Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Marisue Van Zant v. Willow Creek I Neighborhood Association, Inc.
Date: 12-19-2012
Case Number: CJ-2009-8382
Judge: Linda G. Morrissey
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Brian E. Dittrich
Defendant's Attorney: R. Scott Savage and Mary Elizabeth Nesser
Description:
Marisue Van Zant, Van Zant Family Revocable Trust, Jim Van Zant and Richard Hoffman sued Willow Creek I Neighborhood Association, Inc., Bud Proffitt and Jim Scalet on breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and punitive damage theories.
Plaintiffs were owners of condominium units at the Willow Creek I condominium complex in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege that their property was damaged by water and mold as a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants.
Defendants deny the allegations of the Plaintiffs. Defendants also seek damages from Plaintiffs for overdue fees and assessment charges.
Defendants appeared and claimed:
1. Plaintiffs' Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as directed at Defendant Bud Proffitt.
2. Plaintiffs' Claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 12 0.5 § 95.
3. Estoppel. Apex Siding & Roofing Co. v. First Federal Say. & Loan Ass 'n of Shawnee. 19560K 195, 30! P.2d 352
4. Laches. Hedges v. Hedges, 2002 OK 92, 66 P.3d 364; Nichols v. Nichols, 20090K 43, 222 P.3d 1049.
5. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by their failure to mitigate their damages. Tulsa MunicipalAirport Trust v. Nat. Gypsum, 19760K CIV APP 6, 551 P.2d 304; Murduck v. City of Blackwell, 1946 OK 365, 176 P.2d 1002.
6. Plaintiffs were comparatively/contrihutorily negligent. 23 0.S. § 13;
7. The damages asserted by Plaintiffs were the result of the acts or omissions of parties over whom Defendants neither exercised, nor had the right to exercise, direction and control.
8. Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages are barred by the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America.
Defendants counterclaimed asserting:
1. Breach of Covenant — Defendants seeks the repayment of monthly assessments, late fees and finance charges which Plaintiff have unilaterally failed to pay. Such failure on the part of Plaintiffs is a direct violation of the Declaration Creating Unit Ownership Estate. As of March 31, 2012, the Van Zant Plaintiff owe a total of $1 6,570.46 for late dues and assessment charges. As of March 31, 2012, Defendant Hoff man owes $19.331.58 for late dues and assessment charges.
Plaintiffs were owners of condominium units at the Willow Creek I condominium complex in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege that their property was damaged by water and mold as a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants.
Defendants deny the allegations of the Plaintiffs. Defendants also seek damages from Plaintiffs for overdue fees and assessment charges.
Defendants appeared and claimed:
1. Plaintiffs' Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as directed at Defendant Bud Proffitt.
2. Plaintiffs' Claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 12 0.5 § 95.
3. Estoppel. Apex Siding & Roofing Co. v. First Federal Say. & Loan Ass 'n of Shawnee. 19560K 195, 30! P.2d 352
4. Laches. Hedges v. Hedges, 2002 OK 92, 66 P.3d 364; Nichols v. Nichols, 20090K 43, 222 P.3d 1049.
5. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by their failure to mitigate their damages. Tulsa MunicipalAirport Trust v. Nat. Gypsum, 19760K CIV APP 6, 551 P.2d 304; Murduck v. City of Blackwell, 1946 OK 365, 176 P.2d 1002.
6. Plaintiffs were comparatively/contrihutorily negligent. 23 0.S. § 13;
7. The damages asserted by Plaintiffs were the result of the acts or omissions of parties over whom Defendants neither exercised, nor had the right to exercise, direction and control.
8. Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages are barred by the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America.
Defendants counterclaimed asserting:
1. Breach of Covenant — Defendants seeks the repayment of monthly assessments, late fees and finance charges which Plaintiff have unilaterally failed to pay. Such failure on the part of Plaintiffs is a direct violation of the Declaration Creating Unit Ownership Estate. As of March 31, 2012, the Van Zant Plaintiff owe a total of $1 6,570.46 for late dues and assessment charges. As of March 31, 2012, Defendant Hoff man owes $19.331.58 for late dues and assessment charges.
Outcome:
Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Marisue Van Zant v. Willow Creek I Neighborhood Associati...?
The outcome was: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Which court heard Marisue Van Zant v. Willow Creek I Neighborhood Associati...?
This case was heard in District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was Linda G. Morrissey.
Who were the attorneys in Marisue Van Zant v. Willow Creek I Neighborhood Associati...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Brian E. Dittrich. Defendant's attorney: R. Scott Savage and Mary Elizabeth Nesser.
When was Marisue Van Zant v. Willow Creek I Neighborhood Associati... decided?
This case was decided on December 19, 2012.