Court Opinion

ID: 9846684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:45:26.073847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.433930
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (specially concurring). In my opinion the listing made by the defendant that there was a wood burning fireplace in the den when there was not constituted constructive fraud. Constructive fraud is the breach of a legal or equitable duty which the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others. It may consist of not speaking when one has a duty to speak as well as saying that which is false. Neither actual dishonesty of purpose nor intent to deceive is an essential element of constructive fraud. Scudder v. Hart, 45 N.M. 76, 110 P.2d 536 (1941); Barber’s Super Markets, Inc. v. Stryker, 84 N.M. 181, 500 P.2d 1304 (Ct.App.1972), cert. denied, 84 N.M. 180, 500 P.2d 1303 (1972). That is, ignorance is not a defense; a party is bound to know whereof he speaks or remain silent. This could also be classified as negligent misrepresentation. See Maxey v. Quintana, 84 N.M. 38, 499 P.2d 356 (Ct.App.1972), cert. denied, Jack Daily Realty, Inc. v. Maxey, 84 N.M. 37, 499 P.2d 355 (1972). The decisive findings made by the trial court were Nos. 6 and 10: “6. Said listing included a picture of the premises and also a description of the premises, among which was the following description printed on the listing form, to-wit: ‘WB/FP’ after which the word ‘Den’ was typed (Finding 6, Id). “10. The fireplace was defective in that the chimney was not of sufficient height, there was no smoke shelf, there was no damper, and the firebox was not made of proper materials (Finding 11, Id).” These two findings render findings 11, 12, 13, and part of 14 immaterial: “11. The Defendant Kopp had no more expertise in the condition of the fireplace or the construction and function of the fireplace than the plaintiff, his wife, or his representative (Finding 13, Tr. 66, Challenged Point I). “12. Defendant Kopp had no knowledge or information of the defects in the fireplace until after the sale to the plaintiff (Finding 14, Tr. 66, Challenged Point I). “13. The plaintiff or his wife at no time prior to signing the purchase agreement or closing had any conversation with the Defendant Kopp (Finding 15, Tr. 67, Challenged Point I). “14. At no time did the Defendant Kopp or his agents make any representations to the plaintiff or his wife or agents regarding the fireplace . .” Finding 15 is plainly not warranted by any reasonable view of the evidence: “15. The plaintiff at no time relied upon any representations of the Defendant Kopp or his agents as to the fireplace in purchasing1 the home (Finding 17, Tr. 67, Challenged Point I).” We are not bound by the conclusions or inferences that a trial court draws from the facts. Finding No. 18 made by the trial court reads as follows: “18. That pursuant to paragraph 2 of the purchase agreement, plaintiff represented that he examined said premises and purchased same ‘as is’ and not because of any representations by the sellers or agents.” Although purportedly a finding of fact, this constitutes a conclusion of law, in my opinion. The construction and meaning of a written contract is a question of law to be determined by the court. Neher v. Viviani, 15 N.M. 460, 110 P. 695 (1910). The trial court obviously construed this part of the contract to mean that the plaintiff was purchasing the property in the condition shown and that he was trusting.to his own examination. To adopt such an interpretation in circumstances such as these would be to allow sellers to perpetrate all sorts of fraud and constructive fraud on unsuspecting buyers. A more reasonable interpretation under these circumstances and one with which I am in complete agreement, was given in Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 29 Cal.Rptr. 201, 8 A.L.R.3d 537 (1963): “such a provision means that the buyer takes the property in the condition visible to or observable by him.” The major defects in the construction of the fireplace would not have been visible to plaintiff even if he could see.