373 S.W.3d 469
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Colvins listed their farm for sale with United Country; Plaintiff viewed it and insisted on fencing and gating as a condition of purchase.
- Madajik told Plaintiff that Jones had an access easement across the property but that the issue could be worked out; she stated Jones would not mind a gate.
- Another United Country agent, Curt Dobbs, said Plaintiff would have no problem gate across the easement; Plaintiff relied on these representations.
- Plaintiff and the Colvins later settled on a price with a special agreement to erect fencing and gates; five months passed before closing.
- At closing, Plaintiff was informed of the easement; after closing, Colvin fenced the property and installed a gate across the road easement; Jones later sued for removal and damages.
- Plaintiff then sued the Colvins and United Country for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation; the trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff on multiple grounds, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s reliance was justifiable as a matter of law | Plaintiff argues third-party assurances about Jones consent were justifiable. | Defendants contend reliance on third-party forecasts about Jones’s actions is unreasonable and barred by law. | No justifiable reliance; reliance on third-party predictions not actionable |
| Whether recording statutes control the misrepresentation claims | Plaintiff asserts recording statutes govern and support her claims. | Defendants rely on recording statutes to defeat misrepresentation claims. | Recording statutes not sufficient to create triable issues on reliance |
| Whether the statements were opinions about future third-party actions or actionable misrepresentations | Plaintiff asserts the statements were misrepresentations about Jones’s future actions. | Defendants characterize statements as opinions about third-party actions, not actionable facts. | Statements about future third-party acts are not actionable misrepresentations |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment focus on disputed facts, not truth)
- Rhodes Eng’g Co. v. Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 1, 128 S.W.3d 550 (Mo.App.2004) (no justifiable reliance on third-party representations)
- Ryann Spencer Group, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 275 S.W.3d 284 (Mo.App.2008) (fraud/negligent misrepresentation require justifiable reliance)
- Bohac v. Walsh, 223 S.W.3d 858 (Mo.App.2007) (fraud elements and reliance standards)
- Eureka Pipe, Inc. v. Cretcher-Lynch & Co., 754 S.W.2d 897 (Mo.App.1988) (third-party future acts not actionable misrepresentation)
- Wellcraft Marine v. Lyell, 960 S.W.2d 542 (Mo.App.1998) (negligent misrepresentation standard)
- Maune ex rel. Maune v. City of Rolla, 203 S.W.3d 802 (Mo.App.2006) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)