This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D listed his four-plex for sale with Century 21 Heritage Homes & Investments, where he was a real estate broker. The property had no off-street parking. D filled out a listing agreement, in which he left the space next to 'parking units' blank. He submitted an 'as-built' survey of the lot, which showed no available parking. He also submitted a subdivision plat, which clearly distinguished his lot from adjacent lots with off-street parking. P purchased the property for $155,000. P never spoke to D, but dealt with another Century 21 agent, Diane Albert. When Albert first showed P the four-plex, she assured P that parking was available in the parking lot of the six-plex next door. Kincaid thought that this was an odd arrangement, as the lot seemed too small for ten cars and was separated from the four-plex by a chain link fence. Albert repeated her representation as to parking when she and P visited the four-plex a second time. Albert contacted D to determine whether parking was available for the four-plex. D gave her the 'pat answer' that he furnished to all prospective tenants, buyers, and agents: that parking was available on the street for 22 out of 24 hours a day. There was conflicting testimony at trial as to whether Albert later communicated this information to P. After she purchased the property, one of P's tenants told her that they were being told not to park in the lot next door. About a year after the purchase, the city closed the street on which the property was located to parking and towed away several of the tenants' cars. The property was subsequently foreclosed by the holder of the first deed of trust, which P had assumed. P sued D, Albert, and Century 21, seeking damages for the fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation that the property contained off-street parking. She settled with Albert and Century 21 prior to trial. A jury found that D committed both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and awarded P a total of $ 98,258.20 in damages. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.