Title: Fowler v. Westair Enterprises, Inc.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Fowler v. Westair Enterprises, Inc.1995 WY 196906 P.2d 1053Case Number: 95-103Decided: 12/07/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
Charles E. FOWLER, 
Jr.,

 Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

WESTAIR ENTERPRISES, INC. 
d/b/a Cloud Peak Realty, 

Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Sheridan County, John C. Brackley, J.

Robert W. Brown 
of Lonabaugh and Riggs, Sheridan, for appellant.

John G. Fenn and 
Lawrence A. Yonkee of Yonkee & Toner, Sheridan, for 
appellee.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Charles 
Fowler, Jr. appeals from the summary judgment which was granted in favor of 
Appellee Westair Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Cloud Peak 
Realty.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUE

[¶3]      Fowler presents a 
single issue on appeal:

1.         
Whether the District Court properly granted Summary Judgment to Defendant 
Westair Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Cloud Peak Realty.

FACTS

[¶4]      In December of 
1991, Fowler traveled to Sheridan in search of a home to purchase. A real estate 
agent who was affiliated with Westair Enterprises showed a house to Fowler. The 
owners of the house had signed an agreement which gave the real estate agent the 
exclusive right to sell their home.

[¶5]      The real estate 
agent and Fowler discussed an apparent sag in the roof of the greenhouse portion 
of the home and a deflection in the floor of one of the upstairs bedrooms. The 
real estate agent suggested that Fowler could have a qualified inspector inspect 
the structural aspects of the house. The real estate agent informed Fowler that 
such an inspection would cost approximately seventy-five dollars. Fowler 
requested that the owners pay for an inspection.

[¶6]      After Fowler made 
an initial offer to purchase the property, he and the owners exchanged several 
counter offers. The following statements were included within the owners' 
December 17, 1991, counter offer:

2.         
A structural integrity study is in the process of being done. Results 
will be forwarded when they become available.

3.         
Acceptance of this counter offer is subject to buyer[']s approval of 
structural integrity study.

The real estate 
agent did not actually contact an engineer until December 24, 1991, to request 
that an inspection be made. The real estate agent told the engineer that the 
inspection had to be completed on that day. The engineer completed his 
inspection of the home in approximately one hour and, in a letter addressed to 
the real estate agent, concluded that the house was structurally sound. A copy 
of the letter was forwarded to Fowler, and the sale of the home was completed in 
February 1992.

[¶7]      Fowler 
subsequently discovered a number of defects in the home. He filed a lawsuit 
against the owners, Westair Enterprises, and the engineer. The district court 
granted a summary judgment in favor of the owners and Westair Enterprises. After 
a jury trial was held to consider Fowler's claims against the engineer, the 
trial court entered a judgment in favor of Fowler. At that point, the summary 
judgment which the district court had granted in favor of Westair Enterprises 
became a final order, and Fowler appealed from that order to this 
Court.

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      Summary judgment 
is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and when the 
prevailing party is entitled to have a judgment as a matter of law. Kahrs v. 
Board of Trustees for Platte County School District No. 1, 901 P.2d 404, 406 
(Wyo. 1995); see also W.R.C.P. 56(c). We examine the record from the vantage 
point most favorable to the party who opposed the motion, and we give that party 
the benefit of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the 
record. Adkins v. Lawson, 892 P.2d 128, 130 (Wyo. 1995).

[¶9]      Fowler argues 
that the summary judgment was improper because the real estate agent had acted 
as his agent for the limited purpose of securing an appropriate structural 
inspection or study of the house. Fowler insists that a genuine issue of 
material fact existed as to whether the real estate agent correctly communicated 
Fowler's concerns to the inspecting engineer about the structural soundness of 
the house.

[¶10]   In certain instances, a real estate 
agent who is generally acting on behalf of the sellers may be considered to be 
acting as the purchaser's agent as well. Hagar v. Mobley, 638 P.2d 127, 138 n. 6 
(Wyo. 1981). In Hagar, this Court held that a question of fact existed as to 
whether the real estate agent had acted as the purchaser's agent because he had 
assisted the purchaser in getting financing and agreed to "list the property 
being used as collateral and to eventually pay off the loan." 
Id.

