Markel v. Wright, 2013 Ohio 5274

Brooke Markel purchased a 45–50 year-old house in Coshocton, Ohio, from Stephen and Kathryn Wright in 2009; the Wrights had experienced past basement moisture and had used a dehumidifier and waterproofing paint.
The purchase included residential disclosure forms; the sellers acknowledged prior moisture on a basement wall and described repairs; one disclosure form was not shown to Markel.
The purchase contract initially required seller completion of the disclosure regarding water intrusion; the contingency was removed after the disclosures were provided and Markel chose not to obtain a home inspection.
After moving in, Markel experienced recurring basement water intrusion for ~3 months and paid $16,500 to waterproof the basement; sellers left a dehumidifier which Markel emptied infrequently.
Appellees’ expert testified the problem was caused by disconnected/poorly positioned downspouts and insufficient dehumidifier maintenance and that repairs could have been substantially less than Markel’s waterproofing cost.
Markel sued for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and mutual mistake; after a bench trial the trial court ruled for the Wrights, and Markel appealed, claiming the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud / fraudulent inducement — did sellers conceal or misrepresent basement moisture?	Markel: sellers concealed/failed to disclose wet-basement history and induced purchase; reliance caused damages.	Wrights: they disclosed prior moisture on forms, remediated the problem, and did not hide issues; Markel was informed and failed to inspect.	Court: No clear and convincing evidence of fraudulent concealment; sellers disclosed moisture and trial evidence supported defendants.
Mutual mistake of fact — does mutual mistake warrant rescission?	Markel: mutual mistake as to material condition (wet basement) entitles rescission.	Wrights: buyer knew of moisture, declined inspection, and accepted disclosures; buyer’s negligence negates mutual mistake.	Court: Mutual mistake doctrine not applicable; buyer had notice and opportunity to inspect.

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies civil manifest-weight review standard)
Burr v. Stark County Bd. of Commrs., 23 Ohio St.3d 69 (Ohio 1986) (elements of fraud in Ohio)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1959) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Reilley v. Richards, 69 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 1994) (doctrine of mutual mistake in real estate context)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (criminal manifest-weight standard applied by analogy in civil cases)