Anderson v. Kriser, 266 P.3d 819

In 2004, Andersons purchased Lot 2 in a Country Living subdivision in Pleasant Grove, Utah.
After moving in, the Andersons noticed structural problems (cracks in flooring, walls, window frames) caused by foundation settling on unstable soil.
The Andersons sued Kriser (Country Living employee) for fraudulent nondisclosure; the district court granted summary judgment for Kriser.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, in part relying on Smith v. Frandsen to say Kriser had no duty since he did not construct the home, and required actual knowledge for fraudulent nondisclosure.
Earthtee Engineering prepared a December 1997 soil report noting variations and slightly collapsible soils; Kriser’s brother received the report, but Kriser testified he never saw it.
Closing in June 1998 conveyed Lot 2 from Country Living to the Andersons with Kriser signing as Manager, and no disclosure of collapsible soils prior to closing.
Andersons later learned of the report and filed suit against Kriser in his individual capacity; Kriser moved for summary judgment arguing lack of knowledge and agency defense.
The court ultimately held that proof of actual knowledge of undisclosed information is required for fraudulent nondisclosure and affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Kriser’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether actual knowledge is required for fraudulent nondisclosure.	Andersons contend Smith allows broader duty regardless of construction.	Kriser and court argue knowledge must be actual for second element.	Yes; actual knowledge is required.
Whether Smith v. Frandsen supports a no-duty rule because Kriser did not construct the home.	Smith implied broader duties to remote purchasers.	Smith addresses duties when the developer directly contracts a builder; not applicable here.	Smith does not control Kriser’s duty; duty analyzed under direct facts of this case.

Smith v. Frandsen, 2004 UT 55 (Utah 2004) (fraudulent nondisclosure/duty context in development contracts; distinguishes initial developer duties)
Loveland v. Orem City Corp., 746 P.2d 768 (Utah 1987) (negligence/strict duties; should-know standard not for fraudulent nondisclosure)
Bauer, 681 P.2d 1316 (Wyoming 1984) (should-have-known vs. actual knowledge distinction in duties to disclose)
Denver Bus. Sales Co. v. Lewis, 365 P.2d 898 (Colorado 1961) (fraudulent nondisclosure; knowledge requirement distinction)
Hess v. Canberra Dev. Co., 2011 UT 22, 254 P.3d 161 (Utah 2011) (relevance to fraudulent nondisclosure elements; confirms knowledge/intent framework)
Pyper v. Bond, 2011 UT 45, 258 P.3d 575 (Utah 2011) (fraudulent nondisclosure elements and knowledge standards)