Jones v. Gilbert
210 N.E.3d 689
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- McKenna and Austin Drummond purchased a St. Marys, Ohio house from Sharon Gilbert under a written purchase agreement that incorporated a residential property disclosure and an inspection-report addendum.
- The purchase agreement contained an "as is" clause and expressly made the sale contingent on inspections "satisfactory to the buyer."
- The inspection report—attached to the pleadings—documented "previous water entry" and visible moisture in the crawl space and recommended further evaluation, though access was partially restricted by debris; photographs were included in the report.
- The Drummonds nonetheless closed the sale and later sued Gilbert for fraud and fraudulent concealment, alleging she failed to disclose water intrusion, crawl space defects, and mold.
- Gilbert moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the contingency on an acceptable inspection and the inspection report itself defeated any justifiable reliance by the Drummonds; the trial court granted the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Drummonds can show justifiable reliance to support claims of fraud and fraudulent concealment | Drummonds contend they relied on Gilbert's written representations and disclosures denying knowledge of water/moisture issues | Gilbert argues the inspection (and the sale contingency) put the buyers on notice of possible water intrusion so reliance was not justifiable as a matter of law | Court held reliance was not justifiable as a matter of law because the inspection report alerted buyers to water intrusion and the purchase was contingent on an acceptable inspection; judgment on the pleadings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176 (1988) (sets caveat emptor test for buyer recovery: defects observable/discoverable, opportunity to examine, and absence of vendor fraud)
- Rogers v. Hill, 124 Ohio App.3d 468 (App. Ct. 1998) ("as is" clause places risk of defects on purchaser and relieves seller of disclosure duty)
- Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 (2018) (elements of fraud required for recovery)
- Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (2006) (fraud elements discussed and cited)
- Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., 33 Ohio St.3d 54 (1987) (elements for fraudulent concealment and reliance)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (Civ.R. 12(C) requires no material factual issues and movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law)
- Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 147 Ohio St.3d 42 (2016) (appellate de novo review of legal issues on Civ.R.12(C))
- Tipton v. Nuzum, 84 Ohio App.3d 33 (1992) (once alerted to a possible defect, purchaser must investigate; cannot later claim lack of expertise)
- Davis v. Widman, 184 Ohio App.3d 705 (2009) (photographs are not separate written instruments unless incorporated into a pleading; here photos were part of the incorporated inspection report)