Mitchell v. Christensen

• Decision Date: 31 August 2001
• Docket Number: No. 20000593.,20000593.
• Citation: 31 P.3d 572,2001 UT 80
• Parties: Dorann MITCHELL, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. Jesse CHRISTENSEN and Betty Christensen, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

31 P.3d 572

2001 UT 80

Dorann MITCHELL, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. Jesse CHRISTENSEN and Betty Christensen, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 20000593.

Supreme Court of Utah.

August 31, 2001.

Scott B. Mitchell, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

George E. Harris, Jr., Jennifer Ward, Salt Lake City, for defendants.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

RUSSON, Associate Chief Justice:

¶ 1 Plaintiff Dorann Mitchell ("Mitchell") seeks certiorari review of the Utah Court of Appeals' decision upholding the trial court's dismissal of Mitchell's claim against defendants Jesse and Betty Christensen (the "Christensens") for fraudulent nondisclosure. Mitchell sued the Christensens for failing to disclose the existence of leaks in their backyard swimming pool prior to selling their property to Mitchell. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 On September 25, 1995, Mitchell purchased a home from the Christensens that included a backyard swimming pool. In connection with the sale of the property, the parties executed a real estate purchase contract giving Mitchell the right to inspect the property herself and to hire a professional home inspector to inspect the property. Accordingly, Mitchell inspected the property herself on a number of occasions prior to closing the purchase transaction. During each inspection, Mitchell found the backyard swimming pool full of water with no visible indications that the pool leaked or was defective in any way.

¶ 3 Moreover, in addition to personally inspecting the property, Mitchell hired a professional home inspector, AmeriSpec of Salt Lake ("AmeriSpec"), to examine the property. AmeriSpec inspected the property and provided Mitchell with an inspection report. Like Mitchell, AmeriSpec found the swimming pool to be in working order with no visible indications that the pool leaked. However, the inspection report provided by AmeriSpec was limited in scope. Specifically, the inspection report stated:

Our review is limited to above ground or visible items only. It is an operational inspection of the accessible equipment and components and is therefore limited in scope. If concerned, client is advised to have a licensed pool company perform an in-depth review and/or service.

Because Mitchell's personal inspection and AmeriSpec's subsequent professional inspection, although limited in scope, did not uncover any problems whatsoever with the swimming pool, Mitchell did not hire a licensed pool company to perform an "in-depth review and/or service." However, after closing the purchase transaction, a number of leaks in both the piping and the body of the swimming pool were discovered.

¶ 4 After discovering the leaks in the swimming pool, Mitchell filed a complaint in the district court, asserting a claim against the Christensens for fraudulent nondisclosure.¹ Specifically, Mitchell alleged that at the time of the sale of the property (1) the pool was leaking, (2) the Christensens knew of the existence of the leaks, and (3) the Christensens had a legal duty to disclose these defects prior to selling their property to Mitchell, which they failed to do.

¶ 5 The Christensens denied Mitchell's allegations that the pool leaked on or before the sale of the property and that, if it did, they were aware of any leaks. However, for the purpose of summary judgment, the Christensens asked the trial court "to assume that [they] did know about the existence of leaks in the pool" at the time of the sale of the property, arguing that even if they knew of the leaks, they had no duty to disclose these defects and therefore, based on the doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware), Mitchell's complaint must be dismissed. (Emphasis in original.)

¶ 6 On March 18, 1999, the trial court granted the Christensens' motion for summary judgment. The trial court held: "[Mitchell] had a duty and opportunity to conduct a thorough inspection of the pool and failed to do so. Under these circumstances even if [the Christensens] knew of the defects, based on caveat emptor it was not [the Christensens'] legal duty to disclose."

