Court Opinion

ID: 9674801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:35:37.575122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.728171
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
NRC argues in its motion for rehearing that Pickhardt did not allege or prove a cause of action for failure to disclose the fact that the lots were below the 715 foot line and unsuitable for building purposes. The record shows the contrary. In his first amended petition Pickhardt alleged that NRC failed to disclose that the lots were below the 715 foot line, and that they were subject to a flooding easement held by the Colorado River Authority. He testified that he sought rescission of the sale because “the lots were under water at various times and they were worthless to build upon and were not even being used *295for that purpose by any people that had bought lots in that area.”
The motion for rehearing is overruled.