Title: Brakebill v. Hicks

State: georgia

Issuer: Georgia Supreme Court

Document:

259 Ga. 849 (1990) 388 S.E.2d 695 BRAKEBILL et al. v. HICKS et al. S89Q0351. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided March 1, 1990. McCorkle, Pedigo, Hunter & Johnson, David H. Johnson, for appellants. Nightingale, Liles, Dennard & Jordan, Randall A. Jordan, Christopher J. O'Donnell, C. Foster Lindberg, for appellees. Quinton S. King, amicus curiae. BELL, Justice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to this Court: The facts of the case, as set out by the Eleventh Circuit, are as follow: . . . Our answer to the certified question is controlled by our recent holding in Crawford v. Williams, 258 Ga. 806 (375 SE2d 223) (1989). In that case we held that "[a] party buying real property who makes no attempt to discover the boundaries of the property cannot be said to have `justifiably relied' on a misrepresentation by the seller regarding those boundaries." Id. at 808. As in Crawford, the plaintiffs in the instant case had ample opportunity to apprise themselves of the boundaries of the property, but "the facts of this case demonstrate a complete lack of any effort," Crawford, supra, 258 Ga. at 807, to do so. We therefore hold that, under the facts of this case, the statements by the agent of the seller did not operate to exempt the plaintiff-purchasers from the requirement of due diligence, and, accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative. Certified question answered in the negative. All the Justices concur, except Smith, P. J., who dissents. [1] The alterations in this paragraph, indicated by brackets, are not by this Court.