Carter v. Gugliuzzi
1998 Vt. LEXIS 142, 716 A.2d 17, 168 Vt. 48 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A real estate brokerage firm qualifies as a "seller" under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act and can be held liable for deceptive acts or practices. Furthermore, all material knowledge possessed by a firm's agent, regardless of how it was acquired, is imputed to the firm due to the agent's statutory duty to disclose.
Facts:
- In 1990, Flavia Gugliuzzi and Ana Barreto hired Ruth Bennett, a salesperson for Smith Bell Real Estate, to sell their house in Underhill, Vermont.
- Bennett, under the supervision of broker David Crane, prepared marketing materials, including an MLS listing and a fact sheet, that contained several inaccuracies.
- The materials described the house as in "pristine condition" with "new pegged floors throughout first floor," having 400-600 pine trees, and a beaver pond on the property.
- In reality, the floor was simulated pegged flooring that covered only half the downstairs and was buckled, there were only about 250 trees, half the pond was on a neighbor's land, and a den and bathroom were unheated.
- David Crane, who had lived and sold property in the area for years, was aware that the property was subject to frequent and severe high winds but did not disclose this information to Bennett or potential buyers.
- Diana Carter, a buyer from California, relied on these marketing materials when deciding to purchase the house for $200,000.
- After moving in, Carter discovered the numerous discrepancies with the property's condition and features.
- Several months later, a series of high winds caused significant damage to the house, including blowing in windows and tearing off shingles and gutters.
Procedural Posture:
- Diana Carter sued the sellers and Smith Bell Real Estate in Vermont superior court, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.
- After a bench trial, the court found Smith Bell liable under tort law and the Consumer Fraud Act.
- The trial court ruled that the knowledge of supervising broker David Crane concerning high winds was imputable to Smith Bell.
- The court entered a judgment against Smith Bell for $30,624 plus interest and costs.
- Smith Bell, the defendant, appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to real estate brokers and that its agent's knowledge was improperly imputed.
- Diana Carter, the plaintiff, also cross-appealed, contesting the trial court's calculation of damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits deceptive acts by a 'seller' in 'commerce', apply to a real estate brokerage firm that makes misrepresentations and fails to disclose material facts in connection with a residential property sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes, the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act applies to real estate brokerage firms because they function as 'sellers' engaging in 'commerce'. The court reasoned that the Act is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally to protect the public. The Act explicitly includes 'real estate' transactions, and the plain meaning of 'sell' includes furthering the sale of an item, which is the primary function of a real estate broker. Exempting brokers would undermine the Act's purpose. The court also held that supervising agent David Crane's knowledge of the high winds was properly imputed to Smith Bell. An agent's statutory duty is to disclose all material facts within their knowledge, regardless of the source. Because a broker's business is to acquire and convey information about local conditions, such knowledge is effectively always acquired within the scope of their employment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of Vermont's consumer protection laws by explicitly including real estate brokers within the definition of a 'seller.' It rejects a narrow interpretation requiring title ownership and instead focuses on the broker's functional role in the transaction, thereby increasing accountability. The ruling also reinforces a broad duty of disclosure for real estate agents, making it difficult for firms to evade liability by claiming an agent's knowledge was obtained personally or outside of a specific transaction. This precedent enhances protections for home buyers by holding brokerage firms to a higher standard of disclosure for all material information known to their agents.
