Carter v. Gugliuzzi

716 A.2d 17 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Gugliuzzi and Barreto (sellers) asked Bennett, a licensed real estate salesperson, to list their house for sale. Bennett worked for D and was supervised by Crane. Bennett prepared an MLS listing sheet and a fact sheet and showed them to sellers, who confirmed that they were accurate. The sheet stated that the house contained 1880 square feet above grade, was heated by electric/wood, and was 'in pristine condition. New pegged floors throughout the first floor.' The act sheet, under the heading 'Further Features,' stated: 'New oak-pegged floors throughout the first floor,' 'window quilts at all windows with new valances,' and 'custom-made flower boxes at all windows.' Under the heading 'Location,' the fact sheet stated, '400 to 600 planted pine trees around borders of property' and 'vacant beaver pond.' The sheet contained a number of errors and omissions. The downstairs hardwood floor covered only about half the downstairs and was a simulated rather than a real pegged floor; the rest of the floor was carpeted. The wood floor was not in 'pristine' condition but had buckled or 'cupped' due to the lack of an underlying vapor barrier. The listing sheet did not indicate that the den and upstairs bathroom were unheated. Only half the windows had quilts and valances. Half of the advertised 'beaver pond' was on a neighbor's property, and there were only about 250 trees. Crane knew that the area experienced winds over 80 mph. Crane did not tell Bennett nor P. P, a lawyer living in California, had been looking for a house to buy in Vermont since mid-1990. She contacted several realtors, including Liz Merrill, an agent from Lang Associates, who provided her with information on a P was shown the house by Merrill from Lang Associations. P did not note the lack of heat in the upstairs rooms, the condition or extent of the wood floor downstairs, or the number of trees on the property. Bennett informed Merrill that a storm had washed out the beaver pond but that it could be reestablished with minimal cost and effort. Apart from the pond, Bennett assured P and Merrill that there had been full disclosure. P bought the house for $200,000. After moving in, P discovered all the problems to which several months later the winds came causing damage to the trees, windows, shingles to the house and garage and blew off gutters. P sued D for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. The court ruled that Crane's knowledge of the winds was imputable to D and gave P the judgment for $30,624. It found the sellers liable for an additional amount of $19,700. The court did not find D liable for misrepresenting the total above-grade square footage of the house and the number of trees on the property, failing to disclose that a portion of the house was unheated, repairing the cupped flooring, reestablishing the pond, replacing the missing flower boxes and garage cabinets, and certain prospective wind repairs. P and D appealed.