Gables at Sterling Village Homeowners Association, Inc. v Castlewood Sterling Village I, LLC et al.

Association appealed summary judgment and directed verdicts on its claims arising from alleged defective construction and a judgment for defense costs and fees to one defendant. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed summary judgment to Castlewood holding Association’s attempt to prove privity of contract though homeowner’s purchase contract and a deed failed on appeal as it did not challenge the district court’s ruling the issue was raised in an untimely manner and held the declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions did not create privity because there was nothing manifesting an intent to transfer contractual claims from homeowners to Association and the Court declared itself unable to remedy the policy problem of a homeowners association being unable to assert claims in these circumstances as correcting statutory problems is the job of the legislature. The Court affirmed directed verdict to Castlewood on the breach of fiduciary duty claim as Association did not provide expert testimony on the standard of care owe and the issues involved here, the amount needed for a reserve account to make repairs to be fiscally sound and disclosures of material facts as to the condition of the areas to be maintained, are outside the common knowledge of jurors and testimony about the standard in the trade or profession was required. It reversed the defense cost and fee award as the claim was based on Association’s articles of incorporation and the issue of whether indemnity was applicable here should have been raised at trial, was not and thus any claim was waived and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

State v Lopez

Lopez appealed his murder conviction. The court reversed and remanded. It held eth district court erred in allowing expert testimony about the alleged victim’s risk of suicide because the only evidence before eth district court was the method employed is accepted a prediction tool for living patients not decedents and the erro was harmful as it was the strongest evidence presented by the State in support of its homicide theory while the defense presented expert testimony the shooting here was a suicide. It held the district court also erred in admitting prior bad acts evidence as the episodes were too different form each other and the shooting here to establish a modus operandi, did not establish intermediate inferences about identity, were admitted for propensity purposes and even if the doctrine of chances applies in identity cases it did not justify admitting the evidence here as the alleged victims had time to coordinate their stories, the acts were dissimilar and infrequent and the error was harmful as there was conflicting evidence as to whether the victim shot herself and thus reasonable likelihood the other bad acts swayed the jury.