Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-490 / 06-1622 Filed November 15, 2007

STEVEN AND CANDACE BRADLEY, Husband and Wife, and MELANIE MENSTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. GREG MANTERNACH, d/b/a GREG MANTERNACH CONSTRUCTION and GORDON BLOCK, d/b/a CASTLE WOOD DESIGNS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. MARVIN WINDOWS, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ GREG MANTERNACH, d/b/a GREG MANTERNACH CONSTRUCTION, Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD BROCKMAN, CASCADE LUMBER COMPANY and MARVIN WINDOWS, INC., Third-Party Defendants. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Thomas M. Horan, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants; a defendant cross appeals a district court order. AFFIRMED.

2

Cynthia Sueppel, Cedar Rapids, for appellant Steven Bradley. A. John Arenz, Dubuque, for appellee Greg Manternach. Thomas Boyd, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Randall Rings, Cedar Rapids, for appellee Marvin Windows. Matthew Nagle, Cedar Rapids, for appellee Cascade Lumber. Castle Wood Designs, c/o Gordon S. Block, Chandler, Arizona, pro se.

Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ. Baker, J. takes no part.

3 VOGEL, J. Steven and Candace Bradley and Melanie Menster brought an action against Greg Manternach, d/b/a Greg Manternach Construction, Gordon Block, d/b/a/ Castle Wood Designs, Inc., and Marvin Windows, Inc. based upon damage to their home caused by water infiltration and resulting in personal injury. 1 The Bradleys and Menster appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Because we agree with the district court that the statutes of limitations had run, thereby barring the plaintiffs' property damage and personal injury claims, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings In 1995, the Bradleys began the process of building a home. They hired Castle Wood Designs to create blueprints for the home and Manternach Construction to build the home. The Bradleys purchased the windows for the home from Cascade Lumber and Manternach Construction installed the windows, which were manufactured by Marvin Windows. Construction of the
1

The Bradleys' petition and amended petition involved many claims and multiple defendants. The only remaining claims on appeal are negligence claims for property damage and for Menster's personal injury against Castle Wood Designs; breach of an oral contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and negligence claims for property damage and Menster's personal injury against Manternach Construction; and negligence claims for property damage and Menster's personal injury against Marvin Windows.

Richard Brockman was named as a defendant, but later dismissed with prejudice from the suit. The Bradleys also dismissed a negligence claim for Candace Bradley's personal injuries and conceded a negligent misrepresentation claim against Manternach Construction; dismissed a negligence claim for Candace Bradley's personal injuries against Castle Wood Designs; dismissed a negligence claim for Candace Bradley's personal injuries and breach of express warranty claim; and conceded a breach of implied warranty claim against Marvin Windows. Additionally, the Bradleys asserted a breach of contract claim against Castle Wood Designs that was not dismissed by the district court's summary judgment ruling and a breach of implied warranty claim against Castle Wood Designs that was dismissed by the district court's summary judgment ruling, but does not raise these claims on appeal.

4 home was completed in November of 1996. In the spring of 1997, the Bradleys began to notice problems with water intruding into their home. Candace Bradley first noticed the wood stain used on the window trim was dripping beneath some windows. The walls underneath the windows were also damp. The wood trim on some of the windows was turning black. The Bradleys contacted Manternach Construction and others to remedy the situation. In spite of the repairs, the water problems persisted over the next few years. In 2000, the Bradleys' daughter, Melanie Menster, observed water running into the house from a window on the first floor. The amount of water was significant, damaging carpeting that had to be replaced and leaked into the lower level of the home. The Bradleys also testified to other problems such as water pooling on the floor of the kitchen, water leaking through a kitchen window, then pooling on the kitchen counter, and water leaking into the garage. In 2002, a portion of the brick was removed from the home, which revealed rotten, moldy wood and soaked insulation in a wall cavity. Further

selective demolition found extensive water and mold damage to the home. Menster's claim stems from her allergic reaction to the mold in the Bradleys' home. The Bradleys and Menster filed a petition on July 28, 2003, which

asserted property and personal injury claims against Castle Wood Designs and Manternach Construction. They amended their petition in June 2004 and

asserted property and personal injury claims against Marvin Windows. Manternach Construction and Marvin Windows each filed a motion for summary judgment that asserted the Bradleys' and Menster's claims were barred by the statutes of limitations. Castle Wood Designs did not so move. Applying the

5 discovery rule, the district court found the undisputed facts established the statute of limitations on the Bradleys' property damage claims began running in the spring of 1997 when they first noticed water problems and the statute of limitations on Menster's personal injury claim began running in the summer of 2000 when her physician linked her increased allergic reactions to mold. The district court granted Manternach and Marvin Widows's motions for summary judgment and further extended the ruling to the claims against Castle Wood Designs. The Bradleys also requested and received court approval to demolish the home. The only issues remaining on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in applying the discovery rule to the Bradleys' property damage and Menster's personal injury claims; (2) whether the district court erred in extending the summary judgment ruling to a party (Castle Wood Designs) that did not move for summary judgment; and (3) whether the district court correctly granted the Bradleys' application for court approval to demolish their home. II. Summary Judgment Ruling We review the district court's grant of summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Stevens v. Iowa Newspapers, Inc., 728

N.W.2d 823, 827 (Iowa 2007). Summary judgment shall be granted when the entire record demonstrates there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3); Stevens, 728 N.W.2d at 827. We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Stevens, 728 N.W.2d at 827.

"Application of a statutory limitation period to undisputed facts involves a pure question of law." Diggan v. Cycle Sat, Inc., 576 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Iowa 1998)

6 (citing Bob McKiness Excavating & Grating, Inc. v. Morton Bldgs., Inc., 507 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Iowa 1993) ("No fact question exists if the only dispute concerns the legal consequences flowing from undisputed facts.")); see 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions

Download STEVEN AND CANDACE BRADLEY, Husband and Wife, and MELANIE MENSTER, Plaintiffs-Ap

Iowa Law