Summary
This Ohio appellate court opinion affirms a trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of home buyers alleging fraud and breach of contract against sellers over undisclosed drainage and water intrusion issues. Because the sellers failed to respond to the buyers' motion for summary judgment, the appellate court applied a plain error standard of review. The court concluded there was no plain error, finding that the buyers justifiably relied on the sellers' false property disclosure forms despite visible defects.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court committed plain error by granting partial summary judgment on the Alberinis' fraud claim after the Raptises failed to respond to the summary-judgment motion.
- Whether the Raptises forfeited their caveat-emptor and justifiable-reliance arguments by failing to raise them in opposition to summary judgment.
- Whether the record established no genuine issue of material fact regarding the Alberinis' justifiable reliance on the property disclosure form.
Holdings
- A nonmoving party that fails to respond to a summary-judgment motion forfeits defenses and arguments not presented to the trial court and generally may obtain appellate relief only by demonstrating plain error.
- The trial court did not commit plain error by granting partial summary judgment on fraud liability.
- The undisputed admissions and supporting affidavits established justifiable reliance as a matter of law, and the Raptises' failure to respond left no genuine issue of material fact requiring trial on the fraud claim.
- Caveat emptor did not defeat the fraud judgment because the defense was not raised below and, in any event, fraud prevents a seller from relying on the doctrine.
Key quotations
“The plain error doctrine “may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error . . . seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.”” (¶ 16)
“However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the nonmovant does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party.” (¶ 39)
Factual background
The Alberinis purchased a residence from the Raptises. The residential property disclosure form stated that there were no drainage issues and no history of basement water intrusion, but after moving in the Alberinis observed persistent standing water and an unusable portion of the backyard, as well as water entering the basement. The Raptises failed to answer requests for admissions, resulting in admissions that they knew of the drainage and water-intrusion problems, had damaged the French-drain system, and intentionally misrepresented those conditions on the disclosure form. The Alberinis relied on the disclosure form in seeking summary judgment.
Procedural history
The Alberinis sued the Raptises for breach of contract and fraud arising from alleged misrepresentations on a residential property disclosure form concerning backyard drainage and basement water intrusion. The trial court deemed requests for admissions admitted, granted the Alberinis partial summary judgment on fraud liability, and determined that the breach-of-contract claim was barred by an as-is clause. Following a damages hearing, the magistrate awarded $24,769.23 in compensatory damages, denied punitive damages and attorney fees, and the trial court adopted that decision. The Raptises appealed.