ILNews

Evidence doesn’t show couple knew of mold when selling home

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed rulings in favor of the sellers of a home which later was found to contain mold. The buyers sued, claiming the sellers knew of the mold at the time of the sale, but the judges found the evidence shows otherwise.

Gregory and Susan Weber’s home was built in Fishers by Beazer Homes. After hearing reports of water intrusion in other nearby homes also built by Beazer, the Webers had an inspection done on their home. The inspection found defects related to water control, but did not note the presence of mold. The builder had the home inspected again and that report also did not mention mold. Remediation work was done on the home and, later that year, the Webers sold the home to William and Cleo Boehringer. The Webers responded “no” in the sales disclosure to the presence of mold.

Nearly a year after moving in, the Boehringers discovered mold in the house. They sued the Webers, Beazer and other parties, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation and mutual mistake of fact against the Webers. The Webers counterclaimed for costs and reasonable attorney fees for defending the complaint based on language in the purchase agreement.

Both parties move for summary judgment, which was denied and a jury trial began in December 2012. The jury ruled in favor of the Webers on the buyers’ claims and awarded them $425,000 on their counterclaim.

“The undisputed designated evidence indicates that the House was inspected …  and that neither inspector indicated the presence of mold. Moreover, both Webers submitted affidavits indicating that neither detected any evidence of mold while living in the House. If believed, this evidence establishes a lack of actual knowledge of mold on the part of the Webers, which is required,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in William E. Boehringer, Cleo A. Boehringer, and the Cleo A. Boehringer Trust v. Gregory J. Weber and Susan M. Weber, 29A05-1303-PL-154. “At the very least, this designated evidence generates a genuine issue of material fact on the question of actual knowledge, precluding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Boehringers on their fraudulent misrepresentation claim.”

The judges also found this evidence supports the jury’s verdict in favor of the Webers on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT