Opinion ID: 2590373
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The fraudulent affidavit

Text: The circumstances surrounding Martha's fraudulent affidavit met all the elements of fraud: Martha misrepresented that Mitch had no interest in the house; she did so knowing her affidavit was untrue; she executed the affidavit with the intent of inducing Alkan to release its lis pendens on the house; and Alkan justifiably relied on the affidavit; [33] released its lis pendens; and suffered damages by losing its claim on the house. The final element of damages here is somewhat troubling, because Alkan's lis pendens had no legal effect. [34] However, as Martha did not argue below that the lis pendens had no legal effect, reversal on those grounds is not available to her. [35] Ultimately, since both parties and the trial judge treated the lis pendens as though it legitimately created a lien on the house, it apparently had substantial practical effect, even if no legal effect. When Martha gave Alkan this affidavit, she became liable for fraud to the extent of Mitch's interest in the house that she concealed from Alkan. This is true regardless of whether or not she committed fraud when she originally purchased the house in her name. Even if she did not know Alkan claimed to be Mitch's creditor at the time she purchased the house, she certainly knew after Alkan sued her. Thus, we need not consider whether or not Martha committed fraud when she purchased the house. Because Martha is liable for fraud for her affidavit, it is unnecessary to consider whether she is additionally liable for her earlier actions in concealing Mitch's interest in the house. [36]