ILNews

Court upholds home developer's liability

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court judgment in favor of homeowners against the developer of their neighborhood, affirming the developer is liable for misleading the homeowners as to what type of homes would be built in the new neighborhood.

In Robert K. Yeager, et al. v. David A. McManama, et al., 49A02-0607-CV-614, the Yeagers, sole members and owners of Yeager Realty, the developer, planned to build Emerald Highlands in the residential neighborhood Murphy's Landing. The developer executed and recorded the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of the Murphy's Landing Ownership, and included specific language applying to Emerald Highlands and a site plan for the area.

The McManamas and Cotteys agreed to purchase lots and build homes in the new neighborhood, relying on information from the developer and its exclusive builder, Steven Morse, that the neighborhood would be a high-quality, exclusive, upscale neighborhood. Once the plaintiffs built their more than 5,000-square-foot homes in the neighborhood, they noticed that the other homes being built were less than half the size of their homes, causing their home values to decrease.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging fraud, constructive fraud, or fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The developers were sole members of the Architectural Review Board, which was to regulate the design, appearance, use and location of homes in the neighborhood to maintain and enhance values and appearance.

The Yeagers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because the doctrines of fraud and constructive fraud do not apply, there is no fiduciary duty between the parties; and fraudulent concealment is not procedurally applicable in this case.

The trial court ruled the defendants owed the plaintiffs "a duty of fair dealing and honesty" and "a duty of good faith and fair dealing, as well as 'contractual obligations,' pursuant to the Declaration" and concluded the evidence showed the fraud and a failure to meet contractual and fiduciary duties.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision. The Yeagers were the sole owners and developers of the project and had drafted, executed, and recorded the neighborhood's declaration. The Yeagers were also sole members of the Architectural Review Board and were responsible for enforcing the standards of the homes constructed in Emerald Highlands.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT