Court Opinion

ID: 9784643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:50:17.210126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:57.355248
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Associate Chief Justice,
concurring in the result:
¶ 30 I concur with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion that Mary Mel owed no duty to the Smiths, and that as such a summary judgment in Mary Mel’s favor was proper. Mary Mel conveyed the lot to Patterson Construction, who conveyed to GT Investments, who conveyed to the Smiths. No theory advanced by the Smiths supports extension of a duty to disclose that far. The remaining analysis regarding the duty of home builders to disclose subsurface conditions to buyers is dicta at best.
¶ 31 We need not, nor are we asked to consider the duty, if any, running from a home builder to a home buyer to disclose non-obvious defects in the land that may or *928may not be known by the builder. To do so in this case simply extends our analysis not only beyond the facts and law considered by the trial court, but also beyond the facts and law necessary to resolve the case. There is no need for us to rely on the law of numerous other jurisdictions to fashion a new duty under Utah law to be imposed on home builders.
¶ 32 As a result, I would affirm the trial court on the sole basis that the law imposed no duty on Mary Mel to disclose anything regarding the condition of the property to the Smiths, and that as a direct result the causes of action advanced by the Smiths against Mary Mel fail as a matter of law.
¶ 33 Justice DURRANT concurs in Associate Chief Justice WILKINS’ concurring opinion.