Carter v. Gugliuzzi
168 Vt. 48, 716 A.2d 17, 1998 Vt. LEXIS 142 (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 is liable for deceptive acts or practices. Furthermore, a brokerage is chargeable with all material knowledge possessed by its agents, regardless of how that knowledge was acquired, as an agent's duty to disclose encompasses all facts affecting the property's value.
Facts:
- Flavia Gugliuzzi and Ana Barreto (sellers) hired Ruth Bennett, a salesperson for Synergy Group, Inc. (doing business as Smith Bell Real Estate), to sell their house.
- Bennett, supervised by Smith Bell officer David Crane, prepared marketing materials (an MLS sheet and a fact sheet) which contained numerous misrepresentations and omissions.
- The materials falsely stated the house was in "pristine condition," had "new pegged floors throughout first floor," was bordered by 400-600 pine trees, and included a beaver pond entirely on the property.
- In reality, the floor was simulated pegged oak, was buckled, and did not cover the entire first floor; there were only about 250 trees; half the beaver pond was on a neighbor's land; and two rooms were unheated.
- David Crane, who had lived and worked in the area for years, was aware that the property was subject to frequent and severe high winds but did not disclose this fact to Bennett or potential buyers.
- Diana Carter, a buyer from California, received these marketing materials and relied on them, as well as an agent's assurance of full disclosure, in her decision to purchase the home.
- After purchasing the home for $200,000 and moving in, Carter discovered the various undisclosed problems and suffered significant property damage from the high winds.
Procedural Posture:
- Diana Carter sued sellers Gugliuzzi and Barreto, and Synergy Group, Inc. (Smith Bell), in Vermont Superior Court, a court of first instance.
- Carter alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act against Smith Bell.
- Following a bench trial, the superior court found Smith Bell liable for misrepresentations, omissions, and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act.
- The trial court ruled that the Act applied to real estate brokers and that agent David Crane's knowledge of the high winds was imputable to Smith Bell.
- A judgment for $30,624 plus interest and costs was entered against Smith Bell and the sellers.
- Smith Bell, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Vermont Supreme Court. Carter, as appellee, also appealed 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, solicitor or other violator" in commerce, apply to a real estate brokerage firm representing the seller in a residential home sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes, the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act applies to a real estate brokerage firm. The Act is remedial and must be construed liberally to protect the public. The court rejected Smith Bell's argument that it was not a "seller," reasoning that the plain meaning of "sell" includes causing or furthering a sale, which is the primary function of a real estate broker. The Act explicitly includes "real estate" in its definition of goods and services, and to exempt brokers would undermine its purpose. This interpretation aligns with decisions from numerous other jurisdictions that apply similar consumer protection laws to real estate brokers. The court also held that Crane's knowledge of the high winds was properly imputed to Smith Bell. A broker's statutory duty is to disclose all material facts within their knowledge, and it is meaningless to attempt to distinguish the source of that knowledge, as a broker’s business is precisely to acquire and convey such information about local conditions affecting property value. Therefore, this knowledge is considered within the scope of employment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of liability for real estate brokerage firms under Vermont's consumer protection laws. By classifying brokers as "sellers," the court holds them to a strict standard for representations made to buyers, moving beyond traditional common law fraud which requires intent. The ruling on imputed knowledge also has a major impact, making it difficult for a brokerage to defend against non-disclosure claims by arguing an agent's knowledge was acquired personally rather than professionally. This precedent encourages greater diligence and transparency from real estate professionals in all their dealings with potential buyers.
