Opinion ID: 2569599
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: oral misrepresentations

Text: [¶ 20] The buyers also complain the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on several oral misrepresentations allegedly made to them by the agent during the property inspections. On appeal, the buyers provided no evidentiary support for these claims. Instead, they argued the questions of whether all the oral representations were even made and whether they were false were factual questions appropriate for consideration by a jury. This argument disregards the buyers' duty to come forward with competent evidence of specific facts to counter the motion for summary judgment. The alleged oral misrepresentations are as follows: 1. The agent stated the alfalfa was killed by heat broiling; 2. The buyers were not told about the existence of the weeds; 3. The agent misrepresented that he helped harvest sixty bushels of barley from the sellers' place; 4. The agent misrepresented that the Letellier house was about six years old; 5. The agent was not aware of the condition of the irrigation pipes and head gates and should have been; 6. Misrepresentation of the condition of the septic system at the Hallsted place; 7. Misrepresentation that a new septic system had been put in at the Letellier place; 8. Misrepresentation on the number of places alkali had leaked to the surface of the ground; 9. Cistern was represented to have been cleaned but was neither cleaned nor disinfected; 10. House at the Hallsted place had not been cleaned as represented; and 11. The agent misrepresented the alfalfa production capability. Summary judgment was granted on five of the alleged oral misrepresentations due to a lack of admissible evidence that the representations were false. These include: 1. Alfalfa was killed by heat broiling; 2. The agent misrepresented that he helped harvest sixty bushel/acres of barley from the sellers' place; 3. Misrepresentation on the septic system at the Letellier place; 4. Cistern at the Hallsted place was represented to have been cleaned but was neither cleaned nor disinfected; and 5. The agent misrepresented the alfalfa production capability. The trial court commented: [T]his Court has scoured every detail of the record for some admissible evidence that the representations referred to therein were false. [The buyers] have offered zero evidence on any of those allegations, and simply rely upon the proposition that whether they were false or not is a question of fact; however, [the sellers] have come forward with admissible evidence that they are, in fact, true. One of the basic elements of fraud is the falsity of the representation of a material fact. White, 528 P.2d at 1171. Our review of the same material considered by the trial court likewise leads us to the same conclusionthe buyers presented no evidence to support the allegation the representations were in fact false. [¶ 21] The trial court granted summary judgment on three of the alleged oral misrepresentations stating, [the buyers] have neither argued nor submitted evidence that there were misrepresentations with respect to any of these items. The allegations concerned (1) the existence of the weeds, (2) the condition of the irrigation pipes and head gates, and (3) misrepresentations about the alkali leaking to the surface. These claims reflect the buyers' propensity throughout this litigation to make bald assertions without evidentiary support. In fact, the buyers did not come forward with any evidence to show these representations were even made to them. [¶ 22] Next, the buyers claim the agent represented the Letellier home was about six years old. The agent testified in his deposition that, if the buyers had asked about the Letellier home, he would have told them it was probably built in the '50s. Notably, the buyers admitted they inspected the home, both inside and out, before they submitted their offer. It is not reasonable for the buyers to rely upon a representation, if in fact one was made, that the home was only six years old when it would be evident upon inspection that the home was much older. In terms of the intentional misrepresentation claim, the buyers are not justified in relying upon the truth of a representation if its falsity is obvious to them. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 541 (1977). Stated another way, one cannot recover if he blindly relies upon a representation, the falsity of which would be obvious to him upon a cursory examination or investigation. Id. at cmt. a. In this instance, the buyers were required to use their own senses, and, because they had the opportunity to inspect the property, no reasonable jury could conclude they relied on the statement. As there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding justifiable reliance or evidence that the representation was made, we affirm. [¶ 23] The buyers also maintain the Hallsted place had not been cleaned as represented. The trial court remarked that this claim demonstrate[d] the frivolous nature of the vast majority of the [buyers'] claims. Again, the buyers admitted they inspected the Hallsted place before they submitted their offer and, therefore, were not relying on its cleanliness as an inducement to enter into an agreement. [¶ 24] Finally, the buyers allege the condition of the Hallsted place septic system was misrepresented. They claim a septic problem occurred subsequent to their possession of the premises. However, no evidence was offered that either the sellers or the agent knew of any problem or problems which had existed prior to closing. The buyers do not direct this court to any evidentiary basis to prove a false representation was made. [¶ 25] The various misrepresentations must fail for a lack of proof that representations were made, relied upon, or false. In order to succeed on summary judgment, the movant must establish a prima facie case, and then the burden shifts to the opposing party who must show a genuine issue of material fact or come forward with competent evidence of specific facts countering the facts presented by the movant. Bender v. Phillips, 8 P.3d 1074, 1077 (Wyo.2000). At the trial court level and again on appeal, the buyers failed in their burden to establish material issues of fact on both the intentional misrepresentation and the negligent misrepresentation claims. Consequently, we affirm all aspects of the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the sellers and the agent.