Opinion ID: 2581176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Negligent or Intentional Misrepresentation

Text: [¶13] PBS also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against PBS's counterclaims of negligent and intentional misrepresentation. Both claims, PBS asserts, are based on CWC's persistent failure, either intentional or negligent, to provide [PBS] with a correct and accurate pay off amount on the Cody mortgages. PBS asserts that, because CWC provided wildly inaccurate or greatly different pay off numbers, PBS lost opportunities to sell the Cody hotel at a price that would have allowed PBS to pay off all of its obligations to CWC. [¶14] Both intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation are tort claims. Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 42, 75 P.3d 640, 656 (Wyo. 2003); Pinther v. Ditzel, 2007 WY 116, ¶ 11, 163 P.3d 816, 818 (Wyo. 2007). In contrast, the relationship between PBS and CWC, as borrower and lender, was contractual in nature. Martinez v. Associates Financial Services Co., 891 P.2d 785, 788-89 (Wyo. 1995). We have been exceedingly reluctant to introduce tort principles into claims that are essentially contract actions. Hulse v. First American Title Co., 2001 WY 95, ¶ 55, 33 P.3d 122, 139 (Wyo. 2001). More particularly, we have been rightfully hesitant to find tort causes of action where a contract exists. Lee v. LPP Mortgage Ltd., 2003 WY 92, ¶ 27, 74 P.3d 152, 162 (Wyo. 2003). That is because the contractual relationship controls, and parties are not permitted to assert actions in tort in an attempt to circumvent the bargain they agreed upon. Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079, 1087 (Wyo. 1999). [¶15] PBS complains that CWC misrepresented amounts due under the Cody mortgages, alleging in its Answer and Counterclaim that CWC had a duty to provide information to [PBS] so that [PBS] might correctly determine the amount owed by [PBS]. PBS has not identified the source of CWC's duty. Our review of the record shows that, contrary to PBS's allegation, the Cody mortgages assign that duty to PBS, not CWC: After request by Lender [CWC], Borrower [PBS], within fifteen (15) days and at its expense, will furnish Lender [CWC] with a statement, duly acknowledged and certified, setting forth (a) the amount of the original principal amount of the Note, and the unpaid principal amount of the Note, (b) the rate of interest of the Note, (c) the date payments of interest and/or principal were last paid, [etc.]. It is probably more common for the lender to perform accounting functions associated with a mortgage. In this case, however, the amount owed under the Cody mortgages at any given time depended, in part, on a complicated formula involving PBS's net worth. Because PBS had better access to this financial information, the parties apparently agreed that PBS, not CWC, should determine the amount owed under the Cody mortgages. [¶16] Whatever the explanation for this provision of the Cody mortgages, it unambiguously places the duty on PBS, not CWC, to calculate the amount owed. It is well established in Wyoming that when parties reduce a contract to writing, they must abide by its plainly stated terms. Snyder, 992 P.2d at 1089. Where the parties agreed by contract to allocate a specified duty to one party, that duty may not be shifted to the other party by asserting a tort claim. [¶17] Because PBS failed to establish that CWC had any duty to provide it with figures for the amount owed under the Cody mortgages, PBS cannot sustain its intentional or negligent misrepresentation claims against CWC. This does not mean that intentional or negligent misrepresentation claims may never be maintained by a borrower against a lender, or by others whose relationships are defined by contract. Our precedent suggests circumstances in which such tort claims may be viable. See, e.g., Martinez, 891 P.2d at 789 (Lender's extra-contractual duties might be predicated upon a special or fiduciary relationship.); Hulse, ¶ 57, 33 P.3d at 139-40 (Extra-contractual duties may arise when applicable statutes impose affirmative tort duties.). In this case, however, the contract imposed the duty on PBS to provide figures on the amounts due under the Cody mortgages. PBS may not reallocate that contractual duty to CWC in a tort claim. On this basis, the district court correctly granted summary judgment against PBS's counterclaims.