This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Roche had a custom home built by D in 1995. Roche sold the home to Rogers, who in turn sold it to the P on August 1, 2000. P noticed water damage and mold. A building inspector determined that the damage was the result of a defectively constructed roof and defective rain gutters. Nothing in the record indicates that any of the owners between the original builder and the Speights had actual or imputed knowledge of these defects. P sued D alleging a breach of implied warranty of workmanlike construction and general negligence in construction of the home. Both moved for summary judgment. The district court held that P could not maintain an implied warranty claim and even if they could it would be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.