Brown v. Pritchett, 43739

Citation633 S.W.2d 294
Decision Date27 April 1982
Docket NumberNo. 43739,43739
PartiesClara BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Odell PRITCHETT, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Raymond Howard, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

A. E. Nick, Easton Randolph, Jr., Ferguson, for defendant-respondent.

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the action of the trial court in granting defendant Pritchett's motion to set aside the judgment and enter judgment in accord with Pritchett's motion for directed verdict at the end of the evidence. Plaintiff brought his action in two counts. Count I was directed against Odell Pritchett for fraudulent misrepresentation concerning installation of a new roof on a house in Berkeley purchased by plaintiff. Pritchett was the real estate agent who handled the sale of the house to plaintiff. Count II was against the roofing contractor, Cosby, for breach of contract. A default judgment was entered against the contractor and that judgment is not before us for review. 1 The jury returned a verdict against defendant for actual damages of $7300 and punitive damages of $2500. We affirm.

The elements of fraud have been often set forth and need not be repeated here. See Cantrell v. Superior Loan Corp., 603 S.W.2d 627 (Mo.App.1980) (2-5). Each element must be established in order for plaintiff to recover. The evidence to support an inference of fraud must arise above mere suspicion and point logically and convincingly to that conclusion. Fraud is never presumed. Cantrell v. Superior Loan Corp., supra.

Plaintiff's theory was that defendant represented to plaintiff that a new roof was installed on the house in compliance with her sale contract and that the representation was knowingly false. It is doubtful that the evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion that the statement was false, and it is clearly insufficient to support a conclusion that defendant knew it was false.

At the time the sale contract was entered into defendant represented that he would have a new roof put on and then called plaintiff prior to closing to advise her the roof had been installed. 2 Plaintiff's sale contract, as accepted by the sellers, provided for a new roof. The sellers entered into a contract with Cosby which included a provision to "remove existing roof and install new three-in-one two hundred forty pound self-sealing shingle roof, including hips and ridges and total area over sun porch." The contract with Cosby provided for a 15 year guaranty on materials and three-year guaranty on workmanship. It further provided: "All work subject to passing Berkeley Inspection Department and providing agent with compliance report, Berkeley Inspection Department." The original inspection report made by the City of Berkeley after execution of the sale contract included a statement "Roof leaking, needs to be recovered with an approved roof covering." Subsequently, a certificate of compliance was issued by the Director of Public Works certifying that another inspection had been made by the City Engineer and there were no visible violations of the City building code. 3 This certificate was issued prior to the closing of the sale contract. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Teter v. Old Colony Co., s. 21533
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • February 18, 1994
    ...to uncover latent defects. See, e.g., Harkala v. Wildwood Realty, Inc., supra; Emerson v. Ham, 411 A.2d 687 (Me.1980); Brown v. Pritchett, 633 S.W.2d 294 (Mo.App.1982); Provost v. Miller, supra; Hoffman v. Connall, In this case, there was an independent investigation of the soundness of the......
  • Grosser v. Kandel-Iken Builders, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 22, 1983
    ...support an inference of fraud must arise above mere suspicion and point logically and convincingly to that conclusion. Brown v. Pritchett, 633 S.W.2d 294 (Mo.App.1982). All doubt should be entertained in favor of good faith in determining whether a statement constitutes a misrepresentation.......
  • Berman v. Regna
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 24, 1987
    ...must be supported by evidence which points logically and convincingly to the conclusion of fraudulent misrepresentation. Brown v. Pritchett, 633 S.W.2d 294 (Mo.App.1982) It should first be noted that plaintiff's evidence and trial theory varied considerably from her petition. From the petit......

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