Date: 09-23-2014

Case Style: Thomas M. Saicheck v. Taber LeBlanc

Case Number: CJ-2009-713

Judge: Gary E. Miller

Court: District Court, Canadian County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mike Rogalin

Defendant's Attorney: Joe Heselton

Description: Yukon, Canadian County, Oklahoma - Thomas M. Saicheck and Marilyn Tahl sued Taber LeBlanc d/b/a Homes by Taber and Taber Built Homes, LLC on fraud theories alleging:

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Thomas M. Saichek and Marilyn Tahl, by and through their attorney of record, Michael P. Rogalin, and for their cause of action against the Defendant state:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs, Thomas M. Saichek and Marilyn Tahi, are residents of the state of California (hereinafter referred to as “Buyers”).
2. Taber LeBlanc is an individual residing in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and doing business in Canadian County, Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”).
3. Taber Built Homes, L.L.C. is an Oklahoma limited liability company doing business in Canadian County, Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as “Seller”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. All acts complained of occurred in Canadian County, Oklahoma.
FACTUAL BASIS
5. On December 28, 2005, Contractor, Taber LeBlanc, doing business as Homes by Taber, certified to the City of Oklahoma City as public record that the house built by Contractor
“will conform to the attached plans, specifications and drawings and to the Codes and Ordinances of the City of Oklahoma City”.
6. Defendants in concert contracted for and were the supervisors of the construction of a house located at 804 Dana Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as “Home”) and completed construction of the house.
7. Plaintiffs, relying on the representatives of Defendants that the House was constructed per plan specifications, entered into a contract to purchase the house.
8. Plaintiffs on or about July 26, 2006 purchased the home.
9. On March 6, 2007, Plaintiffs were told that there were some cracks to the interior walls. Plaintiffs’ agent notified Defendants of the cracks.
10. On or about June 29, 2007, the Defendants’ agent, Cody (last name unlcnown) advised that the repairs would be made.
11. Over a period of months, Defendants said the problems would be fixed.
12. In September 2008, Plaintiffs had a contractor review the foundation. It was determined the foundation was, in fact, not built to the design specifications. The foundation was determined to need piering at a cost in excess of $22,000.00.
13. Defendant’s were put on notice of the needed repair.
14. Defendants never made the needed repairs and have since refused to make repairs to the foundation.
15. Plaintiff relied on Defendants’ representation that the foundation would be built to specifications.
COUNT I - FRAUD
16. Allegations 1-15 are incorporated herein by reference.
17. Defendants made a false representation of material fact when the assertion was made that the foundation would be built to specification.
18. Defendants made the assertion recklessly without knowledge of the truth that the foundation would be properly constructed.
19. Defendants made the assertions concerning the foundation with the intent that the Plaintiffs would act and rely upon the assertion.
20. Plaintiffs relied upon the Defendants’ assertion.
COUNT H- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
21. Plaintiff realleges and restates 1-15 and 17-20 herein as if fully set forth.
22. Defendants held themselves out to be able to contract to construct the home in a workman-like manner.
23. Defendants did not properly supervise or construct the foundation in a workman-like manner.
24. As a result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.
COUNT III - BREACH OF ORAL AGREEMENT
25. Plaintiff incorporates allegations 1-15, 17-20 and 22-24 herein as if fully set forth.
26. Defendants orally asserted that they would fix Plaintiffs home.
27. Defendants have failed to fix Plaintiffs home.
28. As a result, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of$lO,000.00.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgments as follows:
Count I Damages in excess of $10,000.00
Count II Damages in excess of$10,000.00
Count III Damages in excess of $10,000.00
Plus on each count costs, attorney fees and any and all such further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

Outcome: 09-22-2014 CTFREE - 8018366 Sep 24 2014 11:36:03:760AM - $ 0.00
CRT MIN. THIS COMES ON TODAY FOR HEARING ON DAMAGES. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, MICHAEL ROGALIN. THERE'S NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT. THE COURT IS ADVISED NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE PLAINTIFF ANNOUNCES 'READY' AND THE COURT PROCEEDS TO TAKE SWORN TESTIMONY. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE COURT FINDS THERE ARE 3 CAUSES OF ACTION AND AWARDS DAMAGES IN EACH CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,932.00. MR. ROGALIN TO PREPARE AN ORDER. JUDGE GARY MILLER

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: