Stanislaw announces court ruling against Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson

Mumbai: An Idaho judge put an abrupt end to a $2.5 million arbitration demand filed by actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson against a contractor who allegedly did a poor job in building Hanks’ $10 million dollar Sun Valley home.

Judge Robert Elgee ruled that arbitration between these same parties in 2003 completely exonerated the contractor and settled the issue.

Hanks and Wilson argued that storey construction left defects in their home from construction completed in 2002. These claims continued after three arbitrators in 2003 dismissed their claim with prejudice and awarded them nothing.

Armed with new attorneys, Hanks and Wilson attempted to resuscitate their failed construction defect case, claiming the defects were latent. Filing a new demand for arbitration in November 2007, Hanks and Wilson claimed $2.5 million in damages caused by alleged construction/design errors.

"What Tom and Rita don’t realize is the law is not like movie making — you can’t reshoot until you get the outcome you like," said attorney Miles Stanislaw. "The repeated legal actions are baseless and that is exactly what the court ruled today."

"I am happy that this nightmare is finally over," said Storey Construction owner Gary Storey. "This ongoing harassment from Hanks and Wilson has put tremendous stress on me, my family and my business."

The arbitration awarded Storey almost $3 million for the balance on the construction work and nothing to Hanks and Wilson.

According to Storey Construction and its attorneys, Storey has already successfully defended against the defendants’ false accusations of construction defects — accusations made to avoid paying Storey money that was due. They claim the defendants are seeking to relitigate a case they previously lost, and in doing so, are inflicting severe harassment on Storey.

Hanks and Wilson are now faced with defending themselves against charges of abuse of process, filed by Storey.

About Author

BOC Editorial

Learn More →

Leave a Reply