues, mold, wall cracking, roof leaks, and increased
noise coming through the walls from nearby units. One of Heron’s Landing’s
expert witnesses, Mr. W. Ron Woods, testified that the stucco did not meet
standards of the Florida Building Code, and that the stucco defects
should have been caught and remedied during construction. Mr. Arthur Newcomb,
D.R. Horton’s construction supervisor for Heron’s Landing, acknowledged defects
in the stucco application after seeing photographs of the issues at trial, and
testified that had he seen those issues, he would have corrected them during
construction.
D.R. Horton argued that none of the
unit owners or experts testified to an inability to inhabit the units, and
there could likewise be no breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
However, there was no case law supporting a contention that a unit must be
uninhabitable to constitute a breach of the warranty of habitability. The Court
held, “although the defects did not force homeowners to abandon their homes,
the testimony certainly supported the jury’s determination that the units did
not meet the ordinary, normal standards that were reasonably expected of living
quarters of comparable kind and quality.”
This case demonstrates that the
implied warranty of habitability requires not just the basic needs of a
shelter, but also a satisfaction of conditions in which one could reasonably
expect to reside. It emphasizes the necessity for developers and contractors to
maintain a reasonable standard of care.
