Opinion ID: 2598813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: part ii. background.

Text: ¶ 4 The pertinent allegations of plaintiffs' trial court petition follow. In 1999 plaintiffs and defendants entered into a written contract for the purchase and sale of residential real property located in Edmond, Oklahoma. During the period of their ownership defendants experienced repeated and heavy flooding of the residential structure and defendants tried to stop the flooding problems by installing a small french drain system and a barricade on the property's east boundary. The repairs were inadequate to cure the flooding problems and defendants knew the repairs were inadequate, having experienced flooding after the repairs were completed. In order to deceive plaintiffs, defendants deliberately concealed the nature and scope of the flooding problems during the pre-sale negotiations by, among other devices, stating on a disclosure statement that, although the property had experienced flooding, it had been repaired. ¶ 5 The real estate purchase contract and a residential property condition disclosure statement form are attached to the petition. The latter bears Mr. Meiser's signature and that of both plaintiffs as having received a signed copy. Questions numbered 5 and 6 on the form, which are answered yes, ask: [a]re you aware of water seepage or leakage in any of the improvements on the property[] and [h]as the property been damaged or affected by flood, storm run-off, sewer backup, drainage or grading problems? In part of the form allowing explanation of a yes answer this hand-written language appears: # 5 & # 6 storm run off on East Side of home repaired by retaining wall, sidewalk and french drain about 3 years ago. [3] ¶ 6 Plaintiffs' petition also alleges they bought the property believing the flooding had been repaired, but after the purchase the property flooded on numerous occasions. They assert the cost to stop the flooding will exceed $10,000.00. They also claim defendants' conduct was fraudulent, deceitful, willful and intentional. The petition seeks the contract's rescission and restoration of all monies paid by them, including funds sufficient to discharge their liability on the note and mortgage used to pay the balance of the purchase price. [4] An in personam judgment against defendants for actual damages in excess of $10,000.00 and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.00 is also sought. [5] ¶ 7 Defendants moved to dismiss any theory of liability or remedy not brought under or allowed by the RPCDA. [6] In effect, they asserted (as on appeal) any theory or remedy beyond that specified in or allowed by the RPCDA's provisions is supplanted or abrogated by that Act; and that the RPCDA provides the sole and exclusive civil remedy for failure to disclose information concerning defects associated with the sale of residential real property or for providing inaccurate information in connection with a defect. [7] Plaintiffs argued in the trial court (as on appeal) that no language in the RPCDA can legitimately be interpreted to exhibit a legislative intent to abrogate the common law fraud claim raised in their petition or to limit the remedies for such fraud normally available at common law, including the potential for a recovery of punitive damages. [8] The trial judge, agreeing with defendants, dismissed any theory or remedy not arising under or allowed by the RPCDA and he certified his order for immediate appeal. We previously exercised our discretion to review the order and now hold the trial judge erred. [9]