Michael G. Hansen v. Stanley Martin Companies, Inc. (Virginia 2003)

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment on the homeowners’ claims that they were promised conventional stucco and little or no maintenance, because those claims accrued more than two years or three years before suit was filed. It reversed summary judgment on the building-code contract claim, the fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims concerning North Carolina stucco problems, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim because the record did not conclusively establish when the homeowners had sufficient notice to trigger the applicable limitations periods. Justice Kinser, dissenting in part and concurring in part, would have affirmed summary judgment on the latter claims because the newspaper article placed the homeowners on inquiry notice as a matter of law.

Holding

Contract claim alleging that the home was required to use conventional stucco. The claim was time-barred because the homeowners knew no later than closing that the home used EIFS rather than conventional stucco, and they filed suit more than three years later.

Contract claim alleging failure to install EIFS in compliance with the building code. Summary judgment was improper because the record did not establish as a matter of law that the homeowners’ notation of baseboard discoloration placed them on notice of a building-code violation.

Fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims that the home would be clad with stucco and would require little or no maintenance. Summary judgment was proper because the homeowners knew, or had written notice, of the facts underlying these claims more than two years before filing suit.

Fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims concerning North Carolina stucco and related performance problems. Summary judgment was improper because reasonable persons could disagree whether the newspaper article gave the homeowners actual or implied notice that Stanley Martin’s alleged representations were false.

Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim. Summary judgment was improper because Stanley Martin conceded for purposes of the motion that the discovery rule applied, and reasonable minds could differ about the notice supplied by the newspaper article.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities