In Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (Fla. 2013), Florida’s Supreme Court issued a significant decision affecting the rights of owners who have purchased a home in a neighborhood with defective infrastructure. The case centered around allegations of defective construction and development of homes in the Lakeview Reserve community, and whether the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability applied to the infrastructure provided by the developer, Maronda Homes.
Background of the Case
The Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against Maronda Homes and T.D. Thomson, alleging that the infrastructure, drainage systems, retention ponds, and underground pipes in the community were defective and caused flooding and other damages to the homes. The trial court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Maronda Homes and Thomson, but the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability applied to the infrastructure and essential services provided by the developer.
Court’s Decision
Maronda Homes appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Florida, arguing that the Fifth District Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability, and that the Florida Legislature had preempted the field of construction defects with the passage of section 553.835 of the Florida Statutes. The Supreme Court of Florida held that the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability apply to the improvements that provide essential services to the Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Association, and that section 553.835 does not apply to any causes of action that accrued before the effective date of the statute.
Implications of Decision
The Court’s decision affirms the protection of Florida families against defective development and construction of homes, and ensures that developers are held accountable for the quality of the infrastructure and essential services they provide. The decision also clarifies that section 553.835 of the Florida Statutes does not preempt the field of construction defects. This means that homeowners can still seek damages for defects that occurred before the effective date of the statute, and that developers are still responsible for ensuring that their developments are of a quality that is consistent with industry standards.
Closing
The Maronda Homes case is a significant decision that clarifies the application of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability to the infrastructure and essential services provided by developers in Florida. The decision affirms the importance of these warranties in protecting homeowners from defective construction and development of homes, and ensures that developers are held accountable for the quality of the infrastructure and essential services they provide. The decision also clarifies that section 553.835 of the Florida Statutes does not preempt the field of construction defects, providing homeowners with legal recourse for defects that occurred before the effective date of the statute
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.
READY LEGAL 