ILNews

Sale to trust creates first impression

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A sale of a home to a trust that included disputed errors in a sales disclosure form presented an issue of first impression for the Indiana Court of Appeals Monday.

Indiana Code Section 32-21-5 spells out when an owner isn’t liable for any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions of information in the disclosure form. It also states when Chapter 1 of the statute doesn’t apply, and that includes transfers to a living trust.

Rebecca Hoffmeister-Repp sold her lake-front home to Rex Breeden, who bought the home through his revocable trust. When she was preparing the home for sale, she signed a seller’s residential real-estate sales disclosure form saying that there weren’t any moisture or water problems in the basement, crawl space area, or any other area.

More than 10 years before she sold the home, Hoffmeister-Repp saw water in a floor vent and heating duct. She and her husband had a sump pump installed and after that, she never noticed water in the ducts and assumed the issue was fixed.

Breeden saw the sales disclosure form, saw issues with the roof and siding, and got the home at a reduced priced to cover the costs of repairs. Breeden also hired an inspector, who advised Breeden to hire someone else to determine if there was actual water penetration in some decayed wood trim in the house. Breeden didn’t follow through with that recommendation and purchased the home.

He later discovered damage to some structural walls and defective conditions of the duct work. On behalf the trust, he sued Hoffmeister-Repp alleging her statements on the form constituted fraud to allow for damages or rescission, and there was a mutual mistake in the contract which entitled the trust to rescission of the purchase agreement.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Hoffmeister-Repp, which the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. The suit brought up for the first time what liability a seller to a trust would have for errors contained in the form.

Both sides argued the statute was not ambiguous, but both interpreted it differently. The trust claimed it wasn’t required to establish that any error was within actual knowledge of Hoffmeister-Repp because of the exception involving trusts. She claimed application of the exception to include selling to trusts would allow buyers to avoid the terms of the statute by creating a living trust and having the trust act as the purchaser of record for residential real estate.

In Rex E. Breeden Revocable Trust v. Rebecca Jane Hoffmeister-Repp, No. 03A04-1003-CT-185, the judges found the statute to be ambiguous and ruled in favor of Hoffmeister-Repp. They noted that exceptions to the requirement of a disclosure form are based on a special relationship between the buyer and seller, and some exceptions take into account that the seller is unlikely to have actually lived in the home such that knowledge of the home’s components can’t be assumed.

“Because I.C. § 32-21-5-10 requires this Disclosure Form to be completed and signed prior to an offer for the sale of the residence is accepted, the ninth exception—transfer to a living trust—can necessarily only come into play if the residence is purchased by the seller’s own living trust,” wrote Judge Patricia Riley. “If the sale is occasioned between a seller and a non-related living trust, the seller will always include a Disclosure Form as he is unaware as to the identity of the prospective buyer.”

The judges also held the trust failed to show Hoffmeister-Repp had actual knowledge of the moisture problems in the duct work at the moment she completed the disclosure form, and that there was insufficient designated evidence to support a finding of mutual mistake.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT