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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT