JOSEPH F. PUTNAM AND VANCE D. BISHOP, AS TRUSTEES UNDER TRUST NO. 17498, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILSON F. ROUDEBUSH ET UX., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Putnam and Bishop, trustees and developers of a condominium, appealed a $10,000 judgment awarded to the Roudebushes for breach of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability based on excessive noise from an air conditioning system. The court reversed, holding that while implied warranties apply to condominiums, the Roudebushes failed to establish breach under an objective standard and presented no evidence of diminution in property value.
The court held that while an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability extends to new condominiums, the Roudebushes failed to establish breach because they presented only subjective evidence of their personal sensitivity to noise rather than objective evidence that the unit failed to meet ordinary standards reasonably expected of comparable living quarters. Additionally, even if a defect existed, the appropriate measure of damages would be diminution in property value, for which no evidence was presented.
[1] An implied warranty of fitness and merchantability extends to the buyer of a new condominium.
[2] An air conditioning unit, as an integral part of a condominium, is subject to an implied warranty.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the current state of Florida law extends an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability to the buyer of a new condominium. So where, as here, an air conditioning unit is an integral part of a condominium, it is subject to an implied warranty.”
Establishes that implied warranties apply to condominium purchases when components like HVAC systems are integral to the unit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Roudebushes purchased a condominium unit from the appellants. They complained that the air conditioning system was excessively noisy, making the u…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Continuing Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This action is predicated upon an alleged breach of an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability.
The Roudebushes, as plaintiffs, purchased a condominium apartment from appellants, trustees and developers of the condominium. They complained that the air conditioning system made so much noise in their unit that the unit was rendered uninhabitable. They vacated the premises and brought this action seeking not rescission, but damages for breach of warranty. A judgment for $10,000 was entered in their favor after a jury trial and this appeal ensued. We reverse.
First of all, we recognize that the current state of Florida law extends an implied warranty of fitness and merchantability to the buyer of a new condominium. So where, as here, an air conditioning unit is an integral part of a condominium, it is subject to an implied warranty.1
Even where an implied warranty exists, it is possible to assert defenses to it. A defense to implied warranty, at least in the products liability area, has been that the party asserting the implied warranty had a reasonable opportunity to discover the defect and did not do so.2 If we are to extend implied warranties to condominiums, it seems logical to allow the condominium developer/seller the same defenses that we allow the manufacturer/seller in the products liability field. In the instant case appellants may have been able to utilize this defense had it been properly pled and proven. But, since the defense was not properly pled and proven, there was a proper claim by plaintiffs of implied warranty. Even so, the Roudebushes’ evidence fell far short of establishing a breach of implied warranty. The warranty involved is that the condominium unit was reasonably fit for the ordinary or general purpose intended, viz., as living quarters. A breach thereof, therefore, would be that it is not so fit; and the test of the breach is an objective one, i. e., whether the premises met ordinary, normal standards reasonably to be expected of living quarters of comparable kind and quality.3 There was no evidence on behalf of the Roudebushes which went to this test. They merely tended to show that, as to their sensitivity to noise, the premises were uninhabitable.4 No showing was made, nor was there a basis for comparison to establish, that their sensitivity to noise was not hypersensitivity, but was that of reasonable persons — a burden resting with them as plaintiffs. The subjective, “personal satisfaction” test is not enough.5
Additionally, we observe, that even if there is the defect they complain of, it constitutes a continuing nuisance and is a permanent defect in the realty. The usual measure of damages in such a case is the diminution in value of the real estate occasioned by the defect.6 There is virtually no evidence of such diminution in value. To the contrary, unrefuted evidence on behalf of appellants tended to establish that the unit in question is worth more now than when the Roudebushes purchased it, even with the “defect” such as it is.
In view whereof, the judgment appealed from cannot stand. Accordingly, it should be, and it is hereby, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of appellants.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . Gable v. Silver, 258 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 264 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1972).
. Lambert v. Sistrunk, 58 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1952); Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 238 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
. See House v. Thornton, 76 Wash.2d 428, 457 P. 2d 199, 203 (1969).
. It appears, for example, that while admitting the noise was undetectable during normal conversation sounds, it was most disturbing to them in the still of the night.
. Cf. Wisner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
. Cf. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. et al. v. Saffold, 130 Fla. 598, 178 So. 288 (1938). See also United States Steel Corporation v. Benefield, 352 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maronda Homes v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 127 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 2013)…kind and quality.” Hesson v. Walmsley Constr. Co., 422 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). More succinctly, a warranty is breached if the residence is rendered not reasonably fit for the ordinary or general purpose intended. See Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The Florida Statutes require that the common law is applicable unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this State. See Wester v. Rigdon, 110 So. 2d 47…
-
Drexel Props., Inc. v. BAY Colony Club Condo., Inc., 406 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…th and approved by the appropriate governmental authority . . . . . . therefore, having departed from those specifications, is liable to plaintiffs for breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. Page 678. In Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the court held that purchasers could not recover from developer on theory of breach of implied warranty for a noisy air conditioner since the test was “whether the premises met ordinary, normal standards reasonably to be expected…
-
Lochrane Eng'g, Inc. v. Willingham Realgrowth Inv. Fund, Ltd., 552 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ractor does not appeal. . Gable v. Silver, 258 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. dismissed, decision adopted, 264 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1972); Schmeck v. Sea Oats Condominium Association, Inc., 441 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Putnam v. Roudebush, 352 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). . In Campbell v. Rawls, 381 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), the appellate court reversed the trial court as to the measure of damages for repairing an expressly warranted air conditioning system, stating: However, we must…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gable v. Silver, 258 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. & Tampa S. R.R. Co. v. Saffold, 130 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1938)
- Brown v. Wainwright, 264 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1972)
- Lambert v. Sistrunk, 58 So.2d 434 (Fla. 1952)
- Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 238 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Carl v. Wisner, Jr., 167 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- United States Steel Corp. & P.S.A. Enters., Inc. v. Benefield, 352 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)