Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed a construction-contract dispute involving alleged defects in the construction of the McBrides’ home and Rafael Lara Construction, LLC’s reconventional demand for the unpaid contract balance. The court affirmed the trial court’s revised judgment, which awarded the McBrides a net recovery of $12,160. The opinion addresses alleged construction deficiencies, proof of repair costs, expert and lay testimony, and the effect of terminating the contractor before completion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a recorded telephone conversation as extrinsic impeachment evidence contradicting Andrew McBride's testimony about a deceased contractor's statements.
- Whether Rafael Lara was properly qualified to testify as an expert in construction despite being a party and having an alleged interest in the outcome.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in assessing damages for construction defects and awarding Lara the unpaid balance after finding substantial performance.
Holdings
- The trial court acted within its discretion by admitting the recorded conversation as extrinsic evidence offered to contradict Andrew McBride's testimony and attack his credibility under Louisiana Code of Evidence article 607(D)(2).
- A party may qualify and testify as an expert when the requirements for expert testimony are satisfied; the witness's status as a party and potential bias generally affect credibility rather than qualification.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the McBrides damages for proven construction deficiencies while limiting the award because of inadequate proof of repair costs, and in awarding Lara the unpaid balance after finding substantial performance.
Key quotations
“The fact that a witness is a party, or an employee of a party, does not preclude his qualification as an expert, because the potential bias of the witness may be explored on cross-examination.” (25)
“An owner seeking to recover from a contractor bears the burden of proving: (1) both the existence and nature of the defects; (2) that the defects were due to faulty materials or workmanship; and (3) the cost of repairing the defects.” (28)
“The trial court acted within its discretion and made a reasonable assessment of damages in light of the scarcity of invoices and receipts and the fact that there were only vague references throughout the record as to what it may cost to repair the defects it found to have existed.” (32)
Factual background
The McBrides contracted with Lara on August 22, 2018, to construct their home according to plans and specifications. They complained about alleged defects involving the foundation, roof decking and flashing, leaks, windows, façade, dormer, insulation, and drywall, and terminated Lara before completion. The McBrides hired others to complete or repair the home but did not produce itemized invoices or receipts supporting the amounts they claimed. The trial court awarded specified damages for several defects and an offsetting amount to Lara for unpaid contract work.
Procedural history
The McBrides sued Lara for breach of a construction contract concerning alleged defects in the construction of their home. Lara filed a reconventional demand for the unpaid contract balance. After a one-day bench trial, the district court awarded damages to both sides and later reduced both awards after motions for new trial. The McBrides appealed, and the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit affirmed.