Opinion ID: 2569599
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: misrepresentations made in the information sheet

Text: [¶ 10] Intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation share common elements. Intentional misrepresentation (fraud) is established when the following elements are proven: (1) the defendant made a false representation intended to induce action by the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff reasonably believed the representation to be true; and (3) the plaintiff relied on the false representation and suffered damages. Sundown, Inc. v. Pearson Real Estate Company, Inc., 8 P.3d 324, 330 (Wyo.2000). Intentional misrepresentation must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Quite similarly, a plaintiff in a claim for negligent misrepresentation must show: One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. Hulse v. First American Title Company of Crook County, 2001 WY 95, ¶ 52, 33 P.3d 122, ¶ 52 (Wyo.2001) (quoting Richey v. Patrick, 904 P.2d 798, 802 (Wyo.1995)). A fundamental difference between the two causes of action is, a plaintiff need only prove negligent misrepresentation by a preponderance of the evidence, not unlike any other plaintiff in any other action sounding in negligence, while a plaintiff must prove intentional misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence. Verschoor v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 907 P.2d 1293, 1299 (Wyo.1995). [¶ 11] The trial court found the buyers failed to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate material issues of fact concerning the various misrepresentations they claimed occurred. First, the buyers alleged statements in the information sheet provided by the sellers and the agent to interested potential purchasers misrepresented the amount of water rights attributable to the property as follows: Water rights for 1075 acres plus reservoir water from Lake Adelaide. Several small reservoirs on the property, and WATER COSTS: Shell Canal Rehab$4,251.97; Shell Canal Adelaide$5,994.02; 1994 Shell Canal @ $8.50/acre$8,604.96. The buyers argued the testimony of J.R. Kvenild, a Wyoming real estate broker, demonstrated a misrepresentation when he testified that, according to his research and information from the State Engineer's office, there isn't a full 1,075 acres of water rights. However, the designated record provides no evidence submitted by the buyers to establish the amount of water rights they contended was accurate. [¶ 12] An affidavit from Dorothy Balo, an employee with the Shell Canal Company, was presented to the trial court and provided in part: (4) According to the books, records and accounts of Shell Canal Company, there are water rights for 1,075.62 acres. These are the same water rights available to [the sellers] from and after September of 1994, according to our books and records. (5) In addition to those water rights, there is water available from Lake Adelaide to service the [sellers'] property. [¶ 13] The trial court granted summary judgment concluding that no false statement was intentionally or negligently made because the Shell Canal Company records were used to compile the information sheet and, while the sellers occupied the property, they paid for water rights on 1,075 acres. Testimony that the water rights were not on a full 1,075 acres without any evidence as to the amount the buyers contended was accurate is insufficient to create a material issue of fact that a false statement was made. [¶ 14] Second, the buyers contend the statement that the property consisted of approximately 1,956 acres plus seven acres for the home place was a misrepresentation of the acreage. The buyers' claim is either they were not provided with land descriptions or it was not possible to accurately determine the total amount of acreage included in the sellers' property from the land descriptions. Regardless of which contention is applied, both arguments fail to establish the essential element of a misrepresentation; i.e., that a false representation was made. The designated record does not reflect any evidence provided to the trial court which would establish a material issue of fact. [¶ 15] Third, the buyers allege the number of acres which were capable of being put into production was misrepresented. The information sheet provided there were [a]pproximately 600 acres in production now with another 200 acres that could be put in. (Emphasis added.) The agent testified the sellers had told him there was about 450 acres of alfalfa, about 100 acres of oats, and I believe 60 to 80 acres of irrigated pasture. This statement is consistent with the estimated production set out in the information sheet. Furthermore, the Farm Service Agency (the Agency) supervisor's affidavit reflected the buyers had filed three separate reports with the Agency indicating they had 745 acres of crop land. [¶ 16] In granting summary judgment on this issue, the trial court relied upon the following factors: Considering the use of the word, approximately, in the Property Condition Statement, the caveat found at the bottom of the Property Condition Statement, the fact that John Dewey did not know the dates the photographs he used were taken and did not know whether all of the property depicted was part of the [sellers'] place or not, the fact that there was no survey done and there was no engineer's report available, and the fact that John Dewey, himself, after drilling his grain, represented a significantly larger number to the Department of Agriculture, there is clearly no material issue of fact regarding the point in questionthat is, whether there was a misrepresentation .... Upon a thorough review of the evidence and materials presented to the trial court, we agree with the court's reasoning and assessment of the evidence. [3] The buyers did not provide any evidence that there was less than the approximated acreage as identified in the information sheet. [¶ 17] Finally, the buyers assert the number of cattle located on the property was misrepresented by the statement on the information sheet that the sellers were [p]resently running 175 cows and calves on the place. The buyers assert 175 cows and calves implies there were 175 cow/calf pairs, for a total of 350 animals on the property. Specifically, the buyers maintain, It would only stand to reason tha[t] any court in Wyoming, a state rich in the heritage of the livestock industry, ... would take judicial notice that when speaking of a cow and a calf, you are speaking of a pair. The buyers admitted that, on their three property inspections, they saw only a total of approximately 160 animals, an amount significantly less than what they maintained was represented in the information sheet. [¶ 18] In White v. Ogburn, 528 P.2d 1167, 1171 (Wyo.1974), we addressed a fraudulent misrepresentation claim regarding the number of cattle being run on the property at the time of sale. In that case, we dismissed the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation with the following language: We do not say that [defendants] could not rely upon representations made to them by the [plaintiffs], but they could not blind themselves to observe the readily available facts and place reliance upon such alleged misrepresentations without making a diligent inquiry of these facts. 528 P.2d at 1171. We have previously stated that [r]eliance is reasonable when false representations have occurred prior to the execution of the contract which is sought to be avoided or for which damages are sought to be recovered. Sundown, Inc., 8 P.3d at 331. Just as the purchasers in White were able to observe the cattle on the premises, so too were these buyers. Even if the buyers could have initially proven a misrepresentation, once they inspected the property and had the ability to observe the number of cattle on the premises, they could no longer rely upon their belief that the property supported 350 animals. The buyers failed to provide evidence to establish a material issue of fact existed as to the essential element of reliance. [¶ 19] Summary judgment was properly granted on each of the claimed intentional and negligent misrepresentations contained within the information sheet.