Crawford v. Williams
| Decision Date | 19 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 45745,45745 |
| Citation | 375 S.E.2d 223,258 Ga. 806 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. WILLIAMS, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Adams, Barfield & Dunaway, David Dunaway, Thomaston, for Robert Mallory Crawford.
Don H. Taliaferro, Griffin, for Harold C. Williams, et al.
In this action to recover damages for fraud the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed. Williams v. Crawford, 186 Ga.App. 643, 368 S.E.2d 337 (1988). We granted certiorari and now reverse.
The tort of fraud has five elements: a false representation by a defendant, scienter, intention to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, justifiable reliance by plaintiff, and damage to plaintiff. Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga.App. 656, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978). For an action for fraud to survive a motion for summary judgment, there must be some evidence from which a jury could find each element of the tort. In deciding whether the evidence presented is sufficient to raise a triable issue as to each element, the court must resolve all disputes of fact and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 195 S.E.2d 429 (1973).
Construing all disputed facts in favor of the nonmoving party here, the facts are as follows. Petitioner Crawford sold a 3.54 acre tract of land in rural Pike County to Mr. and Mrs. Williams. The Williams bought the property believing that it encompassed an area containing a house, a well and a driveway. Two years after the sale they learned that the well and part of the driveway were not on their land. 1 They sued Crawford alleging that he had fraudulently misrepresented that the well and driveway were located on the property being sold. Crawford did not represent to the Williams that he knew the exact boundaries of his property; however, the real estate agent showing the property identified the well as the water source for the property and provided information about the depth of the well without mentioning that it was not located on the property. The agent also told them that they did not have to prepare a survey since one prepared several years earlier would suffice. The Williams did not examine the existing survey or have a new survey made.
Crawford moved for summary judgment asserting that the Williams had not demonstrated any misrepresentation and that the Williams had not exercised due diligence to protect themselves from the alleged fraud. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Crawford, finding that the Williams had not used ordinary means of information to discover the boundaries of the property. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals held (1) the record did not demonstrate as a matter of law that no fraud occurred; 2 and (2) that although the Williams could have protected themselves by commissioning a survey of the property, failure to obtain a survey does not constitute a lack of due diligence as a matter of law.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that failure to obtain a survey does not constitute a lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abrams & Wofsy v. Renaissance Inv. Corp.
...1081, 110 S.Ct. 1813, 108 L.Ed.2d 943 (1990); Seale v. Miller, 698 F.Supp. 883, 898 (N.D.Ga.1988) (Hall, J.); Crawford v. Williams, 258 Ga. 806, 806, 375 S.E.2d 223 (1989); Ekstedt v. Charter Medical Corp., 192 Ga.App. 248, 248, 384 S.E.2d 276 (1989). Under Georgia law, the scienter require......
-
Arabi Gin Co. v. Plexus Cotton, Ltd. (In re, Joseph Walker & Co.)
...time of the misrepresentation, not to perform the act promised; and (2) that the defendant intended to deceive”); Crawford v. Williams, 258 Ga. 806, 375 S.E.2d 223, 224 (1989) (holding that under Georgia common law, proof of fraud requires: (1) a false representation by a defendant; (2) sci......
-
Arabi Gin Co. v. Plexus Cotton, Ltd. (In re Joseph Walker & Co.)
...time of the misrepresentation, not to perform the act promised; and (2) that the defendant intended to deceive”); Crawford v. Williams, 258 Ga. 806, 375 S.E.2d 223, 224 (1989) (holding that under Georgia common law, proof of fraud requires: (1) a false representation by a defendant; (2) sci......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Clark
...on the RICO claim, as found by the appellate courts, is irrelevant to the fraud claim based on Fipps' forgery. See Crawford v. Williams, 258 Ga. 806, 375 S.E.2d 223 (1989) (five elements of fraud). Security's proximate cause argument, and the basis for the appellate rulings on that argument......