Lehnhardt v. City of Phoenix
| Decision Date | 07 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 9654,9654 |
| Parties | Freda LEHNHARDT, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Cox & Cox, Phoenix, for appellant.
James D. Lester, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.
Plaintiff below quit-claimed part of her property to the city of Phoenix for roadway purposes. She sought rescission of the transaction and cancellation of the quitclaim deed, alleging misrepresentation by the city. From a judgment denying rescission she brings this appeal.
The trial court made findings of fact and stated separately its conclusions of law. Plaintiff contends on appeal that she is entitled to judgment on the facts found by the court below. Those facts found by the trial court which we deem pertinent to the appeal are as follows:
On January 31, 1959, plaintiff received by mail a quit claim deed and a sketch or map prepared by the city, together with a letter requesting the dedication of a portion of her property for roadway purposes. Upon completion of such dedication her property was to be rezoned from R--2 to R--4. The quit claim deed was clear and sufficient on its face and contained a clear and unambiguous description of the property to be dedicated. The sketch, however, which was intended to illustrate that portion of plaintiff's property to be dedicated, was ambiguous, erroneous, and did not correspond to the description contained in the quit claim deed. The evidence indicates that the quit claim deed conveyed roughly 4,131 square feet more than the sketch indicated which constituted a strip approximately 21 by 193 feet along the north side of plaintiff's property. The sketch was a material inducement to plaintiff in executing the quit claim deed. The city, in preparing the sketch, did not know that it did not correspond to the description in the quit claim deed and did not intend to deceive plaintiff. Plaintiff understood that the quit claim deed was an instrument by which she would convey all her right, title and interest in that portion of her property described therein. She did not request anyone to advise her regarding the contents of the quit claim deed. She executed the deed and delivered it to the city, but because of the sketch, she believed that she was dedicating less property than was actually dedicated by the deed. Some time during July, 1959, her property was rezoned from R--2 to R--5. During January or February of 1963, plaintiff caused a survey to be made of her property and discovered the actual amount of property she had dedicated by the quit claim deed.
These findings of fact indicate clearly that the city made a misrepresentation. The trial court expressly found that the sketch, prepared by the city to illustrate the portion of plaintiff's property to be dedicated by plaintiff, did not correspond to the description contained in the quit claim deed prepared by the city. Therefore, the assertion that the sketch illustrated the property described in the quit claim deed when it did not, constituted a misrepresentation. The trial court also expressly found that the sketch was a material inducement to the plaintiff in executing the Quit Claim Deed.
Plaintiff contends that a transaction induced by the material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand v. Nacchio
...If tender is possible, proof of proximate cause is not required for traditional rescission relief. See Lehnhardt v. City of Phoenix, 105 Ariz. 142, 144, 460 P.2d 637, 639 (1969) (damages not element of misrepresentation rescission claim); Aaron v. Fromkin, 196 Ariz. 224, ¶ 20, 994 P.2d 1039......
-
Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp.
...court also erred in granting summary judgment on his common law fraud claim for lack of damages. Citing Lehnhardt v. City of Phoenix, 105 Ariz. 142, 144, 460 P.2d 637 (1969), Weiss argues that his claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation do not require a showing of damage......
-
Halpert v. Rosenthal
...misrepresentation of a material fact. In addition, many courts have also adopted this rule including the following: Lehnhardt v. City, 105 Ariz. 142, 460 P.2d 637; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Anaya, 78 N.M. 101, 428 P.2d 640; Lanners v. Whitney, 247 Or. 223, 428 P.2d 398; Hudspeth v. Zorn, (Mo.)......
-
Duncan v. Pub. Storage, Inc.
...v. Permanente Med. Grp. , 15 Cal. 4th 951, 980, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903 (Cal. 1997) ; see also Lehnhardt v. City of Phoenix , 105 Ariz. 142, 144, 460 P.2d 637, 639 (1969) (damages are not an essential element of a rescission claim based on misrepresentation).¶21 On appeal, the rent......