Forbis v. Minter, 93-118
| Decision Date | 18 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-118,93-118 |
| Citation | 869 P.2d 151 |
| Parties | Clyde C. FORBIS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. C. Jack MINTER d/b/a Minter Realtors; C. Jack Minter, individually; and Wind River Realty, Inc., a Wyoming corporation, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John R. Hursh, Cent. WY Law Assoc., P.C., Riverton, for appellant.
Mark White of White & White, P.C., Riverton, Mark L. Carman, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellees.
Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN and TAYLOR, JJ.
In this we appeal we consider whether the district court was correct in granting summary judgment. Appellant Clyde C. Forbis offered his home for sale. Appellees C. Jack Minter, d/b/a Minter Realtors (Minter) and Wind River Realty, Inc., were the agents who procured a sale. Forbis contended they were negligent and breached their fiduciary duties to him by enabling a buyer to be released from his contract to buy.
We affirm.
Forbis raises these issues:
1. Did the District Court err in finding there did not exist a question of material fact as regards the Appellant/Plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Appellee/Defendant, C. Jack Minter, d/b/a Minter Realtors, Inc., and C. Jack Minter, individually; and
2. Did the District Court err in finding there did not exist a question of material fact as regards the Appellant/Plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Appellee/Defendant, Wind River Realty, Inc.
Minter provides this response:
Whether the district court correctly decided that there did not exist a question of material fact and that defendants, C. Jack Minter d/b/a Minter Realtors, Inc.; C. Jack Minter, individually; and Wind River Realty, Inc., were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law?
Wind River Realty states this issue:
Was the trial court correct in finding that the record did not present a question of material fact regarding Appellant's allegations regarding Appellee Wind River Realty, Inc.?
In August 1989, Forbis listed a home for sale with Minter. Minter, in turn, placed that property on the local multi-list. Wind River Realty procured a buyer on December 12, 1989, and a contract for sale was duly executed. The buyer had visited the premises The buyer became alarmed about apparent structural problems during the two days preceding the scheduled closing, saying the house had been making "cracking and groaning" noises. In addition, on the morning of the date scheduled for closing, the buyer discovered that The buyer then called Wind River Realty and an agent came out to see the house. That agent noted there was a problem with the house. Wind River prepared an extension agreement to postpone the closing from January 30, 1990, until February 2, 1990, so that the buyer could arrange for an inspection. Wind River advised the buyer of an inspector he might employ. Section X of the Contract for Sale was a detailed inspection provision, but it had been left blank. Forbis signed the extension agreement, but claims not to have understood what the purport of it was.
at least twice before the contract for sale was signed and three times after the contract was signed. After the contract for sale was signed, Forbis revealed to the buyer that there was a crack in the foundation of the home. Sometime in January 1990, the buyer went to the home and viewed the crack himself; he then took a friend knowledgeable about concrete work out to inspect the crack. The friend told the buyer the crack could be repaired, and the buyer made a determination at that time that he would make the repair himself. Closing was scheduled for January 30, 1990, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial