Midura v. Bosley, 2012 Ohio 5115

Bosley and ex-husband built the house in 2002; they sold it to the Miduras in fall 2006.
After moving in January 2007, the Miduras experienced basement water intrusion beginning in spring 2007.
Prior to sale, Bosley claimed no known water problems beyond a fixed cable-box issue; basement walls were painted white by ex-husband.
A professional inspection had not been conducted by the Miduras before purchase, despite disclosure language advising such inspections.
Kellam’s crew found sump-pump leaks, hydrostatic pressure, exterior crack, no floor drain tile, and concluded the problem developed over several years.
The trial court found no evidence that Bosley knew of a latent water problem and entered judgment for Bosley; the Miduras appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud: whether Bosley knowingly concealed latent water intrusion	Midura argues Bosley knew of the problem and lied on disclosures.	Bosley contends she had no knowledge of the intrusion.	Fraud claim fails; no proof of Bosley’s knowledge or concealment
Mutual mistake: whether sale should be rescinded due to a mutual mistake about the property	Midura asserts mutual mistake about a material defect in the property.	Bosley argues no mutual mistake; defect not a basic assumption frustrating the contract.	No mutual mistake; contract not fundamentally frustrated

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest weight standard in civil appeals)
Burr v. Stark County Bd. of Comm’rs, 23 Ohio St.3d 69 (1986) (fraud elements and concealment doctrine)
Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176 (1988) (duty to disclose latent defects; reasonable inspection)
Reilley v. Richards, 69 Ohio St.3d 352 (1994) (mutual mistake rescission when latent as to material fact)
Irwin v. Wilson, 45 Ohio St. 426 (1887) (misrepresentation/scenario for real property contracts)
Bryk v. Berry, 2008-Ohio-2389 (9th Dist. No. 07CA0045) (latent defect and disclosure concepts in negligence-like context)