Bloor v. Fritz
| Decision Date | 01 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 35740-2-II.,35740-2-II. |
| Citation | 180 P.3d 805,143 Wn. App. 718 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eddie BLOOR and Eva Bloor, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Robert A. FRITZ and Charmaine A. Fritz, and the marital community comprised thereof; Lance Miller, a single person; Allen & Associates; Windermere Real Estate Service Co., a Washington corporation, Appellants. and Cowlitz County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Defendant. |
Brandi Lane Adams, Demco Law Firm PS, Seattle, WA, Michael A. Lehner, Carl R. Rodrigues, Attorneys at Law, Portland, OR, for Appellants.
Ronald S. Marshall, Attorney at Law, Kelso, WA, John Edward Justice, Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer et al, Olympia, WA, for Defendant.
Thomas Charles Althauser, Todd S. Rayan, Olson Althauser Samuelson & Rayan LLP, Centralia, WA, for Respondents.
¶ 1 Eddie and Eva Bloor purchased a home from Robert and Charmaine Fritz through Lance Miller, an agent at LC Realty, Inc. After learning that the home was contaminated by a methamphetamine lab, the Bloors sued the Fritzes, Miller, LAM Management, LC Realty, and Cowlitz County.1 The trial court found that the Fritzes negligently misrepresented the condition of the property and that Miller failed to disclose a known material fact about the property and negligently misrepresented its condition, thereby violating the Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Miller and LC Realty argue that substantial evidence does not support the trial court's findings that Miller knew of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property and failed to disclose it; they also argue that the Bloors failed to prove an Act violation. The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in (1) failing to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim and (2) rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement. The Fritzes and Miller both challenge the trial court's damage and attorney fee awards. We hold that the trial court erred in calculating damages in conjunction with rescinding the contract, specifically by granting the Bloors more damages than necessary to restore them to their pre-contract position. Otherwise, we find no error and, thus, affirm.
¶ 2 Robert Fritz owned a home and approximately five acres of land on Spirit Lake Highway in Cowlitz County. He and his wife, Charmaine, moved from the home in 2001 and hired LAM Management, Inc.(LAM) to manage the property as a rental. Lance Miller and Jayson Brudvik are co-owners and operators of LAM. Miller and Brudvik are also licensed real estate agents for LC Realty, Inc.
¶ 3 In January 2004, Jason and Charles Waddington, Pam Jackson, and Sarah Holton occupied the Spirit Lake property under a rental agreement through LAM. On January 30, the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Joint Narcotics Task Force executed a search warrant at the property. Task force members discovered a marijuana growing operation in the house's basement and implements of methamphetamine manufacturing on and under the house's rear deck and in a hot tub on the deck. Although the task force processed the site as a methamphetamine lab, no one from the task force or any other law enforcement agency notified the Cowlitz County Health Department, the Washington State Department of Health, or any other state agency of the methamphetamine lab. The State charged Jason Waddington with manufacturing marijuana and Charles Waddington with manufacturing methamphetamine.
¶ 4 On January 31, the task force issued a press release that identified the Spirit Lake property as the site of the drug search, identified the people involved, and stated that the task force had removed a marijuana growing operation and implements of a small methamphetamine lab from the property. On February 1, the Longview Daily News published an article that reported the information in the press release.
¶ 5 Charmaine learned of the police activity at the property and contacted numerous law enforcement agencies to find out what had occurred at the property. On February 2, she contacted the task force and spoke with Judy Conner, the support staff specialist. Connor told Charmaine that the police had arrested people on the property and that the task force had confiscated a marijuana grow operation and implements of a methamphetamine lab.
¶ 6 The following day, Charmaine spoke with Detective Darren Ullmann, a member of the task force who had been present at the search. Ullmann told Charmaine that the task force had removed implements of a methamphetamine lab from the property. Charmaine shared this information with Robert. Miller also contacted law enforcement to learn the status of the property and the arrests in the first few days of February.
¶ 7 LAM initiated eviction proceedings against the Waddington tenants, and they left the property in February or March 2004. LAM subsequently re-rented the property for a short period of time but evicted those tenants in May 2004. The Fritzes then decided to sell the property.
¶ 8 In preparation for the sale, the Fritzes cleaned the house, painted it, and changed the floor coverings. During this time, Charmaine spoke with John and Jenae Cyr, who lived across the street from the property. Charmaine told the Cyrs that she and her husband felt they were lucky that the Waddington tenants had not cooked methamphetamine inside the house but had cooked it only on the back porch.
¶ 9 Eddie and Eva Bloor moved to Cowlitz County from Missouri in 2004, and began looking for a home to purchase. Brudvik showed them the Spirit Lake property. The Bloors decided to make an offer to buy the property. Miller represented both the Fritzes and the Bloors in the transaction.
¶ 10 Robert completed a seller's disclosure statement in which he represented that the property had never been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. Miller reviewed the disclosure statement with the Bloors, but he did not disclose that the drug task force had discovered a marijuana grow operation or methamphetamine lab on the property. The Fritzes accepted the Bloors' offer and the transaction closed in August 2004. The Bloors moved into the home shortly thereafter.
