Daily Development for Tuesday, November 9, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu
Note there are two reports, and lots of editor ranting, in this one. The
original case report came from New Jersey's Ira Meislick, who doesn't rant.
INSPECTIONS; DUTY OF CARE; SEPTIC SYSTEMS: A septic tank inspection service
can't limit its certification to the day of inspection because the customer
clearly expects to receive an opinion as to how the system will operate in the
future.
Mango v. Pierce-Coombs, 370 N.J. Super. 239, 851 A.2d 62 (App. Div. 2004)
An agreement of sale for a previously owned and occupied home called for a
septic system certification. At the buyer's request, the real estate agent (a
dual agent) arranged for the inspection. A cesspool service company uncovered
the septic tank and pumped it down to see if water flowed back from the septic
field's bed. No water came back and the cesspool company did not dig up the
distribution boxes or the field beds. After successfully flushing a toilet in
the house, the company concluded that the system was flowing suitably and its
certification was issued. The certification limited its coverage to date of
inspection, and stated in bold print: “No warranties or guaranties are made as
to the condition nor the continued working order of the field bed, connecting
pipes nor the septic tank.”
The “inspector” was in the septic waste hauling business. New Jersey has no
licensure provisions or other regulation of septic inspectors.
After closing, the septic system malfunctioned. The cesspool company returned to
the property and re-pumped the tank, but this proved to be only a temporary
solution. There ensued a series of problems with contractors retained to fix the
problem, and a city-ordered redesign of the system. When the project was finally
completed, the owner hired an expert to review the original inspecting company's
work. The expert engineer criticized the original inspection as inadequate. It
further opined that the inspector's certification lacked details as to what was
tested or observed, or how the inspector concluded that the system was
functional. The report concluded that the system was in a state of failure at
the time of its original inspection. In fact, the expert’s report stated, the
method of inspection used by the first inspector - pumping down the level of the
tank, made effective inspection impossible.
Based on the report, the owner sued the original inspection company for consumer
fraud and common law fraud and sued the real estate agent for consumer fraud
because it had recommended the original inspector.
The lower court granted summary judgment against the owner, dismissing her
complaint. As to the consumer fraud and common law fraud claims against the
cesspool inspection company, it focused on the literal wording of the
certification, which limited its effect to the day of the inspection. According
to the lower court, to prove consumer fraud under the Consumer Fraud Act, the
owner needed to show an affirmative misrepresentation by the original inspection
company, or show that it had made a statement of fact found to be false, and
that either action induced the owner to buy the property. Here, the lower court
found no evidence that the company's certification that the system worked on the
day of inspection was false.
The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that the contractual provision
limiting the certification to the day of inspection was "unconscionable."
According to the Court, the limitation “obliterated the underlying purpose for
which the company was hired: to provide guidance to the prospective purchaser as
to the suitability and condition of the septic system after closing.” What the
buyer needed and expected was “a reliable evaluation as to whether the septic
system would work in the reasonably foreseeable future.” When the Court
"eliminated" the time limitation in the certification as unconscionable and
unenforceable, the certification then could be read to say that the septic
system would be suitable for the reasonably foreseeable future. Given that the
owner had made a prima facie showing that the septic system was not in good
working order even a little after the certification was issued, the Court held
that the cesspool company's certification was false. For that re!
ason,
the Court overturned the lower court's dismissal of the owner's claim against
the original cesspool inspection company and remanded the claim.
Comment 1: This case provides a nice comparison to Burnett v. Chimney Sweep,
2004 Westlaw 2445249 (Cal. App. 11/2/09) (the DIRT DD for 11/8/04) where a
California court upheld in principle waivers of negligence in commercial lease.
The case is discussed under the heading: “Landlord/tenant; Landlord’s Liability
for Injury to Tenant; Waiver.”
In Burnett, the court stated that commercial leases do not implicate special
public interest concerns, and therefore are addressed simply through private
contract analysis. But the factors that the court set forth in Burnett to
determine whether the public interest is implicated in evaluating waivers of
negligence in a particular contract would also be relevant to evaluating the
enforceability of the limitations on liability contained in this case.
The editor is a staunch proponent of freedom of contract when there is a free
and open market, so that parties ought to be aware that they need professional
guidance in participating in the market. But, as the editor as made plain, he
does not view the American residential sales market as such a “free and open
marketplace.” All too often, buyers (and sellers as well) are sheep led to
slaughter by sophisticated professionals whose primary aim is to get too closing
without the parties to the transactions realizing the full extent of the risks
and costs of the transaction. The welter of federal and state consumer
disclosure laws have made little dent in the true situation of the consumers, as
they are presented with mammoth stacks of documents containing purported
disclosures under circumstances that preclude careful study and long after they
are already committed to proceed with the transaction in terms of their
emotional state and personal planning, even if they arguably st!
ill ha
ve a legal “out.”
The only way to protect against overreaching practices in this area is to
regulate them on a case by case basis, upholding liability for shoddy work
against unreasonable contractual waivers and limitations.
