ILNews

COA invites high court to revisit Indiana law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case involving the purchase of a home, Indiana Court of Appeals judges today disagreed as to whether the home sellers should be granted summary judgment in a fraud suit. The judges unanimously did agree to encourage the Indiana Supreme Court to re-evaluate a rule that protects a seller from a lawsuit, even if he lies about a property, as long as the prospective buyer had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the property.

At issue in Drew and Donna Dickerson v. Donna Strand and Gloria German, No. 54A01-0807-CV-334, is whether Donna Strand and Gloria German can be held liable for fraud arising from the sale of their house to the Dickersons.

When Strand and German bought their home, it had termite damage, which the seller paid to treat. When Strand and German went to sell the home five years later, termite damage was found again and disclosed in a home inspection report. They claimed to have fixed the issue and said there were no structural problems with the building. The Dickersons bought the home, relying on disclosures and documents from Strand and German and never had their own inspection done.

After discovering more termite damage than what was revealed to them, the Dickersons filed a complaint against Strand and German alleging they falsely represented the property hadn't suffered structural termite damage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Strand and German.

Under Indiana law, the appellate court didn't need to decide whether Strand and German's representations in the documents were fraudulent because the Dickersons had no right to rely on those representations, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. The majority relied heavily on the Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Cagney v. Cuson, 77 Ind. 494, 1881 WL 6689 (1881), in which the high court held even as to fraudulent representations operating as an inducement to the sale or exchange of property, a purchaser has no right to rely on those representations when he has had reasonable opportunity to examine the property and judge for himself its qualities.

"The fact that the Dickersons did not actually inspect the house is irrelevant; under Cagney, it is the opportunity to inspect that matters," wrote the judge. "We encourage our supreme court to reevaluate the social value of a rule allowing a seller of property to lie with impunity as long as the prospective buyer had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the property. But until then, we are bound by that rule."

In her dissent, Judge Nancy Vaidik agreed that the Supreme Court needs to examine the common law rule that a residential real estate buyer may not rely upon a seller's assertions regarding the property where the buyer has a reasonable chance to inspect the property in light of Indiana's disclosure form statute, Sections 32-21-5-1 to -13.

"From my reading of Indiana Code Sections 32-21-5-1 to -13, I agree with (cases Reum v. Mercer and Verrall v. Machura) that the relevant question now is whether the seller of covered residential real estate actually knew about the property's defects when filling out the disclosure form," wrote Judge Vaidik.

Because the record shows genuine issue of material fact whether the sellers had actual knowledge of the structural damage at the time they completed the disclosure form, she would reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT