Opinion ID: 3005104
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The As-Is and Mold Waivers

Text: Wells Fargo contends that the As-Is and Mold Waivers attached to its motion to dismiss demonstrate that Jones failed to state claims for redhibition and fraud. The district court agreed with Wells Fargo and dismissed Jones’s claims on this basis. On appeal, Jones argues that it was error for the district court, in deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), to go beyond her complaint and consider these documents. In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court generally may only consider those documents that are part of the pleadings. “Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her claim.” Causey v. Sewell CadillacChevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). Wells Fargo argues that the district court properly considered the As-Is and Mold Waivers pursuant to this rule because the documents were part of the contract to purchase the Residence and are central to Jones’s claim. However, these documents are not explicitly referred to in Jones’s complaint and her claims of redhibition and fraud do not directly reference the contract to purchase the Residence. We find it unnecessary to resolve whether the district court properly considered the waivers because, if the facts as alleged by Jones are ultimately 8 Case: 15-30031 Document: 00513209556 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/28/2015 No. 15-30031 proven, the waivers do not negate Jones’s claims under Louisiana law. 1 Accordingly, we pretermit this issue and hold that Jones stated plausible claims of redhibition and fraud. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. First, the Mold Waiver states only that mold “may exist at the property.” This acknowledgement of the possibility of mold does not disclose the true nature of the defect as Jones alleges it was known by Wells Fargo—that extensive mold growth did exist at the property. See Frey v. Walker, 807 So. 2d 887, 891–92 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2001) (concluding that partial disclosures were inadequate to disclose the full nature of defects); cf. Jessup, 482 F.3d at 345 (holding that a disclosure that the property “had termites” and that “[v]isible evidence of wood destroying insects was observed” was sufficient to make the presence of termite damage apparent). Second, it is well-settled under Louisiana law that a seller may not fail to disclose a defect or actively conceal it and then employ a waiver to contract out of its obligation to disclose that defect. See Shelton, 798 So. 2d at 64 (explaining that “fraud in the inducement of a contract cannot be waived,” and that “although the warranty against redhibitory defects may be excluded or limited, a seller cannot contract against his own fraud and relieve himself of liability to fraudulently induced buyers”); Schmuck v. Menees, 131 So. 3d 277, 281 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (“[A] seller with knowledge of a redhibitory defect, who, rather than informing the buyer of the defect opts to obtain a waiver of the warranty implied by law, commits fraud, which vitiates the waiver because it is not made in good faith.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 1Jones also argues that the district court erred by granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) based on a weighing of the evidence. We need not address this argument because, in conducting a de novo review, we conclude that Jones’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. 9 Case: 15-30031 Document: 00513209556 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/28/2015 No. 15-30031 Jones’s complaint contains factual allegations that Wells Fargo was fully aware of the mold growth in the Residence, took steps to actively conceal the mold growth, and then failed to disclose that information and those efforts. Under these facts, the As-Is and Mold Waivers are unenforceable and ineffectual to preclude Jones’s redhibition and fraud claims. See Shelton, 798 So. 2d at 64; Frey, 807 So. 2d at 893. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of dismissal granted in favor of Wells Fargo and REMAND for further proceedings consistent herewith.