Lest the editor be misunderstood, he stresses that most professionals in the
residential marketplace are ethical and have the interests of their clients at
heart. They, too, are concerned about the wolves that hide among them that prey
on consumers. They are especially concerned about these people precisely because
of the hard earned image that the “good” brokers, mortgage brokers, escrow
agents, title insurers and inspectors have promulgated that buying a home is
indeed a “safe” practice. And of course they are exposed to potential pain and
suffering in dealing with claims made by wolves of another kind - aggressive
“consumer advocate” attorneys who convince clients that someone ought to be sued
every time their expectations aren’t fully met. But in the editor’s view some of
this pain and suffering is necessary in order to preserve legal theories and
causes of action that protect consumers, who, unlike the professionals, aren’t
protected by errors and omissions insura!
nce an
d can’t spread the cost of a catastrophic result through adjustment of pricing.
Comment 2: In the course of reviewing this case, the editor found a cite to a
2002 decision, the DIRT DD for 8/28/2002. In that decision, the court found that
an home inspection company engaged in a pattern of unconscionable consumer
practices when it curried the favor of brokerage companies by downplaying the
defects that it identified and praising the strengths of the home, all in an
effort to avoid being characterized as “deal killers.” The language of the court
in that decision is worth repeating:
“HouseMaster's marketing and training strategy emphasizes rendering a "balanced"
report which stresses the positive aspects of a house, as well as the negative
in such a way as to water down negative findings such that a consumer will have
as little basis as possible to call the sale off or have solid evidence upon
which to renegotiate the price. This marketing and business philosophy is
undisclosed to the consumer. The informational brochure reviewed by the Herners
deceptively highlights HouseMaster's independence, attention to detail and
thoroughness. Yet, inspectors are trained not to reveal they are part time or
may be early in their careers as inspectors. It is not disclosed that NIBI is an
entity wholly owned by HouseMaster and possesses neither any governmental
affiliation nor any accreditation from the construction code or building code
enforcement community. The brochure fails to disclose that the 90 day guarantee
promised by HouseMaster lapses 90 days from the insp!
ection
rather than from closing, information which in this case, at least, vitiated any
value to the Herners in the guarantee.
The record thus establishes an inherent conflict between the essential purposes
of a home inspection to a consumer as described above and the duty of a realtor
who is engaged to sell a home promptly at the highest price it will bring. It
further establishes a pattern of non-disclosure on the part of HouseMaster such
as to render its report worthless to consumers.
HouseMaster's reports strum the chord of high hopes on the part of those
consumers who, having already committed themselves, yearn for confirmation that
they have made a wise decision.”
BROKERS; DUTY OF DISCLOSURE; SELECTION OF INSPECTORS: Broker does not have a
duty to disclose to a client that it regularly uses the same inspector, and such
regular use does not otherwise render broker liable for malfeasance by the
inspector in carrying out the inspection.
Mango v. Pierce-Coombs, 370 N.J. Super. 239, 851 A.2d 62 (App. Div. 2004)
This underlying facts of this case are discussed under the heading: “Property
Inspections; Duty of Care; Septic Systems.”
The owner also alleged that the real estate agent (serving in a dual agency
capacity) had committed consumer fraud by recommending the cesspool company.
Here the theory was that the two had an arrangement in which the cesspool
company would conduct inadequate tests of the septic systems and still offer
certifications. Under the Consumer Fraud Act, a seller's broker may be liable
for non-disclosure of a defective condition if the condition was known to the
broker, but not readily observable to the buyer. To prove consumer fraud, one
must show that the broker intentionally concealed a material defect with the
intention that its client would rely on the concealment.
Following plaintiff’s presentation of evidence, the lower court rejected the
owner's contention, finding insufficient evidence to support the claims. The
Appellate Division agreed. The lower court also noted that the buyer had the
right to choose the septic system inspector. Here, she simply deferred to her
realtor. Even though the cesspool inspection company conducted several
inspections and certifications each month for the broker, this fact, standing
alone, did not prove a fraudulent relationship.
The court noted that in a prior decision, Herner v. Housemaster of America,
Inc., 349 N.J. Super. 89, 793 A. 2d 55, certif. denied 174 N.J. 40 (2002), the
DIRT DD for 8/22/04, a new Jersey court had held a home inspection company was
guilty of unconscionable practices because its home inspectors were trained to
provide misleading information and deliberately mislead buyers as the severity
of adverse conditions in order to promote a reputation that the inspection
company was not a “deal killer” and to attract the custom of brokers in the
future. But the case did not involve a liability claim against the brokers
involved.
Comment: In his comments to the Herner case, the editor suggested that a case
might be made for consumer fraud by the broker on the basis of a pattern of
facts similar to those in Herner, if the broker selects inspectors that it knows
will underreport defects and use evasive warranty language so that problems are
not disclosed and inspectors avoid any responsibility. The court found in the
instant case that no pattern of mutual support existed between the broker and
inspector that was anything like that described in Herner and that the plaintiff
failed to prove any conspiracy. So these facts did not present the right
situation, but the case is still out there to be made.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it are for general
information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true
of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data
provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of
the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily
accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into
account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals.
Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial
and general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate
matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable,
it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers,
lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe
to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary
also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to
the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT
to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property,
Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law.
Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of
Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or
distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such
distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT,
and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate and Trust Law or of the
National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report
that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic
reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting
Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or asmith4@staff.abanet.org
*************************************
To unsubscribe from this discussion list, send an email to
dirt-dd-unsubscribe-request@mail.abanet.org or use the following link:
http://w3.abanet.org/abanet/common/email/listserv/listcommands.cfm?parm=unsubscribe&LISTGROUP=dirt-dd
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.