Opinion ID: 799464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In 1998, the appellee, the City of Laconia (the City or Laconia), purchased a house located at 192 Elm Street in Laconia (the property or home). The property was an older house, built before 1978. The City purchased the property, which at the time was a group home, to provide extra storage and parking for the adjacent branch of the Laconia Public Library (the Library). In connection with the transaction, the seller turned over a Lead Paint Inspection Report, which detailed the results of a 1996 inspection performed by Alpha Lead Consultants, Inc. (the Alpha report). The Alpha report indicated that lead-based paint was present in the home. After the purchase, the Library maintained a copy of the Alpha report in its files. Some years later the City decided to sell the property and in 2003, the appellant, Jameson Randall, contracted to purchase it. When Randall signed the purchase and sale agreement he received a blank, pre-printed, standard lead-based paint disclosure form titled Disclosure of Information on Lead-Based Paint and Lead-Based Paint Hazards for Housing Sales (the disclosure form). The disclosure form included a section titled Seller's Disclosure, in which the seller (the City) was to indicate whether it had any knowledge of lead-based paint hazards [1] in the home and whether it had any reports or records pertaining to the same. The disclosure form also provided for a Purchaser's Acknowledgment that included an acknowledgment that the buyer (Randall) had a ten-day window in which to conduct a lead-based paint hazard inspection. Randall and his buyer's agent signed the blank disclosure form. The buyer's agent then informed Randall that the City would complete the disclosure form later. However, the City never completed the form nor did it turn over the Alpha report. [2] Randall opted not to have his own inspection performed. [3] Despite not having received the completed disclosure form from the City, Randall went ahead and closed on the property, taking title on July 22, 2003. He then moved into the home with his wife and two daughters. In 2006, the couple had a third child, a son. In 2008, tests taken at the son's two-year physical revealed an elevated blood lead level. As a result, the state of New Hampshire sent a representative to the property to perform an inspection for lead. The inspection (the results of which were given to Randall in an October 13, 2008 letter) revealed lead-based paint hazards in the home. Elimination or control of the hazards was recommended. On February 9, 2010approximately six and one-half years after he purchased the propertyRandall filed this lawsuit. The sole count in the complaint alleged that the City had violated 42 U.S.C. § 4852d, which requires the disclosure of lead-based paint hazards in connection with the sale of homes built before 1978. Though at the time of filing suit Randall had not had any removal or abatement of the lead-based paint performed, he alleged that he had received an estimate of approximately $126,000 to perform the work and that he would not have purchased the home if he had known about the hazards. As part of the discovery process, Randall propounded a request for document production on the City. The City responded on May 28, 2010 and one of the documents that it turned over was the Alpha report. This was the first time Randall had seen the report. A few months later, the City moved for summary judgment, alleging that Randall's cause of action was barred by the applicable three-year state statute of limitations. The City's position was that Randall's cause of action accrued when he took title to the property on July 22, 2003 and therefore his suit, filed six and one-half years later, came too late. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Randall appealed.