Weintraub v. Krobatsch

64 N.J. 445, 317 A.2d 68 (1974)

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

P owned and occupied a six-year-old English-town home which she put up for sale through Serafin Agency, Inc. D was interested in purchasing the home, examined it and found it suitable. P and D entered into a contract for the sale of the property for $42,500. The contract provided that the purchasers had inspected the property and were fully satisfied with its physical condition, that no representations had been made and that no responsibility was assumed by the seller as to the present or future condition of the premises. A deposit of $4,250 was sent by D to the broker to be held in escrow pending the closing of the transaction. D requested that the seller have the house fumigated and that was done. A fire after the signing of the contract caused damage but the purchasers indicated readiness that there be adjustment at closing. Prior to closing, D entered the house, then unoccupied, and as they turned the lights on they were, as described in their petition for certification, 'astonished to see roaches literally running in all directions, up the walls, drapes, etc.' D asserted that 'the presence of vermin in such great quantities, particularly after the exterminator was done, rendered the house as unfit for human habitation at this time and therefore, the contract is rescinded.' 'Cockroaches were found to have infested the entire house.' They could be eliminated for a relatively modest charge by two treatments with a twenty-one-day interval but that it would be necessary to remove the carpeting 'to properly treat all the infested areas.' P sued D. Ds were claiming fraudulent concealment or nondisclosure by P as the basis for their rescission. The court granted P's motion and directed that Ds pay her the sum of $ 4,250. The Appellate Division sustained but modified the Law Division's judgment to the end that the purchasers were directed to pay not only the sum of $4,250 to P but also the sum of $2,550 to the broker. D appealed.