2 N.E.3d 807
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Boehringers bought the House from Webers in 2007; the Webers disclosed no hazardous conditions in the property prior to sale.
- Mold was discovered in 2008-2009, after closing, leading Boehringers to sue for fraudulent misrepresentation and mutual mistake, and to pursue other related claims.
- Webers’ counterclaim sought costs and attorney’s fees under the purchase agreement’s prevailing-party clause.
- Trial court partially granted summary judgment to Webers and denied Boehringers’ cross-motion; jury later awarded Webers $425,000 on counterclaims and Builder was found not liable to Boehringers.
- Boehringers appeal arguing misrepresentation due to alleged actual knowledge; court analyzes Indiana sales-disclosure statutes and proof of knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual knowledge of mold was shown under Indiana disclosure law | Boehringers allege Weber knew of mold and concealed it | Weber did not have actual knowledge; disclosures were based on inspections | No actionable knowledge shown; summary judgment denial affirmed on this basis |
| Whether the trial court correctly denied Boehringers’ summary-judgment on fraudulent misrepresentation | Evidence showed Weber knew of mold, entitling summary judgment for Boehringers | Evidence shows Weber lacked actual knowledge; requires trial to determine credibility | Court affirmed the denial; genuine issue of material fact existed on knowledge |
| Whether the evidence supports the jury’s verdict against Boehringers | Jury should have found misrepresentation based on undisclosed conditions | Evidence supports Weber lack of knowledge; no basis for fraud | Evidence supported the jury’s verdict; no reweighing of credibility necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Wysocki, 990 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. 2013) (actual knowledge required for disclosure claims)
- Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Hammond v. Bank, 130 Ind. App. 638, 165 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1960) (sufficiency of evidence and jury verdict standards cited)
- Merchs. Nat’l Bank v. Simrell’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 741 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (summary judgment burden and standard)