BARBARA E. DAVIDSON
CHARLES EUGENE SANDERS, SR., ET AL.
FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO.
258, 500 HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Russell L. Potter Stafford, Stewart & Potter COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT: Dixie Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc.
L. Sooter Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Barbara E. Davidson
Charles D. Elliott Charles Elliott & Associates COUNSEL
FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Charles Eugene Sanders, Sr Charles
Eugene Sanders, Jr. Randall Paul Sanders Russell Todd Sanders
Richard Earl Sanders
Jonathan D. Stokes Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: CMR Construction &
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Shannon J.
Gremillion, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE
plaintiff-appellant, Barbara Davidson, appeals the trial
court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of
the defendants-appellees, Charles Sanders, Sr., Charles
Sanders, Jr., Randall Sanders, Richard Sanders, and Russell
Sanders (the Sanders defendants) and granting
defendant-appellee, CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC's
(CMR), exception of no cause of action. For the following
reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
who was eighty-three years old at the time of trial,
purchased a home on March 22, 2014, from the Sanders
defendants for the purchase price of $174, 265.00. Davidson
had rented the home from the Sanders defendants for the
previous ten years. The parties agreed that $50, 000.00 of
that sum was for the "cost of roof replacement."
CMR and Dixie Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc., another
defendant not a party to this appeal, completed the repairs
to the roof at the Sanders defendants' behest but it
continued to leak. Davidson filed a petition for rescission
of sale of residential property on March 30, 2017 seeking a
return of all funds paid, due to the roof leaks throughout
the home that caused her to relocate to a nearby apartment in
June 2016. Attached to her petition was the roof labor
warranty agreement issued by CMR warrantying the work for a
period beginning May 15, 2014 and ending May 15, 2024.
their answer, the Sanders defendants pled as affirmative
defenses that the claims were in redhibition and, therefore,
subject to a one-year prescriptive period and prescribed. The
Sanders defendants also alleged that Davidson was aware of
the roof problems prior to the purchase. They further urged
that the house was sold for $120, 000.00 and did not include
the purchase price of the roof. CMR filed a peremptory
exception of no cause of action urging that Davidson had no
privity of contract with it since the Sanders defendants
hired CMR. CMR further asserted that Davidson failed to set
forth any defect in CMR's workmanship or materials and
that she failed to follow the requirements set forth in the
warranty, thereby voiding it. To wit, CMR claimed that
Davidson contacted a representative of Dixie Roofing (who
replaced the flat roof section) to repair the roof, as
opposed to CMR (who replaced the Spanish Tile portion of the
roof) and failed to comply with the warranty's notice
requirements, causing it to be void.
September 2017, the Sanders defendants filed a motion for a
hearing on the exception of prescription and motion for
summary judgment. In her opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, Davidson argued that her claims were based on a
breach of contract claim and that the only parties alleging a
redhibitory defect were the Sanders defendants. Davidson
amended her petition to allege breach of contract, lack of
contract due to failure of cause, consent, and/or future
object and urged that all defendants had been unjustly
enriched. Attached to her amending petition was a proposal
for services from CMR to Dixie Roofing.
a hearing on the motion for summary judgment in December
2017, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Sanders defendants and granted CMR's exception of no
cause of action. Davidson now appeals and asserts as error:
1.The trial court erred in dismissing Davidson's action
against Sanders with prejudice by granting the summary
judgment on the issue of redhibition when the facts pled by
Davidson lead to issues as to whether there was a valid
contract, a breach ...