Fraud & silent fraud claims arising from the sale of a home; Hi-Way Motor Co v International Harvester Co; Alfieri v Bertorelli; Reasonable reliance; Knowledge; Seller disclosure statement (SDS) under the Sellers Disclosure Act; Breach of warranty claims related to basement waterproofing; Motion for a directed verdict; Damages; JNOV; Waiver

Rejecting plaintiff-buyer’s claim that summary disposition was premature, the court further held that her common-law and silent fraud claims against defendants-seller and her real estate agency (Western Real Estate) were properly dismissed. Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims against defendant-B-Dry related to three warranties were also properly dismissed where they did not apply. But B-Dry abandoned or waived its claims related to another warranty, on which a jury found for plaintiff. As to the seller, the court concluded that plaintiff did not present any evidence suggesting that “seller had personal knowledge of ongoing structural problems, that seller would have had such knowledge through the exercise of ordinary care, or that seller’s statements on the SDS were otherwise made in bad faith.” Thus, no question of fact existed as to “whether seller had personal knowledge that her statements in the SDS about structural issues were false[.]” The court additionally noted that the SDS stated “there had been evidence of water in the basement,” and plaintiff received “two recent inspection reports that noted the presence of past and likely current water in the basement.” The one prepared by her own inspector “noted that the basement was finished, but that it was in a deteriorated condition because of neglect, moisture, and untimely repairs. The same report noted evidence of prior water leakage, but added that efflorescence on the walls indicated the presence of periodic moisture and that more water seepage may occur in the future. Under these circumstances, in which the presence of periodic moisture was noted, warnings were made to monitor for future leakage, and advice was given to follow up with the company that made the repairs, no reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiff’s belief that the basement was fully waterproofed such that it did not have any ongoing issues with water was reasonable. Rather, the reports in her possession would have put her on notice of the current presence of moisture in the basement and the possibility of future water seepage.” As a result, summary disposition for the seller and Western Real Estate was proper on plaintiff’s fraud claims. Affirmed.