arrow left
arrow right
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
  • Michael Gavis, Et Al vs. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc., Et AlContract - Debt - Commercial/Consumer document preview
						
                                

Preview

Filed: 6/30/2021 5:55 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 54954090 By: Shailja Dixit 7/1/2021 8:16 AM 21-CV-0951 CAUSE NO______________ MICHAEL GAVIS and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KATY GAVIS § Plaintiffs, § § § vs. § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § TAYLOR MORRISON OF TEXAS, § INC. AND TAYLOR WOODROW § COMMUNITIES – LEAGUE CITY, § Galveston County - 10th District Court LTD. § Defendants. § _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Michael Gavis and Katy Gavis, Plaintiffs, complaining of Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. and Taylor Woodrow Communities – League City, Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”), and for cause of action, show the Court the following: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiffs intend that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4, and request this Court to enter a Docket Control Order. PARTIES AND SERVICE 2. Plaintiffs, Michael Gavis and Katy Gavis, are residents of Galveston, County, Texas whose address is 4727 Sabero Lane, League City, Texas 77573. 3. Defendant Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. is a Domestic For-Profit Corporation that may be served through its registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. Status Conference - 09/30/2021 4. Defendant Taylor Woodrow Communities – League City, Ltd. is a Domestic Limited Partnership that may be served through its registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiffs seek monetary relief of over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction herein because both Defendants are Domestic entities. 7. Venue in Galveston County is proper because the cause of action alleged herein arose in Galveston County and the property subject of this suit is situated in that County. FACTS 8. This case concerns multiple construction defects that have caused significant mold growth in Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs purchased the home located at 4727 Sabero Lane, League City, Texas 77573 (“Home”) on June 8, 2018. The Home was built by Defendants. Sometime after purchasing the Home, the Home began experiencing unacceptably high levels of relative humidity and condensation. 9. Since then the Home has developed a severe, pervasive mold infestation caused by construction defects. The mold infestation will require extensive remediation as well as the replacement and cleaning of Plaintiffs’ contents. The mold in the Home is caused by construction defects relating to Defendants’ design and construction of the 2 Home, which has led to water intrusion and extreme and inappropriate humidity and moisture levels to develop in the Home’s interior. BREACH OF CONTRACT 10. Defendants breached the contract by building a home with the aforementioned construction defects. Plaintiffs contracted with Defendants to purchase a home free of defects and that was designed and built appropriately to not develop defects. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ breach of contract. 11. Pursuant to Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, Plaintiffs seek recovery of their reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES 11. Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability. The mold itself, as well as the construction defects that caused the mold, are latent defects that rendered the Home unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise unfit for living therein. 12. Further, Defendants breached the implied warranty of good workmanship because Defendants did not construct the Home in the same manner as would a generally proficient builder engaged in similar work and performing under similar circumstances. NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION 13. Defendants had a duty to exercise ordinary care in the construction of the Home. By the above-alleged conduct, Defendants breached its duty to exercise ordinary care and that breach proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages. 3 DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES – CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 14. By the above-alleged conduct, Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46. Defendants violated Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50 as follows: 15. Breach of implied warranty; and 16. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46. Defendants violated the following laundry list of items in § 17.46(b), including but not limited to: §17.46 (b) (5) Represented that goods or services had sponsorship, approval, Characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have; §17.46 (b) (7) Represented that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; and §17.46 (b) (24) Failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the customer would not have entered had the information been disclosed. 17. Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ acts, practices and omissions to their detriment. Defendants’ acts, practices, and omissions were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages. 4 DPTA NOTICE 18. Plaintiffs provided notice under the Residential Construction Liability Act of their claims to Defendants. It is Plaintiffs’ position that the RCLA notice satisfies the notice required under the DTPA. Plaintiffs, in the alternative, were unable to provide notice of their DTPA claims to Defendants because providing notice was rendered impracticable by the statute of limitations. DISCOVERY RULE 19. Defendants are estopped from asserting the affirmative defense of limitations because Plaintiffs did not discover, nor could Plaintiffs have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of their causes of action against Defendants until less than two years prior to the date on which Plaintiffs filed their original petition in this lawsuit. ECONOMIC DAMAGES 20. Plaintiffs sustained economic damages as a result of the construction defects including, but not limited to, the following damages allowed by §27.004(g) of the Residential Construction Liability Act: (a) The reasonable cost of repairs necessary to cure any construction defect; (b) The reasonable cost to remediate the mold and rebuild following remediation; (c) The reasonable and necessary cost for the replacement or repair of any damaged goods in the residence; 5 (d) Reasonable and necessary engineering and consulting fees; (e) The reasonable expenses of temporary housing; (f) Reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 21. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just, as provided by Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code, The Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Plaintiffs have presented their claim to Defendants pursuant to the latter statute. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 22. All conditions precedent have been met prior to the filing of this suit. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 23. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose within 50 days of service of this request, the information and material described in Rule 194.2. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, Michael Gavis and Katy Gavis respectfully request that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for Plaintiffs against Defendants for 6 the economic and actual damages together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, multiple damages, attorney’s fees, costs of court, expert fees, and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, THE FAUBUS FIRM By: /s/ Dax O. Faubus Dax O. Faubus State Bar No. 24010019 1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6400 Facsimile: (713) 222-7240 dax-notice@faubusfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7