Case Title: DENNIS REOH AND PATRICIA J. REOH, HUSBAND AND WIFE; MICHAEL D. WADDELL AND CINDY WADDELL, HUSBAND AND WIFE; JERALD A. COX AND JACQUELINE K. COX, HUSBAND AND WIFE; LINDA D. BRASH AND LINDA D. BRASH, AS GUARDIAN FOR DAVID WAYNE BRASH, A MINOR; AND WILLIAM E. LEWIS v. SUCHOR INVESTMENTS, INC., APPELLEE (DEFENDANT), MARK S. GREEN, D/B/A GREENE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; LARRY F. SUCHOR; WILLIAM JAMES SUCHOR; RON ELY AND PATRICIA Y. ELY, D/B/A R & P HOME BUILDERS; JIMMY L. WISE, D/B/A FIRESIDE HOMES, INC.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
DENNIS REOH AND PATRICIA J. REOH, HUSBAND AND WIFE; MICHAEL D. WADDELL AND CINDY WADDELL, HUSBAND AND WIFE; JERALD A. COX AND JACQUELINE K. COX, HUSBAND AND WIFE; LINDA D. BRASH AND LINDA D. BRASH, AS GUARDIAN FOR DAVID WAYNE BRASH, A MINOR; AND WILLIAM E. LEWIS v. SUCHOR INVESTMENTS, INC., APPELLEE (DEFENDANT), MARK S. GREEN, D/B/A GREENE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; LARRY F. SUCHOR; WILLIAM JAMES SUCHOR; RON ELY AND PATRICIA Y. ELY, D/B/A R & P HOME BUILDERS; JIMMY L. WISE, D/B/A FIRESIDE HOMES, INC.1985 WY 60699 P.2d 284Case Number: 84-178Decided: 05/09/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
DENNIS REOH AND PATRICIA 
J. REOH, HUSBAND AND WIFE; MICHAEL D. WADDELL AND CINDY WADDELL, HUSBAND AND 
WIFE; JERALD A. COX AND JACQUELINE K. COX, HUSBAND AND WIFE; LINDA D. BRASH AND 
LINDA D. BRASH, AS GUARDIAN FOR DAVID WAYNE BRASH, A MINOR; AND WILLIAM E. 
LEWIS, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS), 

v. 

SUCHOR INVESTMENTS, INC., 
APPELLEE (DEFENDANT), MARK S. GREEN, D/B/A GREENE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; 
LARRY F. SUCHOR; WILLIAM JAMES SUCHOR; RON ELY AND PATRICIA Y. ELY, D/B/A R 
& P HOME BUILDERS; JIMMY L. WISE, D/B/A FIRESIDE HOMES, INC., 
(DEFENDANTS).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, CampbellCounty, Terrence L. O'Brien, 
J.

 
 
H.W. Rasmussen 
and Clay B. Jenkins of Badley and Rasmussen, P.C., Sheridan, for appellants 
(plaintiffs).

Jeffrey J. Gonda 
of Lonabaugh and Riggs, Sheridan; Franklin J. Wallahan of Wallahan Law Offices, 
Rapid City, S.D., for appellee 
(defendant).

Before THOMAS*, C.J., ROSE, ROONEY** and CARDINE, JJ., and RAPER, J., 
Retired.

* Became Chief Justice 
January 1, 1985.

** Chief Justice at time of 
oral arguments.

ROSE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal concerns 
the standard of care imposed upon a developer who subdivides raw land into lots 
for residential housing. Appellants-homeowners contend that the developer 
breached its duty to purchasers in this case by recommending underground 
construction levels below those levels recommended in its soils report. The 
district court determined that the developer's conduct did not amount to a 
breach of the duty established by this court in Anderson v. Bauer, Wyo., 681 P.2d 1316 
(1984). We agree and will affirm the summary judgment granted by the district 
court in favor of the developer.

[¶2.]     Appellee Suchor 
Investments, Inc. (Suchor) planned and developed Sleepy Hollow Subdivision in 
Campbell County, Wyoming. To insure that the subdivision 
complied with applicable county and federal regulations, Suchor hired Larson 
Engineering to serve as the project engineer. Larson Engineering engaged 
Northern Testing Laboratories, Inc. to analyze the soil and report on conditions 
which would affect the construction of houses. Test holes were drilled and the 
groundwater levels recorded for every lot in the subdivision. Based on these 
findings, Northern Testing Laboratories, Inc. recommended that basement floor 
slabs be built at least three feet above the recorded water 
levels:

"Groundwater was 
encountered at depths of 6 to 12 feet over the southeast one-half of the site. 
These levels are expected to fluctuate with precipitation and runoff. To avoid 
the possibility of groundwater entering basements, the basement floor slabs 
should be maintained at least 3 feet above the level at which groundwater was 
encountered in the borings."

The soils 
report, including the recommendations for subsurface construction, was filed 
with the Campbell County Engineer's office.

[¶3.]     Using the data compiled 
by Northern Testing Laboratories, Inc., Larson Engineering prepared for Suchor a 
"List of Lots Having Ground Water." This document specified the groundwater 
level encountered for each lot and recommended a minimum bottom footing 
elevation of two feet above the stated water level.

[¶4.]     After the approval of 
Sleepy Hollow Subdivision by the Campbell County Commissioners, Suchor sold the 
five lots involved in this litigation to professional home builders. All 
builders were notified of the existence of the soils report and of Larson 
Engineering's recommendations concerning the placement of 
foundations.

[¶5.]     The builders 
constructed homes on the subject lots and sold the properties to appellants. 
Water began seeping into the basements within a year after the completion of 
construction, and the homeowners brought suits against the developer and the 
builders. The trial court consolidated the actions and granted the developer's 
motion for summary judgment. This appeal concerns only the homeowners' claim 
against Suchor, the developer of the subdivision.

[¶6.]     Appellants' claim 
against Suchor focuses upon an alleged discrepancy between the specifications 
for footings recommended by the project engineer and the specifications for 
basement slabs recommended in the soils report. Appellants contend that the 
developer, through its engineer, negligently furnished construction information 
which conflicted with that found in the soils report. Whether and to what extent 
Suchor misinformed the builders present questions of material fact, appellants 
urge, and, therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary 
judgment.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7.]     When reviewing an order 
for summary judgment, this court

"* * * views the record 
in the light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment was 
entered, giving to that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which can 
be drawn from any of the materials which are submitted in support of or in 
opposition to the motion." Schepps v. 
Howe, Wyo., 
665 P.2d 504, 506 (1983).

The propriety of 
summary judgment depends upon the dual findings that there is no genuine issue 
of material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law. Rompf v. John Q. Hammons 
Hotels, Inc., Wyo., 685 P.2d 25 (1984); Blackmore v. Davis Oil Company, 
Wyo., 671 P.2d 334, 336 (1983); Schepps v. 
Howe, supra. We defined a material fact in Johnson v. Soulis, Wyo., 
542 P.2d 867, 872 (1975): 

"* * * [F]or purposes of 
ruling upon a motion for summary judgment a fact is material if proof of that 
fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential 
elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Such a fact 
would necessarily affect the application of the appropriate principle of law to 
the rights and obligations of the parties. In considering a motion for summary 
judgment it is appropriate for a court to identify the essential elements of the 
plaintiff's cause or of the defense asserted, and to then determine the 
materiality of any fact in the light of whether it will establish or refute one 
of those essential elements. If it does not have that effect, it would not be a 
material fact in the controversy, and a genuine issue with respect to that fact, 
no matter how sharp, would not foreclose the granting of a motion for summary 
judgment."

Thus, proof that 
Suchor recommended erroneous building specifications presents a material fact for purposes of this 
summary judgment only if it establishes a breach of the duty owed by a land 
developer to purchasers of homes.

DUTY OF CARE OWED BY THE 
LAND DEVELOPER

[¶8.]     We reviewed the 
question of a land developer's liability where damage results to a home buyer in 
Anderson v. Bauer, supra. We 
recognized that a developer ought to have responsibility for his activities, yet 
he should not be subject to liability for a purchaser's every misfortune, so as 
to stifle the development of land into needed residential areas. We established 
a reasonable standard of conduct for those who develop land for the construction 
of homes:

"* * * [W]here land is 
subdivided and sold for the purpose of constructing residential dwelling houses, 
the developer has a duty to exercise reasonable care to insure that the 
subdivided lots are suitable for construction of some type of ordinary, average 
dwelling house and he must disclose to his purchaser any condition which he 
knows or reasonably ought to know makes the subdivided lots unsuitable for such 
residential building. He has a further duty to disclose, upon inquiry, 
information he has developed in the course of the subdivision process which is 
relevant to suitability of the land for its expected use." 681 P.2d  at 
1323.

[¶9.]     Appellants in this case 
concede that the residential lots developed by Suchor were suitable for the 
construction of ordinary dwelling houses. Appellants further concede that the 
developer disclosed pertinent information upon inquiry. The homeowners contend, 
however, that liability results from Suchor's efforts to do more than that 
required under Anderson v. Bauer, 
supra. Suchor informed the builders of minimum bottom footing levels for lots 
with potential groundwater problems. Therefore, appellants urge, the developer 
assumed an obligation to provide accurate information and its failure to do so 
would constitute negligence entitling the homeowners to recover. Whether and to 
what extent the recommended footing levels conflict with the recommendations in 
the soils report thus become questions of material fact requiring expert 
testimony, according to appellants.

[¶10.]  We cannot agree that Suchor, by 
recommending foundation levels to builders, breached the duty of care owed to 
the appellants. Suchor had no control over the type of house to be constructed 
on each lot. The builder, not the developer, decided the appropriate depths for 
foundations and whether a particular house would have a basement. Suchor's 
figures were goodfaith recommendations, not mandatory directions, to be 
considered by the builders in light of all of the available engineering 
data.

[¶11.]  Suchor made available to the builders the 
soil test results, including the groundwater level for each lot. The 
recommendations prepared by Northern Testing Laboratories, Inc. and Larson 
Engineering based on these data were also disclosed to the builders. The fact 
that these recommendations conflicted with one another is insufficient to hold 
Suchor liable for water seepage in appellants' basements, where the analytical 
basis for the recommendations was available to the builders, and where the 
developer had no control over the nature of the houses built. Without question, 
the developer furnished lots that were suitable for the construction of dwelling 
houses. That satisfied its duty to the purchasers under Anderson v. Bauer, 
supra.

[¶12.]  The question of fact concerning Suchor's 
erroneous construction specifications has no application to the developer's duty 
of care to the purchasers in this case. Therefore, no issue exists as to any 
material fact and Suchor is entitled to prevail as a matter of law with respect 
to appellants' negligence claims.

[¶13.]  The summary judgment is 
affirmed.