[¶11]   Fowler and the real estate agent 
did not execute an express agency agreement. We must consider, therefore, 
whether an agency relationship arose by implication between Fowler and the real 
estate agent. Courts do not presume that an agency relationship exists. Walter 
v. Moore, 700 P.2d 1219, 1223-24 (Wyo. 1985). "When the relationship of 
principal and agent is in issue, the party alleging agency has the burden of 
[proving] both the existence and nature thereof." True v. Hi-Plains Elevator 
Machinery, Inc., 577 P.2d 991, 997 (Wyo. 1978). See also Lavoie v. Safecare 
Health Service, Inc., 840 P.2d 239, 248 (Wyo. 1992).

"Agency is the fiduciary 
relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to 
another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and 
consent by the other so to act."

True, 577 P.2d  
at 999 (quoting 1 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 1 at 7 (1957)). See also 
Sykes v. Lincoln County School District No. 1 & 2, 763 P.2d 1263, 1266 (Wyo. 
1988). Whether an agency relationship exists is a question of fact; however, 
when the evidence does not create a question of fact, the courts make that 
determination as a matter of law. Hamilton v. Natrona County Education 
Association, 901 P.2d 381, 386 (Wyo. 1995).

[¶12]   The real estate agent averred that 
he had told Fowler that he was representing the owners in the sale. Fowler 
testified in his deposition that he understood that real estate agents work for 
the sellers. The record reveals that the real estate agent told Fowler that 
Fowler could have an inspector examine the structural aspects of the home. 
Fowler told the real estate agent that he wanted the owners to pay for the 
inspection. Taking this evidence into account, we conclude that Fowler did not 
meet his burden of proving that an agency relationship had developed between him 
and the real estate agent. The real estate agent was, therefore, acting on 
behalf of the owners when he contacted the engineer.

[¶13]   Fowler argues that the summary 
judgment was also improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed as 
to whether Westair Enterprises breached the duty which it owed to him as a 
nonclient buyer. He claims that the real estate agent made a material 
misrepresentation to him in the owners' December 17, 1991, counter offer by 
stating that a structural integrity study was in the process of being done when, 
in fact, the real estate agent did not contact the engineer until December 24, 
1991. Fowler also suggests that he believed the engineer had performed a more 
extensive study than a normal structural inspection because the counter offer 
referred to it as being a "structural integrity study."

[¶14]   In Hagar, we stated: "[R]ealtors 
owe the vendee the same duties of integrity owed the public at large. They must 
be honest, trustworthy and competent." 638 P.2d  at 136. See also Kelly v. 
Roussalis, 776 P.2d 1016, 1018 (Wyo. 1989). We stated the duty of care in Rauh 
v. Kornkven, 852 P.2d 328 (Wyo. 1993), which is owed by real estate brokers and 
sales persons to nonclient buyers. The duties of a real estate agent include: 
"(1) to not perpetuate a material misrepresentation of the seller which the 
broker/salesperson knows or should know is false, and (2) to take reasonable 
steps to avoid giving the buyer false information." 852 P.2d  at 
330.

[¶15]   Westair Enterprise's real estate 
agent did not breach his duty to Fowler. Even though the statement in the 
December 17, 1991, counter offer that a structural integrity study was in the 
process of being done was incorrect, the misstatement was not material because 
the date on which the study was conducted was not of any 
consequence.

[¶16]   Fowler insinuates in his brief 
that, by containing the term "structural integrity study," the December 17, 
1991, counter offer represented that something more extensive than a normal 
structural inspection was being performed on the house. Fowler's deposition 
belies his argument. He testified that he considered the terms "structural 
integrity study" and "structural inspection" to be synonymous. Fowler was aware 
that the inspection would cost approximately seventy-five dollars, and he 
received a copy of the engineer's report, which was quite brief. Because of the 
low cost of the inspection and the brevity of the report, Fowler could not have 
reasonably believed that the inspection involved an extensive analysis of the 
structural integrity of the house. Consequently, neither the date of the 
inspection nor the terminology used to identify the engineer's examination was 
of any matter.

CONCLUSION

[¶17]   We hold that no genuine issue as to 
any material fact existed in this case and that Westair Enterprises was entitled 
to have a judgment as a matter of law.

[¶18]   Affirmed.