Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Re/Max Tri-Cities, LLC and its agents in a negligence action arising from alleged misrepresentations concerning well-water testing during a real estate transaction. The court held that the defendants owed no duty under Idaho Code § 54-2087 or common law after the buyers agreed to accept the property “as is” and had not memorialized an independent inspection obligation in writing. The court also upheld denial of reconsideration and awarded costs to the defendants, but no attorney fees to the buyers.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was properly granted on the Blackmores' negligence claim against Re/Max, Thompson, and Mio.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Blackmores' motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the Idaho Supreme Court needed to decide whether the district court abused its discretion in striking the affidavits.
- Whether the Blackmores were entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
Holdings
- Under Idaho Code section 54-2087(7), unless otherwise agreed in writing, a brokerage and its licensees owe no duty to conduct an independent property inspection or to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of property representations or test results. Because no written agreement imposed such an obligation, the defendants owed no statutory duty to perform or verify the alleged full-panel water test.
- The defendants did not owe the Blackmores a common-law duty of care relating to the well-water test because the Blackmores agreed to eliminate all contingencies and accept the property "as is" before the test was performed.
- Summary judgment for the defendants on the negligence claim was proper because the defendants owed no duty under the Idaho Code or common law.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.
- The Blackmores were not entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 because they did not prevail on appeal.
Key quotations
“While there may be a question of fact over communications concerning the test, that factual issue is irrelevant because this Court holds that the Defendants did not owe the Blackmores a duty of care under the Idaho Code or common law.” (562)
“Any duty that possibly could have been owed was eliminated when the Blackmores agreed to the terms of the Addendum.” (563)
Factual background
The Blackmores purchased an Idaho property after entering a real-estate purchase agreement that initially included property-condition and well-inspection contingencies. They later accepted an addendum requiring them to take the property "as is" and eliminating the contingencies. Shortly before closing, a limited coliform test was performed on the well, while the Blackmores alleged that their agent represented that a full-panel water test had been performed or that the water test had come back fine. After closing, testing revealed arsenic in the well water, and the Blackmores sued the real-estate brokerage and agents, among others.
Procedural history
The Blackmores sued the Rhineharts, Re/Max, Thompson, and Mio for claims including negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and Rhineharts, struck portions of the Blackmores' affidavits, and denied reconsideration of the negligence ruling. The Blackmores appealed only from the order denying reconsideration, not from the judgment itself. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment ruling and denial of reconsideration, declined to reach the affidavit issue, and awarded costs to Re/Max and Thompson.