Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

EUGENE JETTS, JR., and MELINDA JETTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v STEWART BUILDING COMPANY, INC., and CHRISTOPHER SCOTT FIX, Defendants-Appellees, and JAZBRICK, d/b/a CENTURY BRICK, Defendant/Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and LINCOLN BRICK AND SUPPLY CO., Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2010

No. 290635 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2006-079779-CH

Before: ZAHRA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and FITZGERALD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal as of right the order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) in favor of defendants in this action arising from disputes related to the new construction of plaintiffs' home. We affirm. Plaintiffs entered into a building contract with defendant Stewart Building Company, Inc., for the construction of a residential home. Stewart acted as the general contractor. It arranged for defendants, Jazbrick, d/b/a Century Brick, and Lincoln Brick and Supply Company, to supply the bricks, and for defendant Christopher Scott Fix to install the bricks. Construction of the house was completed in July 2000, with the city of Rochester granting a certificate of occupancy on July 25, 2000. Plaintiffs moved into the residence in August 2000. According to plaintiffs' complaint, in 2001 they built a patio and two walls in front of their home, using the same type of bricks that were used in the construction of the home. In the -1-

summer of 2002, plaintiffs noticed that a few of the bricks on the patio walls were broken. In 2003, plaintiffs noticed more broken bricks on the patio walls. During the summer of 2004, plaintiffs noticed still more broken bricks on the patio walls and replaced them. Additionally, plaintiffs replaced some cracked bricks on the home. During the summer of 2005, plaintiffs observed that a considerable number of bricks on the home had started to crack and break. Plaintiffs contacted Stewart with their concern regarding the bricks. Stewart contacted Lincoln, which resulted in a Century representative visiting plaintiffs' residence to inspect the bricks. Century issued a report of its findings in a letter to Lincoln on July 5, 2005, which was forwarded to plaintiffs on July 11, 2005. The letter stated that the bricks were failing because they were installed at or below grade level, in violation of applicable building codes. Plaintiffs contacted Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc. (SME), and an SME representative visited plaintiffs' residence in late spring or early summer and inspected the bricks. On approximately October 18, 2006, SME delivered a report of its findings to plaintiffs. The report indicated that the construction was noncompliant with Michigan Residential Building Code (MRBC) 2003, in the following manner: 1. Contrary to ACI 530, Chapter 6.1.2.1 and MRBC R703.7.5 and R703.8, flashings were not installed as required, and there are no indications of throughwall flashing materials at the following required locations: a. b. c. d. e. f. Base Flashing at bottom of walls in the first course above grade, Top of windows and door lintels, Under copings on walkway walls, Under window and door sills, Above arched openings and windows, [and] In walls abutting structural slabs for porches and decks.

2. Weeps were not observed at the base of the walls or under windows and cap stones as required by MRBC R703.7.6. Weeps are required at a maximum spacing of 33 inches immediately above all flashing locations. [3]. No provision to accommodate differential movement at the walls corners both interior and exterior was provided in accordance with MR[B]C R703.2 Exterior Veneer Support. Also no expansion joints were provided between the veneer supported on the foundation wall and the walls supported on garage footings. [4]. The air cavity between the inside face of the veneer and exterior face of the sheathing was noted to be less than

Download EUGENE JETTS JR V STEWART BUILDING CO INC.pdf

Michigan Law