Bloor v. Fritz

Facts

D owned a home and hired LAM Management, Inc.(D1) to manage the property as a rental. D1 rented to a meth lab. A search warrant at the property discovered a marijuana growing operation in the house's basement and implements of methamphetamine manufacturing on and under the house's rear deck and in a hot tub on the deck. No law enforcement agency notified the Cowlitz County Health Department, the Washington State Department of Health, or any other state agency of the methamphetamine lab. A press release gave all the facts to the general public. D learned of the police activity at the property and contacted numerous law enforcement agencies to find out what had occurred at the property. D1 subsequently re-rented the property for a short period of time but evicted those tenants in May 2004. D then decided to sell the property. D told neighbors that she and her husband felt they were lucky that the tenants had not cooked methamphetamine inside the house but had cooked it only on the back porch. P made an offer on the home and D completed a seller's disclosure statement in which he represented that the property had never been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. D1 reviewed the disclosure statement with P, but he did not disclose that the drug task force had discovered a marijuana grow operation or methamphetamine lab on the property. The transaction closed in August 2004. P moved into the home shortly thereafter. Ps' son heard from a member of the community that the property was known as a 'drug house.' They eventually discovered the news article. P then contacted the Health Department, where Audrey Shaver confirmed that nobody had reported the lab to the health department and that it would investigate the matter to determine what action it would take. Eventually, the health department determined that the property was contaminated by the methamphetamine manufacturing and was not fit for occupancy. She told P that they could not remove their personal property from the house because of the risk of cross-contamination. P left the residence as instructed, leaving nearly all their personal belongings in the house and garage. The health department order stated that Ps were financially responsible for the cost of remediation, that a certified decontamination contractor would have to perform the remediation, and that use of the property was subject to criminal charges. Ps stayed with relatives until they could secure a place to live, eventually moving to Spokane. They had to repurchase clothing, bedding, furniture, and other necessities. They were unable to both support themselves and make their monthly mortgage payments. Ps experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the loss of their home, personal effects, and keepsakes. The trial court ruled for Ps, awarding them damages jointly and severally against Ds for emotional distress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of use of the property, and damage to Ps' credit. It awarded $10,000 as punitive damages and $13,907.30 for attorney fees against D1. It ordered the contract rescinded, requiring D to pay the purchase price, accrued interest, late charges, and foreclosure fees, and Ps to return the property to D. It awarded $18,975.55 in expenses and $125,335.25 in attorney fees. This appeal resulted. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.