Cadle v. Kehl

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed and remanded a judgment awarding Raymond and Nannie Cadle $2,260 against Dwayne Kehl in a dispute concerning alleged misrepresentation of a residential property's roof condition. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding that Kehl knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the roof's condition with intent to mislead, and it declined to address the remaining assignments of error as moot.

Holdings

1. The judgment for the Cadles was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the Cadles failed to present evidence that Kehl knowingly or recklessly made a false statement about the roof with the intent to mislead them.
2. An 'As Is' clause does not bar a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment based on a seller's failure to disclose a known material defect on the residential property disclosure form.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the municipal court's finding that Kehl fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the roof was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the remaining assignments of error concerning the 'As Is' clause, waiver or estoppel, failure to prove a legal theory, and damages should be addressed after reversal on the manifest-weight issue.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded