Gail Gottesman v. Todd Hecker et al.

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviews a summary judgment ruling in a dispute arising from the sale of improved residential real property. The court reverses summary judgment on the buyer’s fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures Act claims, while affirming summary judgment on the claim under Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-6-103 and other remaining claims. The court remands for further proceedings, denies reassignment to a different trial judge, and denies the sellers’ request for attorney’s fees.

Holdings

1. The Heckers were entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed evidence established that they constructed the residence for personal use, lived in it for several years, and did not construct more than one residence within the statutory two-year period.
2. Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether the Heckers knew of significant defects in the home and misrepresented or omitted those defects on the required disclosure form.
3. An as-is clause is not dispositive of fraud or misrepresentation claims when the buyer alleges that the seller fraudulently misrepresented or concealed defects; the clause is only one factor in determining the reasonableness of reliance.
4. Gottesman demonstrated genuine issues of material fact on her fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims, so summary judgment on those claims was improper.
5. Summary judgment was properly affirmed on the breach of contract and good-faith claims because Gottesman did not identify a specific contractual nonperformance amounting to breach, and a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot stand without an underlying breach of contract.
6. Reassignment to a different trial judge was not warranted because there was no evidence that the trial judge would fail to follow the appellate court's directions or that reassignment was necessary to maintain the appearance of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Heckers were entitled to summary judgment on Gottesman's claim that the home's construction or sale violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-103.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Gottesman's claim under the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures Act.
3. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Gottesman's fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims despite the contract's as-is clause.
4. Whether Gottesman's breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims survived summary judgment.
5. Whether reassignment to a different trial judge was warranted on remand.
6. Whether the Heckers were entitled to attorney's fees under the contract.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded