Dunahay v. Struzik, No. 7161
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | STRUCKMEYER; UDALL |
| Citation | 96 Ariz. 246,393 P.2d 930 |
| Parties | Helen DUNAHAY, a divorced woman, Appellant, v. Frank STRUZIK, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7161 |
Page 930
v.
Frank STRUZIK, Appellee.
[96 Ariz. 247]
Page 931
Bayham & Huffsteter, Phoenix, for appellant.John M. Levy and Emmett R. Feighner, Phoenix, for appellee.
STRUCKMEYER, Justice.
Appellant, Helen Dunahay, brings this appeal from a judgment and verdict in favor of appellee, Frank L. Struzik, based on these facts. In December of 1957, one Overfield sued appellant for damages arising out of Tempe property sole to Overfield by appellant. On February 11, 1958, appellant sold another parcel of real estate, with improvements, a motel, located on 17th Avenue near Buckeye Road in the City of Phoenix, to Larry and Hazel Parker. Under the contract of sale, the Parkers agreed, in writing, to pay $11,151.02 to the appellant as consideration for the appellant's interest in the property.
Later in the month of February, a realtor by the name of Bernhard informed appellee that he had a prospective purchaser for appellee's eight-unit apartment building located on East Osborn Road, Phoenix, Arizona. The sale of appellee's property was
Page 932
to take the form of an exchange of appellant's contract with the Parkers for appellee's interest in the apartment building. On [96 Ariz. 248] March 6th, this deal we closed at the Phoenix Title and Trust Company, escrowee.Appellant, appellee and Bernhard appeared at the closing. Appellee was informed that the existing encumbrances on the motel located on 17th Avenue were greater than had been represented to him and he refused to continue with the exchange. Bernhard then stated that the contract between the Parkers and appellant was a 'good' contract. Persuaded by this representation of his agent, appellee decided to continue with the exchange. Appellant did not at any time disclose that she was being sued by Overfield.
One day later, on March 7, 1958, Overfield caused a writ of garnishment to be issued against Parker in his lawsuit against appellant. From that time and continuing to the trial of the present suit, Parker refused to pay either appellant or appellee any money due and owing on his contract. Appellee finally brought this suit against appellant in fraud, alleging that appellant knew that her contract with Parker was not a 'good' contract.
We find upon review of the foregoing facts that fraud has not been established. Appellee dealt with appellant at arm's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, No. 7589
...damage and loss to the stockholders of the corporation.' Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Dunahay v. Struzik, 96 Ariz. 246, 393 P.2d 930. The uncontradicted testimony shows the folllowing facts. From the time of incorporation until 1947, the principal business of ......
-
Goodman v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SYSTEM, No. 1 CA-CV 97-0392.
...with the legitimate goals of the Society and the rights of the individual and the public—then judicial inquiry should end. Id. at 244, 393 P.2d at 930. Notwithstanding this caution, the court did find that if membership in the Society was a condition of admittance to a hospital staff, and e......
-
Found. Interior Design Edu. v. Savannah Col. of Art, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
...decisions on substantial evidence and were not allowed to act arbitrarily or unreasonably. See Falcone, 170 A.2d at 795-800; Blende, 393 P.2d at 930. In a landmark case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refined and generalized the rule from Falcone and Blende, finding that,......
-
Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Nos. CV–09–8162–PCT–GMS, CV–09–8174–PCT–GMS.
...a duty to disclose the facts necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances, not misleading. See Dunahay v. Struzik, 96 Ariz. 246, 249, 393 P.2d 930, 933 (1964) (“While Fraud may be committed by the failure to speak, a duty to speak must be imposed.”); see also Cent. Ba......
-
Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, No. 7589
...damage and loss to the stockholders of the corporation.' Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Dunahay v. Struzik, 96 Ariz. 246, 393 P.2d 930. The uncontradicted testimony shows the folllowing facts. From the time of incorporation until 1947, the principal business of ......
-
Goodman v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SYSTEM, No. 1 CA-CV 97-0392.
...with the legitimate goals of the Society and the rights of the individual and the public—then judicial inquiry should end. Id. at 244, 393 P.2d at 930. Notwithstanding this caution, the court did find that if membership in the Society was a condition of admittance to a hospital staff, and e......
-
Found. Interior Design Edu. v. Savannah Col. of Art, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
...decisions on substantial evidence and were not allowed to act arbitrarily or unreasonably. See Falcone, 170 A.2d at 795-800; Blende, 393 P.2d at 930. In a landmark case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refined and generalized the rule from Falcone and Blende, finding that,......
-
Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Nos. CV–09–8162–PCT–GMS, CV–09–8174–PCT–GMS.
...a duty to disclose the facts necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances, not misleading. See Dunahay v. Struzik, 96 Ariz. 246, 249, 393 P.2d 930, 933 (1964) (“While Fraud may be committed by the failure to speak, a duty to speak must be imposed.”); see also Cent. Ba......