FACTS: In approximately July 2005 a loan broker and an appraiser working for a subsidiary of
Bank of America appraised the Cansinos home at a fair market value of $620,000. Based on
that appraisal and other representations by lending personnel, the Cansinos elected to
refinance their home with a $496,000 adjustable rate mortgage. Lending personal told them
their home would appreciate and they would be able to sell or refinance the home at a later
date before having to make higher monthly loan payments. In 2010, the Cansinos discovered
that their home was valued between $350,000 and $400,000. Soon thereafter they stopped
making payments on the 2005 loan. As of March 2012, the monthly payments were
approximately $1,960, the balance due on the loan was approximately $626,000, and the fair
market value of the home was approximately $350,000. The trial court dismissed the Cansinos
fraud action against B of A, and they appealed.
ISSUES: Did B of A make an actionable misrepresentation of fact about the future valuation of the home?
Did B of A fraudulently assess the home in 2005?
REASONING: Concerning B of A’s representation on the future appreciation of the Cansinos’ home, such
statements or predictions regarding future events are deemed to be mere opinions which are
not actionable. Any financial market forecast must be regarded not as a fact, but as prediction
or speculation. While the Cansinos state the home was valued between $350,000 and $400,000
in 2010, this does not support their claim that the 2005 appraisal of $620,000 was a
misrepresentation.
b. Reliance on statement and issues in inspection before contracting
CASE BRIEF: Novare Group, Inc. v. Sarif
718 S.E. 2d 304 (Ga. 2011)
FACTS: Sarif and seven other purchasers of condominiums brought an action against
developer and broker alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation, based on statements
made by the defendants that their views would not be blocked by later development. The
defendants contend that the purchasers were estopped from relying on representation directly
contradicted by clear and explicit terms of a written agreement.
ISSUE: Were the purchasers estopped from relying on representation directly contradicted by
clear and specific terms of a written agreement?
REASONING: Justifiable reliance is an expected element of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.
There can be no justifiable reliance in the face of clear and explicit contradictory terms in the
agreement.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Ultimately, we must convince our students that due diligence mandates that all material
representations inducing a major purchase, be it business or personal, be part of the
parties’ written agreement. And, again remind our students who may work as developers
and brokers that establishing a reputation for ethical conduct leads to commercial success
and personal peace in one’s life.
c. Proof of harm
2. Nondisclosure or silence as misrepresentation
a. General rule of nonliability for failure to disclose
CASE BRIEF: Puget Sound Service Corp. v. Dalarna Management Corp.
752 P. 2d 1353 (Wash. App. 1988)
FACTS: Dalarna Management Corp. owned a building constructed on a pier on a lake. There were
repeated difficulties with rainwater leaking into the building, and water damage was visible in
the interior of the building. Dalarna made a contract to sell the building to Curran. Curran