Case Title: Galfetti v. Berg, Carmoli & Kent Real Estate Corp.

Citation: 171 Vt. 523, 756 A.2d 1229

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Galfetti v. Berg, Carmoli & Kent Real Estate Corp. (99-384); 171 Vt. 523;
756 A.2d 1229 

[Filed 26-Apr-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 13-Jul-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-384

                              APRIL TERM, 2000

Charles and Adele Galfetti	        }	 APPEALED FROM:
                                        } 
                                        }
     v.	                                }	 Washington Superior Court	
                                        }	
                                        }
Berg, Carmolli & Kent Real Estate Corp.	}	 DOCKET NO. S 30-1-99 Wncv	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs Charles and Adele Galfetti appeal from an order of the
  Washington Superior Court  granting summary judgment in favor of defendant
  Berg, Carmolli & Kent Real Estate Corporation.  Plaintiffs argue that the
  court erroneously ruled that their suit alleging negligent
  misrepresentation  and consumer fraud against defendants was time-barred by
  the six-year statute of limitations.  We  affirm.

       The essential facts are not in dispute.  On October 27, 1992,
  plaintiffs purchased a residential  property in Barre from Jean Mudgett,
  who had listed the property for sale with defendant.  The  property was
  listed and advertised as a home with a rental apartment above its garage. 
  A tenant  occupied the apartment at the time of the sale.

       On November 24, 1992, the Barre zoning administrator sent Ms.
  Mudgett's attorney a letter that  stated that the property was zoned as a
  single-family dwelling and that multiple-family housing was  not allowed in
  the district.  This letter was forwarded to plaintiffs' attorney, who had
  represented  plaintiffs in the purchase of the property.  Plaintiffs
  received the letter in early December 1992.   Plaintiffs continued to rent
  the apartment while attempting to resolve the zoning dispute with the 
  city, but these efforts ultimately failed and plaintiffs were forced to
  cease renting the apartment. 

       On July 8, 1998, plaintiffs filed suit against Ms. Mudgett for
  negligent misrepresentation and breach  of warranty. (FN1)  At a November
  3, 1998 deposition, Ms. Mudgett testified that she did not know  the
  residential designation for her property at the time of the sale. 
  According to Ms. Mudgett,  defendant's real estate broker, Claire Duke, had
  determined the appropriate zoning for the sale of her  property, listed the
  property, and advertised it as a multi-family dwelling with an income
  producing  apartment.

       On January 22, 1999, more than six years after receiving the zoning
  administrator's letter, plaintiffs  filed suit against defendant, alleging
  negligent misrepresentation and seeking damages for lost  income and loss
  of fair market value. Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint by adding
  a count  of consumer fraud was granted by the court in March 1999. 
  Defendant moved for summary  judgment on the ground that plaintiffs' suit
  was barred by the statute of limitations.  Defendant's  motion was granted
  on May 13, 1999, and this appeal followed.

 

       We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard as the
  trial court.  See In re  Margaret Susan P., __ Vt. __, __,