N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

DONALD D. HOLM E S; GINA Y. KOPP,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,

v. W ESTER N TITLE & ESC R OW C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t,

a nd LLOYD R

AGAN; GLENDA R

AGAN, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 13-35117 D.C . No. 6:09-c v-06023-AA

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d June 16, 2017 ** 

# F IL ED

J UN 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a nd is not p re c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lud es t h is cas e is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l a rgum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS a nd M c K EOW N, C irc u it Judge s.

Dona ld D. H olm e s a

nd Gina Y. Kopp (“ Appe lla nts” ) a ppe a l pro s e the distric t

c ourt’ s ju d g m en t i n the ir dive rsity a c tion a ga inst Lloy d a nd Gle n da R a g a n (“ the R a ga ns” ). Appe lla

n t s a lle g e d inte n tiona l m i s r ep r e se nta tion a n d bre a c h of c ontra c t unde r Ore gon la

w in c onne c tion with the ir purc ha se o f a m obile hom e (“ the hom e ” ) from the R a ga ns. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s findin g s o f f ac t for c le a r e rror a nd the distric t

c ourt’ s c o nc lusions of la

w d e n o v o . O n eB e ac on Ins. C o . v . Haas Indus., Inc

. , 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2011). M ixe d que stions of la w a nd fa c t

a re a lso re vie we d de novo. Id

. 1. The r e w as n o error in e n te ring judgm e nt for t he R a ga ns on Appe lla

nts’ inte ntiona l-m isre pre se nta tion c la im ba se d o n an alle ge d pre -sa le sta te m e nt tha t the hom e ha d no rode nts or m o ld. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in finding tha t the R a ga ns la c ke d knowle d ge of ra ts or m ol d i n t h e h om e a t the tim e of the sa le

a gre e m e nt a nd tha t t

he m old found a fte r the storm wa s not in e x iste nc e a t t he tim e of the sa le a gre em en t
. Th e distric t c ourt a l so did not c le a rly e rr in finding tha t Appe l la n ts did not re ly on a ny s ta te m e nts by the R a ga ns re ga rding m old or ra ts whe n purc ha sing the hom e . B e c a use Appe lla

n ts did not e sta

blish m isre p re se nta tion,

2knowle dge , or re lia n c e , t he re wa s no e rror in finding tha t Appe lla nts fa ile d to prove inte ntiona l m isre p r ese nta tion. Se e Or. Pub. Emps.’ Re t. Bd. v . Simat, H e llie se n & Eic h ne r , 83 P.3d 350, 359 (Or. C t. App. 2004). 2. T h er e w as n o e rror in e n te ring judgm e nt for t he R a ga ns on Appe lla

nts’ bre a c h-of-c ontra c t c la im

. B e c a use the R a ga

n s la c ke d knowle d ge of ra ts in the hom e

a t the tim e of the sa le a gre e m e nt, the re wa s n o bre a c h of a wa rra nty of fre e d om from

m at er ia l de fe c ts or a bre a c h of the im plie d c ove na

nt of good fa ith a nd fa ir de a ling. Se e Broc k

w ay v . Allstate P rop. & C as. Ins. C o . , 391 P. 3 d 871, 879 (Or. C t. App. 2017). Furthe r, t

he re wa s no writte n a gre e m e nt re ga rding a s ixty -da y lim it for re pa ir of the s torm da m a ge , a nd a n y o ra l a gre e m e nt to tha t e ffe c t would ha ve v io l at ed the sta tute of fra uds. Se e Or. R e v. Sta t. § 41.580(1)(e ); K azlausk as v . Emme rt , 275 P.3d 171, 178 (Or. C t
. App. 2012). M ore ove r, the duty of good fa ith a nd fa ir de a ling did not re quire a n a ssignm e nt o f the R a ga ns’ insura nc e c la im or a powe r of a ttorne y to

a uthoriz e Appe lla

nts t o dire c t the hom e ’ s re pa irs to t he ir sa tisfa c tion. Se e Broc k w ay , 391 P.3d a

t 879

. 3 . F ina lly , the re wa s no e rror in e nte ring judgm e nt for the R a g a ns on t h e pa rtie s ’ c la i m an d c o unte rc la im for de c l a ra tory re lie f re ga rding $8,000 t

he R a ga ns pla c e d in e s c row pe nding c om ple tion of re pa irs. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr i n finding tha t the pa

rtie s’ e sc row a gre e m e nt did not inc lude a ny tim e lim it for the

3re pa irs, tha t t he re pa irs we re fully c om

ple te d, a nd tha t H olm e s sa id he would not hold the R a g a n s to a

ny re pa ir de a dline

. AFFIRM E D.

4