Novak v. Tilbury, 20-30700

In March 2015 Todd and Kate Novak (California teachers) bought a one‑bedroom condo in New Orleans from Michael and Jenny Tilbury; the Tilburys answered “no” on the Property Disclosure Form regarding known defects.
The Novaks planned to lease the unit but later learned the HOA had adopted a one‑year minimum lease rule in 2006, which they claimed reflected managerial dysfunction.
The Novaks relied on an H&H engineering report from 2011 and later inspections (2016, 2017) to allege latent (redhibitory) defects and sued multiple parties; only the Tilburys remained after other claims resolved.
On initial appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed some rulings but remanded on a narrow ground from Valobra v. Nelson: a seller who checks “no” on a disclosure cannot later claim lack of knowledge to avoid liability; the case was remanded to determine whether redhibitory defects actually existed and whether plaintiffs justifiably relied.
On remand the district court found (1) the pre‑sale February 2015 inspection disclosed only obvious defects, (2) the 2016/2017 inspections occurred after sale and do not prove defects existed at delivery, and (3) the 2011 H&H issues were either fixed before sale or concerned visible problems—so no hidden redhibitory defects existed.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Tilburys; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding no genuine issue that redhibition elements were met, so misrepresentation and detrimental reliance claims failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Tilburys are liable for intentional/negligent misrepresentation and detrimental reliance based on checking “no” on the disclosure	Novak: latent redhibitory defects existed; they justifiably relied on the disclosure and were harmed	Tilbury: no knowledge of hidden defects; defects were open, fixed, or arose after sale	No liability; no redhibitory defects at time of sale, so claims fail
Whether alleged defects existed at the time of sale	Novak: 2011 H&H report and later inspections show defects	Tilbury: H&H issues were fixed before sale; 2016/2017 reports post‑date sale and cannot prove existence at delivery	Defects either repaired pre‑sale or identified only post‑sale; statute’s presumption not met
Whether defects were hidden (not discoverable by a prudent buyer)	Novak: defects were latent and not discoverable	Tilbury: pre‑sale inspection revealed obvious issues; H&H dealt with visible problem areas	Court: issues were open/obvious or known; not hidden—no redhibition

Valobra v. Nelson, 136 So.3d 793 (La. 2014) (seller’s checking “no” on disclosure can preclude later claiming lack of knowledge)
Novak v. Tilbury, [citation="815 F. App'x 755"] (5th Cir. 2020) (prior panel opinion affirming some rulings and remanding on Valobra ground)
In re Louisiana Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Stone Energy Corp. v. Nippon Steel, 475 F. Supp. 3d 563 (W.D. La. 2020) (definition and elements of redhibitory defect)