Robert L. Lafontaine v. Thomas P. Watley
343 Ga. App. 672
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Watley owned undeveloped land in Harris County and recorded a Final Plat (2002) purporting to comply with county subdivision regulations, including a perpetual easement along the road. Watley signed the plat but admitted he had not verified utility locations or read the regulations.
- Watley hired Alexander as a contractor to clear and develop the property; Alexander performed labor and helped contact utilities but had no ownership interest or profit-sharing in the subdivision.
- Robert and Diane Lafontaine bought Tract Four (2006). During their home build (2007) they discovered the water meter and other utilities were not located within the recorded easements.
- Watley provided a later survey and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (2006) representing utilities were within a ten-foot easement; utilities still were not physically within recorded easements.
- The Lafontaines sued for claims including fraudulent concealment, negligent construction (utilities), negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty of title, and continuing nuisance. The trial court granted summary judgment in 2011 on most claims except negligent construction of utilities; in 2016 it again granted summary judgment on most claims but left the negligent-construction-of-utilities claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud based on plat and representations about utility placement | Watley recklessly or knowingly misrepresented utility locations by signing plat and later statements; those inducements support fraud | Representations lacked scienter and were not intended to induce purchase; summary judgment was proper | Reversed as to fraud — jury issue exists on reckless/knowing misrepresentation and inducement |
| Negligent misrepresentation | Plat filing and later assurances were false material representations inducing reliance | No actionable misrepresentation because of lack of knowledge/reliance | Vacated summary judgment on negligent misrepresentation; remanded for further proceedings |
| Breach of warranty of title | Lafontaines assert warranty claim against Watley based on improper easements | Defendants argue no paramount title or eviction occurred to breach warranty | Affirmed for defendants — no evidence of paramount title, eviction, or equivalent disturbance |
| Continuing nuisance (impact on marketability) | Misplaced utilities constitute a continuing nuisance affecting sale and use | Dispute insufficient as legal nuisance affecting property rights | Affirmed for defendants — continuing nuisance claim fails |
| Alexander's liability via joint venture with Watley | Lafontaines: Alexander jointly liable for negligent construction as joint venturer | Alexander: no joint venture — he was a paid contractor without profit-sharing or mutual control | Reversed for Alexander — trial court erred denying his summary judgment; no evidence of joint venture/right to control |
Key Cases Cited
- Capital Color Printing, Inc. v. Ahern, 291 Ga. App. 101 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Plane v. Uniforce MIS Svcs. of Ga., Inc., 223 Ga. App. 731 (recklessness may equate to knowledge for fraud)
- Stinson v. Artistic Pools, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 768 (reckless representations actionable as fraud)
- Rose Mill Homes, Inc. v. Michel, 155 Ga. App. 808 (circumstantial proof may support fraud)
- Canoeside Props., Inc. v. Livsey, 277 Ga. 425 (interlocutory summary judgments subject to revision before final judgment)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Wabash Nat. Corp., 314 Ga. App. 360 (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
- Cendant Mobility Fin. Corp. v. Asuamah, 285 Ga. 818 (limitations of negligent-construction exception to caveat emptor)
- Hitchcock v. Tollison, 213 Ga. App. 477 (breach of warranty of title requires eviction or equivalent disturbance)
- Sumitomo Corp. of America v. Deal, 256 Ga. App. 703 (continuing nuisance principles)
- Baumann v. Snider, 245 Ga. App. 526 (nuisance comment)
- Kelleher v. Pain Care of Ga., Inc., 246 Ga. App. 619 (definition of joint venture)
- Williams v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., 274 Ga. App. 169 (mutual control is crucial to joint venture)
- Gateway Atlanta Apts., Inc. v. Harris, 290 Ga. App. 772 (right to direct and control required for joint-venture liability)
- Charter Peachford Behavioral Health System, Inc. v. Kohout, 233 Ga. App. 452 (no joint venture without profit-sharing and mutual control)
- Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transportation, 275 Ga. 827 (appellate review limits arguments first raised on appeal)