Evans V. Alicia Mandolin Case Digest

667 Words3 Pages

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER Plaintiff, Alicia Mandolin, submits these Points and Authorities in opposition to Defendant Elvin Evans's demurrer. STATEMENT OF FACTS In our case, Alicia Mandolin bought a 100-year-old house from Gerald Ross about a year ago. Ross bought the house from Elvin Evans, Evans told Ross that he had rewired the entire property and done a good job before selling the house to him. Evans lied, some portion of the property's wiring had been replaced but the majority of the wiring was not replaced. Ross relied on Evans word for the purchase and relayed the same information to Mandolin right before she bought Ross' property. A month ago, Mandolin's house burned down and she lost everything, the fire inspectors …show more content…

A defendant is liable for fraud themselves if they had a "reason to expect" transmission when they made a misrepresentation to one person intending that it be repeated and acted upon by the buyer as the seller has. In Geernaert v. Mitchell, Gerald and his wife Pamela brought an action for damages against two defendants who had formerly owned their home. The property has had three separate owners before Gerald and his wife. The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment regarding significant structural and foundation problems with the property. Defendant, Robert J. Mitchell owned the property from May 1978 until October 1982, that's when he sold the property to defendant Mildo Construction Inc. Mildo Construction sold the property in November 1983 to Cynthia Payne, who then sold the property to the Geernaerts in July 1984. In 1991 a soil engineering report disclosed that the house was built on unconsolidated fill, that substantial soil subsidence had occurred, and that perimeter piers and metal jacks had been installed underneath the house to support the foundation. The Geernaerts allege that when Mitchell sold the house in 1982, he falsely made frequently misrepresentation to purchasers that (a) the foundation was supported by jacks, which was normal for the area, (b) there were no foundation problems, (c) the residence was sound, and (d) all modifications were done to …show more content…

Mitchell made the foregoing misrepresentations of fact to and concealed the true facts from Mildo/Perlow when he sold the house to them with the intent of inducing them to purchase it. Mitchell intended or had reason to expect that the misrepresentations and half-truths would be repeated to subsequent purchasers of the residents who would rely on them. The Court held that despite Mitchell was two sales removed from the plaintiff, he used his construction expertise to conceal the true condition of the property and knew there was a strong likelihood that the deception would be passed on to a subsequent