Opinion ID: 1740168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: General Analysis of Proof of Fraudulent Suppression

Text: The trial judge's findings of fact and the evidence of record itself establish that defendant Botsford knew there was a flooding problem. Botsford had personally witnessed the flooding of lot 17 and he had lost a sale of lot 17 as a result of flooding just one month before the Lesters inquired about any water problems with that lot. All of the witnesses unanimously testified that the flooding defect was not apparent to the plaintiff purchasers. Moreover, during Sandy Willis's testimony, defense counsel conceded that Sandy Willis's testimony goes to suppression ... suppression that, yes the allegation is we knew there was substantial floods before this and we didn't tell her, I agree, she cannot, `As is,' accept to something she was not told of. The trial court concluded that the flooding of the plaintiffs' property constituted a defect affecting health and safety. We agree that the swiftness of the water flowing in and out of the easement; the washing of fish, which died, and of other debris into the plaintiffs' yards; the attraction of frogs into the plaintiffs' backyards and the breeding of tadpoles and frogs which died there; and the strong smell of sewage or dead fish, constitute a defect affecting the health and safety of the plaintiffs. Further, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs did not know of, and could not have known of, the flooding defect. The plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the defendants knew of and concealed the flooding defect. Thus, the trial court properly submitted the plaintiffs' fraudulent suppression claims to the jury. C & S Credit Corp. of Alabama, supra.