Opinion ID: 1740168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: `suppression of truth duty to disclose

Text: `The plaintiff contends that the defendant was guilty of a legal fraud because the defendant (concealed) (withheld) material facts from the plaintiff and without knowledge of such material facts the plaintiff acted to his injury. The defendant denies those allegations and, therefore, the burden is upon the plaintiff to reasonably satisfy you from the evidence of the truthfulness of each of the following claims: `1. That the defendant (concealed) (withheld) material facts from the plaintiff to induce the plaintiff to act; and `2. That without knowledge of such material facts the plaintiff acted to his injury. `In determining whether the plaintiff has sustained the foregoing burden, you may consider the value of the particular fact(s) involved, any inequality of the condition of the parties, and whether the defendant has some particular knowledge or expertise not shared by the plaintiff.' 729 So.2d at 841-42. With regard to a seller or a seller's agent's duty to disclose defects in residential real estate, this Court has held: In Alabama the seller of used residential real estate generally has no duty to volunteer knowledge; however, when a direct inquiry is made of him or her, the seller has a duty to respond honestly. However, if the seller, or the seller's agent, is questioned directly about specific defects, or if the seller or the agent has knowledge of specific defects that affect health or safety and the defect is not known to or readily observable by the buyer, the seller or the agent has a duty to disclose and is liable for damages for nondisclosure.  (Emphasis added.) Roberts v. C & S Sovran Credit Corp., 621 So.2d 1294, 1297 (Ala.1993) (citations omitted). Suppression of a material fact which the party is under an obligation to communicate constitutes fraud. The obligation to communicate may arise from the confidential relations of the parties or from the particular circumstances of the case. § 6-5-102, Ala.Code 1975. See also § 6-5-103 and § 6-5-104, Ala.Code 1975. In this case the plaintiffs purchased new homes directly from the builder of the homes. See Cochran v. Keeton, 287 Ala. 439, 252 So.2d 313 (1971) (this Court abrogated the caveat emptor rule in sales of new residential real estate by a builder-vendor). Therefore, because each of the homes being sold was new, the abrogation of the caveat emptor rule strengthens the duty of a seller or a seller's agent to disclose defects affecting health and safety.