Appellant borrowers sought review of the order of the Superior Court of Mariposa County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of respondent savings and loan in an action based on a building loan agreement.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. shares pros and cons of joint venture
Overview
Appellant borrowers contended that respondent savings and loan had made payments to a building contractor when it knew or should have known that construction work was not done according to specifications or that certain expenses claimed to have been incurred by the contractor were in fact not incurred. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent. On review, appellant contended that respondent owed appellants a duty to inspect regularly the construction of the house to see that the builder complied with the plans and specifications. The court rejected appellants contentions, finding that no such duty existed. The court noted that appellants had read and understood the contract and they were bound to its terms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
Outcome
The court affirmed the order of the lower court that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent savings and loan. The court held that respondent did not owe appellant borrowers a duty to inspect regularly the construction of the house to see that the builder complied with the plans and specifications.