¶ 7 Mitchell appealed the trial court's ruling,² arguing to the court of appeals that the trial court erred in its determination that the Christensens had no duty, as a matter of law, to disclose the known leaks in the swimming pool. Mitchell argued that because her personal inspection and AmeriSpec's subsequent professional inspection did not uncover any potential defects in the pool, she did not act unreasonably in declining to hire a second professional inspector to conduct an in-depth review of the pool. The court of appeals, however, affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Christensens, holding that Mitchell "failed to exercise reasonable care when she did not have an indepth inspection of the swimming pool completed, [and therefore,] the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on this issue." Mitchell v. Christensen, No. 990321, slip op. at 2, 2000 WL 33249257 (Utah Ct. App.2000). Mitchell argues that the court of appeals erred and seeks certiorari review.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 "When exercising our certiorari jurisdiction, `we review the decision of the court of appeals, not of the trial court.'" Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, ¶ 17, 16 P.3d 1214 (quoting Carrier v. Pro-Tech Restoration, 944 P.2d 346, 350 (Utah 1997)). Moreover, because a summary judgment presents questions of law, we accord no particular deference to the court of appeals' ruling; we review it for correctness. See Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989)

.

ANALYSIS

¶ 9 The elements of a claim for fraudulent nondisclosure were discussed by this court in First Security Bank of Utah v. Banberry Development Corp., 786 P.2d 1326 (Utah 1990). Specifically, this court stated:

"One of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-American law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by the suppression of the truth . . . as well as the suggestion of falsehood. . . .

Silence, in order to be an actionable fraud, must relate to a material matter known to the party and which it is his legal duty to communicate to the other contracting party . . . ."

Id. at 1328 (quoting Elder v. Clawson, 14 Utah 2d 379, 382, 384 P.2d 802, 804 (1963)). Thus, to prevail on a claim of fraudulent nondisclosure, the plaintiff must show (1) that the nondisclosed information is material, (2) that the nondisclosed information is known to the party failing to disclose, and (3) that there is a legal duty to communicate.

¶ 10 In the instant case, it is undisputed that the undisclosed information—leaks in the swimming pool—was material. Moreover, the parties have assumed for the purpose of summary judgment that the Christensens knew of the leaks in the swimming pool prior to the sale of their property to Mitchell. Therefore, the only issue here is whether, assuming the Christensens knew of the leaks, they had a legal duty to disclose these defects to Mitchell.

¶ 11 A seller of realty is not obligated to reveal all that he or she knows about the property involved. Rather, as we explained in Banberry, the duty to communicate or disclose in a vendor-vendee transaction exists only where a defect is "`not discoverable by reasonable care.'" 786 P.2d at 1331 (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 739 (5th ed.1984)). If a defect can be discovered by reasonable care, the doctrine of caveat emptor prevails and precludes recovery by the vendee. Indeed, in Utah State Medical Ass'n v. Utah State Employees Credit Union, this court stated:

The clear majority of the courts have deemed it reasonable to hold the purchaser to the caveat emptor doctrine in the purchase of used housing. The parties know the article is not new, and the buyer who has an opportunity to inspect the article is placed on the alert for defects which might affect the article's quality, condition or fitness.

655 P.2d 643, 645 (Utah 1982).

¶ 12 Although we have not had occasion to expressly say so, courts in other jurisdictions have held that in determining what constitutes reasonable care in the discovery of defects, the proper standard is whether the defect would be apparent to ordinary prudent persons with like experience, not to persons with specialized knowledge in the field of construction or real estate. See, e.g., Tipton v. Nuzum, 84 Ohio App.3d 33, 616 N.E.2d 265, 268 (1992) (holding that "buyers should be accorded the benefit of comparison with ordinarily prudent persons of their station and experience confronted by the same or similar circumstances'" (quoting Traverse v. Long, 165 Ohio St. 249, 135 N.E.2d 256, 259 (1956))); Quashnock v. Frost, 299 Pa.Super. 9, 445 A.2d 121, 127 (1982) (finding duty of disclosure where defect would not have been discoverable by an "ordinary inexperienced person" (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 cmt. 1, illus. 9 (1977) (stating that duty to disclose defects exists...