Opinion ID: 2780530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Brochure

Text: After issuing the press release, the developer and the defendants created a full-color marketing brochure entitled: “Mt. Holly Club and Jack Nicklaus Invite You to Become a Charter Member.” Id. at 105-07. Immediately below this invitation was a quotation from Mr. Nicklaus: Mt. Holly Club enjoys the ideal alpine setting. I knew from my first visit there that we had been given a canvas on which to design a truly spectacular golf course. I am so impressed with the Mt. Holly Club and its management team that I became a founding charter member. I look forward to seeing you there. 5 Id. at 107 (emphasis added). Immediately following that statement, the brochure stated that “Charter Memberships can be acquired for [a] $1.5 million entry fee.” Id. (emphasis in original omitted). D. The Charter Membership Agreement The Donners allegedly saw the press release and brochure and decided to buy a charter membership. For this charter membership, the Donners paid $1.5 million and signed a charter membership agreement. Under this agreement, the developer issued the Donners an estate lot certificate. The certificate could eventually be redeemed for an estate lot when it became available. E. The Filing of Bankruptcy and the Settlement Agreement The developer’s parent company filed bankruptcy. With the filing of bankruptcy, the Donners settled with the parent company, obtaining a lot near the ski area and the right to trade that property for a lot in the development once it is platted. And, if the golf club and ski area are eventually developed, the Donners would be entitled to memberships. F. The Donners’ Lawsuit The Donners sued Mr. Nicklaus and Nicklaus Golf for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. 6 The central claim is that Mr. Nicklaus induced purchase of a charter membership through material misrepresentations and omissions in the marketing materials. The district court concluded that ● the Donners had failed to state plausible tort claims, ● the Donners were not entitled to relief under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and ● the Donners could not recover damages because they had already elected other remedies through settlement. With these conclusions, the court alternatively dismissed the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment to the defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. This appeal followed.