¶ 11 In September, the Bloors' son heard from a member of the community that the property was known as a "drug house." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 20. The Bloors began investigating and found an on-line version of the February 1 Daily News article. Eva contacted the task force, where Sergeant Kevin Tate confirmed that the task force had confiscated a methamphetamine lab at the property. She then contacted the Cowlitz County Health Department, where Audrey Shaver confirmed that nobody had reported the lab to the health department and that it would investigate the matter to determine what action it would take.
¶ 12 On October 22, Shaver told the Bloors that the health department had determined that the property was contaminated by the methamphetamine manufacturing and was not fit for occupancy. She told the Bloors that they could not remove their personal property from the house because of the risk of cross-contamination. The Bloors left the residence as instructed, leaving nearly all their personal belongings in the house and garage.
¶ 13 The health department posted an order prohibiting use of the property. The order stated that the Bloors were financially responsible for the cost of remediation, that a certified decontamination contractor would have to perform the remediation, and that use of the property was subject to criminal charges. Occupancy of buildings contaminated by methamphetamine manufacturing is dangerous to the health and safety of occupants.
¶ 14 The Bloors stayed with relatives until they could secure a place to live, eventually moving to Spokane. They had to repurchase clothing, bedding, furniture, and other necessities. They were unable to both support themselves and make their monthly mortgage payments. The Bloors experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the loss of their home, personal effects, and keepsakes.
¶ 15 The Bloors sued the Fritzes, Miller, LAM Management,2 LC Realty, and Cowlitz County. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for the Bloors, awarding them damages jointly and severally against all the defendants for emotional distress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of use of the property, and damage to the Bloors' credit. It also awarded the Bloors $10,000 as punitive damages and $13,907.30 for attorney fees against Miller and LC Realty under the Act. It ordered the contract between the Bloors and the Fritzes rescinded, requiring the Fritzes to pay the Bloors' lender the purchase price, accrued interest, late charges, and foreclosure fees, and the Bloors to return the property to the Fritzes. Finally, the trial court awarded the Bloors $18,975.55 in expenses against the Fritzes and, applying a 1.2 multiplier, $125,335.25 in attorney fees against the Fritzes, Miller, and LC Realty; it awarded the Bloors their statutory costs against all defendants.
¶ 16 Miller and LC Realty (collectively Miller) principally argue that (1) insufficient evidence supports the trial court's findings that Miller knew about the meth lab, (2) the trial court erred in finding that he violated the Act, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees with a multiplier and all the Bloors' litigation expenses. In addition to joining Miller in several claimed errors, the Fritzes principally argue that (1) the economic loss rule precludes the Bloors from seeking damages for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, (2) the trial court erred in rescinding the contract rather than awarding damages, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding damages for emotional distress, income loss, and injury to the Bloors' credit ratings. We hold that the trial court erred only in awarding the Bloors damages beyond those necessary to restore them to their pre-contract position.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets
...omitted) (quoting Brand v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash.2d 659, 672–73, 989 P.2d 1111 (1999) ); see also Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wash.App. 718, 747, 180 P.3d 805 (2008) (trial court was not required to segregate fees where "claims arose out of the same set of facts" and it was "virtually i......
-
Forbes v. American Bldg. Maintenance Co.
...support the conclusions of law and judgment. City of Tacoma v. State, 117 Wash.2d 348, 361, 816 P.2d 7 (1991); Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wash.App. 718, 730, 180 P.3d 805 (2008). We presume the trial court's findings are adequately supported by the evidence. Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, I......
-
Berryman v. Metcalf
...143, 169 P.3d 487 (2007), aff'd, [312 P.3d 765]166 Wash.2d 526, 540, 210 P.3d 995 (2009); Bloor v. Fritz. 143 Wash.App. 718, 750–53, 180 P.3d 805 (2008); Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wash.App. 409, 446–53, 195 P.3d 985 (2008); Durand v. HIMC Corp., 151 Wash.App. 818, 823, 827, 214 P.3d 1......
-
V & E Medical Imaging Services, Inc. v. Stickney
...fee is the reasonable number of hours incurred in obtaining the successful result multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate." Bloor, 143 Wn.App. at 750. [23] The trial court did not discuss DeCourseys' submission concerning the attorneys they had consulted while they were still acting pro se......
-
Table of Cases
...Timberlands, Inc. v. Timber Indus., Inc., 28 Wn. App. 669, 626 P.2d 30, review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1027 (1981): 8.4(1) Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wn. App. 718, 180 P.3d 805 (2008): 18.3, 18.4(4), 18.4(6), 18.5(4) Board of Church Erection Fund v. First Presbyterian Church, 19 Wash. 455,53 P. 671 (1898......
-
§ 18.3 - The Broker As Agent
...of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW. Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 23 P.3d 455 (2001); Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wn.App. 718, 180 P.3d 805 (2008). The Svendsen and Bloor cases are discussed in greater detail in §§18.4(4), 18.4(6), and 18.5(4), This section will briefl......
-
§ 18.4 - The Broker's Duties to Clients
...is not the buyer's principal. Under prior common law, it is highly unlikely that such a disclosure needed to be made. In Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wn.App. 718, 180 P.3d 805 (2008), both the sellers and their real estate agent had actual knowledge of and failed to disclose that methamphetamine was......
-
§ 18.5 - Remedies for Breach of Duty
...found to have violated the CPA by failing to disclose a known material fact in connection with the sale of the property. Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wn.App. 718, 180 P.3d 805 (2008) (broker failed to disclose actual knowledge that there was a history of illegal drug manufacturing on the subject The......