Court Opinion

ID: 9854466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:07:57.024321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:05.588669
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur fully in Division 2 of the majority opinion. I cannot, however, concur in Division 1, wherein the majority reverses the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee. The effect of the majority opinion is to create a new principle of law: Let the Seller Beware. If the majority is correct in this case, then the seller in each and every real estate contract in Georgia is a potential defendant in a fraud action. Because I cannot agree that this is or should be the law, I must respectfully dissent.
As the majority notes, appellee’s alleged fraud concerns the location of the existing well and driveway serving the property. Clearly, the locations of the well and driveway were patently observable to prospective purchasers. Compare Wilhite v. Mays, 239 Ga. 31 (235 SE2d 532) (1977). Appellants nevertheless alleged that they had been defrauded by appellee because the well and driveway were not actually located on the property being sold. The majority concedes that no affirmative misrepresentations were made to appellants that the well and driveway were located on the property being sold. The ma*647jority holds, however, that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to appellee’s fraudulent concealment of the fact that the location of the well and driveway was not on the property which he sold to appellants. In so doing, the majority overlooks the established principles of law which are applicable to fraud by passive concealment.
“In cases of passive concealment by the seller of defective realty, ‘the buyer must prove that the vendor’s concealment of the defect was an act of fraud and deceit, including evidence that the defect “could [not] have been discovered by the buyer by the exercise of due diligence . . . [and that the] seller was . . . aware of the problems and did not disclose them. . . .” [Cit.]’ [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) U-Haul Co. v. Dillard Paper Co., 169 Ga. App. 280, 282 (312 SE2d 618) (1983). See also Wilhite v. Mays, supra. With regard to the issue of appellants’ exercise of due diligence, the record shows that appellant had examined the property on two or three occasions prior to closing and that he had clearly observed the locations of the dwelling, driveway and well house. Appellants never indicated to appellee that having the well and driveway located on the property was material to their purchase of it. Appellee never concealed the location of the well or the driveway and answered all questions which were asked about those features. The majority merely assumes that the actual location of the water source and driveway rather than the mere availability of those facilities must have been material to appellants, as the actual location would affect the value of the property. For purposes of summary judgment, however, it is the evidence of record and not judicial assumptions, which controls. From the questions which were asked of and which were truthfully answered by appellee, appellants were apparently interested only that the property had a water source and access, because they never specifically questioned the location of those otherwise patently observable features. If appellants had a misconception about the location of those features, there is nothing to indicate that appellee was aware of that misconception. Prior to closing, appellants had not had a survey made of the property and they had never examined or asked to examine the plat of the property even though the properly recorded plat had been incorporated by reference into the contract of sale. Appellant Mr. Williams admitted that a “survey would have told [him] that the well was off the property and the driveway was off the property.”
Construing the evidence most strongly against appellee as the movant for summary judgment, “[t]he alleged defect here was not ‘hidden’ so that [appellants,] in the exercise of ordinary care, would not have discovered it. . . . ‘The law does not afford relief to one who suffers by not using the ordinary means of information, whether the neglect is due to indifference or credulity., “When the means of knowledge are at hand and equally available to both parties, and the sub*648ject of purchase is alike open to their inspection, if the purchaser does not avail himself of these means he will not be heard to say, in impeachment of the contract of sale, that he was deceived by the vendor’s representations.” [Cit.]’ [Cits.] Under the circumstances in the case at bar, the trial court did not err in concluding as a matter of law that [appellants] failed to exercise proper diligence in protecting themselves from [appellee’s] alleged fraudulent concealment. [Cits.]” Miller v. Clabby, 178 Ga. App. 821, 822-823 (344 SE2d 751) (1986). See also Bimbo Bldrs. v. Stubbs Properties, 158 Ga. App. 280 (1) (279 SE2d 730) (1981).
Decided March 18, 1988
Rehearing denied March 31, 1988
Don H. Taliaferro, for appellants.
David B. Dunaway, for appellee.
Pursuant to the majority’s interpretation of the law of passive concealment, sellers of realty must determine whether an otherwise patently observable or discoverable condition in or on his property will, at some future point within the statute of limitations, come to be deemed “material” to the silent purchaser. For, if the formerly silent purchaser does subsequently divulge for the first time in the allegations of the complaint which he files against the seller that such a patently observable condition had always been “material” to his purchase, the seller’s failure to have affirmatively “disclosed” that condition will subject him to a fraud action. “[W]hen the defects in the property [are] of such a nature that the buyer could not discover them through the exercise of due diligence, the burden [is] on the seller to disclose the seriousness of the problems of which he was aware, provided that the seller knew that the buyer was acting under a misapprehension as to facts which would be important to the buyer in making his decision.” (Emphasis supplied.) Holman v. Ruesken, 246 Ga. 557, 558 (2) (272 SE2d 292) (1980). Believing that it is necessary to adhere to precedential authority, I must dissent to Division 1 of the majority’s opinion. I would affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee.