Case Name: Roger SIGSWORTH v. Jan B. GERNON and Latter & Blum, Inc.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1985-04-01
Citations: 465 So. 2d 705
Docket Number: No. 84-C-1412
Parties: Roger SIGSWORTH v. Jan B. GERNON and Latter & Blum, Inc.
Judges: LEMMON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 465
Pages: 705–709

Head Matter:
Roger SIGSWORTH v. Jan B. GERNON and Latter & Blum, Inc.
No. 84-C-1412.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 1, 1985.
Rehearings Denied May 2, 1985.
Barbara Treuting Casteix, Dawn M. Barrios, Cleveland, Barrios, Kingsdorf & Cas-teix, New Orleans, for applicant-plaintiff.
Howard R. Fussell, Jones, Fussell, Der-veloy & Schoen, Covington, Mitchell J. Hoffman, McCloskey, Dennery, Page & Hennesy, New Orleans, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
WATSON, Justice.
ISSUE
Should defendants refund the deposit plaintiff made in connection with an agreement to purchase a house because structural defects invalidated the contract? LSA-C.C. art. 1825.
FACTS
On October 8, 1980, plaintiff, Roger Sigs-worth, and defendant, Jan B. Gernon, executed a buy and sell agreement as to Ger-non's house and lot at 222 Loop Drive, Slidell, Louisiana. Defendant, Latter & Blum, Inc., the real estate agent, received an $8,100 check for ten percent of the $81,000 price from Sigsworth. Prior to concluding the sale, Sigsworth discovered cracks in the slab under a bedroom carpet, one being a sixteenth of an inch wide and over eight feet long. The kitchen floor was uneven with a dip under the refrigerator. An expert in residential construction found other defects, including a two inch variation between the height of the slab in the center and the perimeter. Refusing to consummate the sale, Sigsworth requested that Ms. Gernon authorize Latter & Blum to return his deposit, but she refused.
At trial, Sigsworth's expert, Jeff Power, Jr., said the defects were serious and he would not have purchased the house. Power's opinion was supported by the testimony of William H. White, a consulting engineer, who had inspected the cracks in the slab, the irregular floor surface in the kitchen, and the two inch discrepancy between the center and perimeter of the slab. White said mortar had been replaced or resurfaced on the brick veneer, indicating a crack. The chimney at the rear of the house was slightly tilted, and the mortar between the chimney and the wall of the house had been re-worked. On the basis of his inspection, White would not have purchased the house.
Defendant's two experts, Willis Palmer and Ivan Borgan, made a cursory inspection of the house. Palmer did not look under the carpet for the cracks. Borgan only looked at the exterior of the house. On the basis of their limited observations, they testified that the house was structurally sound.
Sigsworth sued Ms. Gernon and Latter & Blum, demanding rescission of the contract, refund of the deposit, damages and attorney's fees. Latter & Blum placed the deposit in the registry of the court and reconvened for its six percent commission and attorney's fees. Ms. Gernon reconvened for the amount of the deposit, attorney's fees, and damage to the carpet allegedly resulting from inspection of the slab. Sigsworth's claim was dismissed. Ms. Gernon was granted the $8,100 deposit plus accrued interest, $1,000 in attorney's fees, and $463 for damage to the carpet. Latter & Blum was awarded a commission of $4,800, plus $1,000 in attorney's fees. The decision was affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Since it appeared that there was an egregious miscarriage of justice, a writ was granted. 458 So.2d 467 (La., 1984).
LAW
Precisely in point is Stack v. Irwin, 246 La. 777, 167 So.2d 363 (1964). The house in Stack had a break in the foundation slab, a two and a half inch differential in the floor elevation and other problems. Finding that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in failing to rescind the contract, Stack held that:
"the break in the foundation slab underlying the entire structure is a serious, latent defect . it is attended by an abnormal variation in floor elevation. Such a break in the slab is quite different from the hairline, surface cracks in terrazzo floors, which frequently appear. To eliminate the break requires replace ment of the slab, a major operation. To leave it makes difficult the repair of the floor cracks over it and increases, at least in some degree, the risk of moisture permeation. A reasonable inference arises that the contract would not have been made if the facts had been known. We find error relating to the principal cause of the contract that warrants a rescission of the contract and a return of the deposit." 246 La. at 786, 167 So.2d at 366.
CONCLUSION
Sigsworth would not have entered into the contract to buy and sell if he had known the facts concerning the serious crack in the foundation slab, the difference in elevation between the center and perimeter of the slab, the repair to the brick mortar, the tilt of the chimney and the unevenness of the slab. Sigsworth had justifiable concern about the structural integrity of the house.
The trial court erred in two aspects. First, it was not necessary that plaintiff prove conclusively the slab was faulty, only that a reasonable buyer would not have signed the agreement to purchase knowing the facts about the house. Sigs-worth produced such proof. Second, the trial court erred in concluding that the house was structurally sound on the basis of defendant's experts. One did not go inside the house; neither viewed the cracks in the slab, or found the defects listed by White, the consulting engineer. They made no serious effort to establish the structural soundness of the house. This is not a matter of credibility. The weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of plaintiff, who is entitled to rescission of the contract to purchase.
There is no authority to award damages claimed by plaintiff for loss of ability to acquire other property, mental anguish, or attorney's fees. As to defendant's claim for damage to the carpet, plaintiff had no other means of inspecting the slab than to pull back the carpet. The record does not indicate that the carpet was damaged intentionally or negligently, and damages will not be allowed.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff, Roger Sigsworth, and against defendants, Jan B. Gernon and Latter & Blum, Inc., rescinding and annulling the contract to buy and sell entered into between the parties.
Judgment is further rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, ordering that the deposit of $8,100 now in the registry of the trial court be paid to plaintiff, and that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, Jan B. Gernon, for legal interest on the sum of $8,100 from the date of judicial demand, until paid. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against Jan B. Gernon.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
LEMMON, J., concurs.
BLANCHE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
MARCUS, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice BLANCHE.
DENNIS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by the court of appeal.
. LSA-C.C. art. 1825 provided (prior to January 1, 1985):
"The error in the cause of a contract to have the effect of invalidating it, must be on the principal cause, when there are several; this principal cause is called the motive, and means that consideration without which the contract would not have been made."