Opinion ID: 1864168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Setup of the Mobile Home

Text: Mr. Crawford alleged that when he visited the Palm Harbor factory Palm Harbor fraudulently misrepresented to him, through a sales brochure and a statement made by a Palm Harbor employee, that it would do everything for him except sell him a home. Mr. Crawford alleged that by that statement and the language of its brochure, Palm Harbor falsely represented that it would be responsible for the delivery and setup of any Palm Harbor mobile home he purchased, even though Palm Harbor was aware that it provided no such service to home purchasers. He further alleged that he relied on the representation and, as a result, was induced to purchase a Palm Harbor mobile home and that he suffered damage as a proximate result. Palm Harbor argues that the alleged misrepresentationthat it would deliver and set up a mobile home if Mr. Crawford purchased oneis not an actionable fraud because, it says, it was not a representation of an existing fact, but was instead a promise to act in the future. Palm Harbor argues that even if such a representation was made, Mr. Crawford has not shown that it made the representation with the intent to deceive. Palm Harbor contends that the Crawfords simply misinterpreted the brochure discussing setup of a Palm Harbor mobile home given to them at the Palm Harbor factory as a brochure for the Palm Harbor factory, when it was actually a brochure for Palm Harbor retailers. Palm Harbor argues that under Alabama law one cannot allege a fraudulent misrepresentation founded solely on his or her interpretation of a document. It also contends that any statement by its employee regarding mobile home setup must have been ambiguous and, thus, should have provoked further inquiry by the Crawfords. In response, Mr. Crawford argues that he presented substantial evidence, by his and his wife's trial testimony regarding the employee's alleged statement to them and the language of the sales brochure, that Palm Harbor represented to them that it would set up their Palm Harbor mobile home if they purchased one. Mr. Crawford argues that Palm Harbor made the representation with an intent to deceive; he argues that when Palm Harbor made the promise to set up their mobile home it had no intent to fulfill the promise, and that this is evident because it was not licensed to set up mobile homes in Alabama and had never set up mobile homes. In its order denying Palm Harbor's post-judgment motions, the trial court stated the following regarding this fraud claim: There was evidence from which the jury could find, by a clear and convincing standard, that Palm Harbor deceived the Plaintiffs by representing to them in writing and orally that Palm Harbor would handle the delivery and set-up of their mobile home. This occurred when the Plaintiffs visited the Palm Harbor factory in Boaz, Alabama, prior to the Plaintiffs' purchase of the Palm Harbor home which is the subject of the complaint. This claim alleges the promissory species of fraud. In order to establish promissory fraud, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant made a false misrepresentation; (2) of a material fact; (3) that is justifiably relied upon; (4) that the plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate result; (5) that at the time of the misrepresentation, the defendant intended not to perform the promised act; and (6) that the defendant had an intent to deceive. Gewin v. TCF Asset Mgmt. Corp., 668 So.2d 523 (Ala.1995); Pinyan v. Community Bank, 644 So.2d 919 (Ala.1994). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Mr. Crawford, the nonmovant in regard to the directed verdict and J.N.O.V. motions, we conclude that he presented substantial evidence in support of his claim. He presented substantial evidence that Palm Harbor represented to him that it would deliver and set up his mobile home if he purchased a Palm Harbor home, [5] that he justifiably relied upon the representation by purchasing a Palm Harbor home, [6] and that he suffered damage as the result of his purchasing a home that was damaged when it was improperly set up by unlicensed representatives of All Star. He also presented substantial evidence, albeit circumstantial, that when Palm Harbor made the representation it had no intent to perform as promised and made the representation with an intent to deceive. Although Palm Harbor also argues that there was no justifiable reliance on any misrepresentation made during the Crawfords' factory tour, because the purchase agreement Mr. Crawford signed in October 1992 contained a statement that All Star would perform setup of the mobile home, we believe the fraud was already complete when Mr. Crawford made his $4,100 down payment in August 1992 and first suffered monetary damage as a proximate result. Thus, the promissory fraud count was a good count.