Boswell v. Coker

Citation519 So.2d 493
PartiesInez BOSWELL v. James H. COKER, d/b/a Jim Coker Property Sales. 86-724.
Decision Date31 December 1987
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Kearney Dee Hutsler III of Baxley, Dillard & Dauphin, Birmingham, for appellant.

Herbert W. Stone, Birmingham, for appellee James H. Coker, etc.

Douglas Corretti of Corretti & Newsom, Birmingham, for appellee Jefferson Fed. Savings and Loan Ass'n of Birmingham.

TORBERT, Chief Justice.

Inez Boswell, appellant, filed suit against James H. Coker, individually and doing business as Jim Coker Property Sales. Jefferson Federal Savings and Loan Association of Birmingham, Jim White, White Roofing and Supply Company, and Bob Andrews were also named as defendants.

The plaintiff claimed fraud against Jim Coker, Jefferson Federal, and White Roofing. She made negligence and breach of contract claims against the other defendants.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment, made final pursuant to A.R.Civ.P. 54(b), in favor of defendant James H. Coker. We reverse.

On June 5, 1984, Boswell executed a contract for the purchase of a 25-year-old house from Jefferson Federal. The sales contract provided that the property was being sold in its "as is" condition, subject to outstanding rights of redemption, and it also provided that no representations or warranties of any kind or character, express or implied, were being made as to the condition of the material and workmanship in the dwelling house located on the property. The sales contract further provided that the purchaser had inspected and examined the property and was purchasing it based on no representations or warranties--expressed or implied--but on her own judgment. Plaintiff Boswell had ample opportunity to inspect the premises prior to the closing.

Boswell made no complaint about the premises prior to entering the sales contract. Afterwards, she made repeated complaints to Coker, the real estate agent who sold the house to Boswell. Coker contacted a Mr. Andrews of Jefferson Federal about inspecting the roof. Andrews then asked Coker to call White Roofing and Supply Company and ask it to have someone inspect the roof. David White, of White Roofing, did inspect the roof. David White told Coker that, comparing the cost of repairing the roof to what it would cost to reroof the house, it would be better to reroof the house entirely. Coker related this information to Andrews. Andrews told Coker that Jefferson Federal did not want to put a new roof on the house, but asked Coker to see if temporary repairs could be made to the roof. Coker never mentioned to Boswell the fact that White Roofing had told him that, considering the cost of repairs, it would be better to put a new roof on the house. James White of White Roofing subsequently made some minor repairs to the roof. A letter regarding the roof was written by White Roofing to Jefferson Federal. This letter certified that the roof was reasonably sound and should be servicable for one year. Coker read this certification to Boswell over the telephone. Also, Boswell claims in an affidavit, Coker told her that the house was in excellent condition and that there was nothing wrong with the roof.

At the closing, the purchaser reaffirmed the "no representations or warranties" provisions of her original sales contract, by executing an additional document to that effect. The purchaser proceeded with the closing, after receiving and considering a copy of the certification letter from White Roofing. After the closing, Boswell discovered that the roof leaked. Mike White of White Roofing then inspected the roof and advised that a new roof was needed.


Summary judgment should be rendered only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or affidavits submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.; Sadie v. Martin, 468 So.2d 162 (Ala.1985). If there is any evidence supporting the position of the party against whom the motion is made, summary judgment cannot be granted. Ray v. Montgomery, 399 So.2d 230 (Ala.1980).


To recover under either the willful, reckless, or innocent species of fraud, the plaintiff must establish: 1) a false representation 2) that concerned a material, existing fact and 3) that the plaintiff relied on that false representation and 4) was damaged as a proximate result. Jones v. McGuffin, 454 So.2d 509 (Ala.1984). Also, to recover for misrepresentation, a plaintiff's reliance must be reasonable under the circumstances. Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 438 So.2d 757 (Ala.1983). If the circumstances are such that a reasonably prudent person exercising ordinary care would have discovered the facts, the plaintiff should not recover for misrepresentation. Id.

Ordinarily, a real estate agent selling a used home is under no duty to speak; however, "where one responds to an inquiry, it is his duty to impart correct information, and he is guilty of fraud if he denies all knowledge of a fact which he knows to exist, or if he gives equivocal, evasive, or misleading answers calculated to convey a false impression, even though literally true as far as they go, or if he fails to disclose the whole truth." Jackson Co. v. Faulkner, 55 Ala.App. 354, 363-64, 315 So.2d 591 (1975), quoting American Bonding Co. of Baltimore v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 206 Ala. 639, 641, 91 So. 480, 482 (1921); see Collier v. Brown, 285 Ala. 40, 228 So.2d 800 (1969); Ray v. Montgomery, 399 So.2d 230, 232 (Ala.1980).

The Jackson Co. case and the Torres case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 10, 1989
    ...So.2d 89 (Ala.1987); Syx v. Midfield Volkswagen, Inc., 518 So.2d 94 (Ala.1987); Traylor v. Bell, 518 So.2d 719 (Ala.1987); Boswell v. Coker, 519 So.2d 493 (Ala.1987); Pranzo v. ITEC, Inc., 521 So.2d 983 (Ala.1988); Cherokee Farms, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 526 So.2d 871 (Ala.1988), w......
  • Sperau v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 9, 1995
    ...the particular case and the question should be left to the jury. Joe Cooper & Associates, Inc., 614 So.2d 982 (Ala.1992); Boswell v. Coker, 519 So.2d 493 (Ala.1987). In this case, there was substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Ford occupied a superior position with r......
  • Teer v. Johnston, 1081613.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 30, 2010
    ...overturn Massey and its progeny. The Court acknowledged that it had ruled in at least one case released after Massey— Boswell v. Coker, 519 So.2d 493 (Ala.1987)—that an “as is” clause did not preclude the plaintiff's claim of fraud. The Moore Court summarized Boswell as follows: “In Boswell......
  • Era Class.Com, Inc. v. Stoddard, 2060144.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • October 5, 2007
    ...does not shield a vendor from liability for fraudulent inducement.' 619 So.2d at 1276. "The Moores primarily rely upon Boswell v. Coker, 519 So.2d 493 (Ala.1987), decided before Leatherwood, for the proposition that a fraud claim is not precluded by `as is' language and contract language st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT