Date: 11-01-2012

Case Style: James Dunn v. Lifestyler Development, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2006-1511

Judge: Lori Walkley

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Victor Roderick Grider

Defendant's Attorney: Thomas J. Daniel

Description: Plaintiffs alleged and stated as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are the owners of a single family residence located at .11220 Arbor Lake Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73170.

2. Defendants, by and through their agents and/or employees, designed and constructed the residence for plaintiffs located at 11220 Arbor Lake Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73170. Subsequent to the construction of Plaintiffs’ residence, Defendant Lifestyle Development LLC did transfer all its assets to Defendant Foster Design and Construction LLC for the purpose of continuing the business of Lifestyle Development LLC. At the Time of Lifestyle’s asset transfer Glen Foster Jr. was the sole owner of Lifestyle and a 50 % owner of Foster Design and Construction LLC. The asset transfer left Lifestyle Development LLC without any assets or the ability to generate income or pay any outstanding liability it may have as a result of this lawsuit. The continuation of Lifestyle Development’s LLC business and asset transfer to Foster Design and Construction LLC rcnders Foster Design and Construction LLC liable for any liabilities of Lifestyle established in this action

3. Defendants, by and through their agents and/or employees, negligently designed, specified and constructcd the plaintiffs’ residence; defendants’ negligence resulted in conditions which caused, and continue to cause, the growth of toxic mold within the residence. Defendants’ negligence resulted in the contamination of the plaintiffs’ residence with toxic mold. Defendants’ negligence caused plaintiffs to suffer damages to property, including but not limited to, loss of use of the residence, loss of income, and diminution in fair market value; defendants’ negligence caused plaintiffs to suffer personal injury as a direct result of the toxic mold exposure. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding $10,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

4. Plaintiffs thrther allege that defendants, by and through theft agents and / or employees, negligently constructed the residence; defendants’ negligence resulted in physical damage to interior and exterior surfaces, installation of substandard materials, and incompetent workmanship. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding $10,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

5. As a further result of defendants’ negligence and other wrongful conduct, plaintiffs’ have been prevented from using their residence as contemplated by its design. Plaintiffs have been forced to abandon certain rooms, relocate family members, remove interior furnishings, carpeting, fixtures, equipment and supplies. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered the loss of use and enjoyment of theft property. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding $10,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

6. As a further result of defendants’ negligence and other wrongful conduct, plaintiffs’ residence requires extensive repair, replacement and environmental remediation. As a result, inspection, testing, packing/storage, removal, remediation and/or replacement of interior surfaces, cleaning and/or replacement of contaminated personal property, furnishings, carpeting, fixtures, equipment and air handling components are required. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding $10,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

7. As a further resuit of defendants’ negligence and. other wrongful conduct, plaintiffs have suffered severe diminution in the fair market value of theft residence; plaintiffs’ have been damaged in an amount exceeding $10,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

8. As a result of defendants’ negligence, and other wrongful conduct, plaintiffs, and their children, have individually suffered physical and emotional injuries requiring medical treatment. Plaintiffs, and their children, have incurred, and will continue to incur, medical hills as a result of this treatment. Plaintiffs, and their children, individually, have been damaged in an amount in excess of$ 10,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request judgment against the defendants for the personal injuries and property damages described herein, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

Defendants, for their answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, deny each and every allegation contained therein unless hereafter expressly admitted, and further state as follows:

1. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph one of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

2. Defendant Lifestyle Development, L.L.C. (“Lifestyle�) admits that it designed and constructed Plaintiffs’ residence. Defendants admit that Glenn Foster, Jr. was the sole owner of Lifestyle and a fifty percent owner of Foster Design & Construction, L.L.C. at the times referenced in paragraph two of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph two of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph three of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

4. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph four of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph five of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

6. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph six of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph seven ofPlaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

8. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph eight of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Foster Design & Construction, L.L.C. are barred by the statute of limitations.

2. Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against Foster Design & Construction, L.L.C. for which relief can be granted.

WHEREFORE, having fhlly answered, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Amended Petition and for all other relief as may be appropriate.

Outcome: This matter previously came before the Court on March 25, 2009, on the Motion for Summary Judgment of the Defendant, Foster Development Group, L.L.C. Pursuant to the handwritten summary order entered by the Court on March 25, 2009, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment is sustained as prayed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: