Buchanan v. Improved Properties, L.L.C.
7 N.E.3d 634
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Buchanan filed a complaint asserting fraud, misrepresentation, omissions, and related claims in the sale of 316 S Westminster St, Waynesfield, Ohio.
- Buchanan first sued Kantner dba Improved; later amended to add Moulton and RKC; Wright dismissed earlier.
- Defendants answered and moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment to Appellees on July 16, 2013.
- Buchanan and disclosures: a Residential Property Disclosure Form disclosed water in the crawlspace; Buchanan had an inspection.
- The contract contained an express “as is” clause and an inspection contingency; Buchanan purchased the home after inspection.
- The court held, after evaluating the five counts, that no genuine issues of material fact existed and Appellees were entitled to summary judgment; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on all claims. | Buchanan contends material facts remain about concealment and misrepresentation. | Appellees argue the as-is clause and inspection bar the claims; no deceit established. | Yes; summary judgment proper; no genuine issues of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 1988) (reasons to rely on inspection limits fraud claims in real estate transfers)
- Goddard v. Stabile, 185 Ohio App.3d 485 (Ohio App.3d 2009) (as-is clause does not bar fraudulent concealment/representation)
- Williams v. Brown, 5th Dist. Nos. CT2004-0048, CT2004-0051, 2005-Ohio-5301 (Ohio 2005) (fraud elements and reliance considerations in property transactions)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 1989) (fraud elements and justifiable reliance standards)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; Civ.R.56 burden and inference rules)
- Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., 33 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 1987) (unjust enrichment prerequisites)