Griffith v. Byers Construction Co. of Kansas, Inc.
510 P.2d 198, 212 Kan. 65, 1973 Kan. LEXIS 488 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A real estate developer does not impliedly warrant the fertility of soil in residential lots, but can be held liable for fraudulent concealment for failing to disclose a known, latent defect in the land to the ultimate purchasers, even without direct privity of contract.
Facts:
- Byers Construction Co. of Kansas, Inc. (Byers) developed a residential subdivision on land that was part of an abandoned oil field.
- The land contained salt water disposal areas, which rendered the soil in those locations too saline to sustain vegetation.
- Byers knew or should have known about the saline condition of the soil.
- Byers graded and developed the entire area, which concealed the saline areas, making them a latent defect not discoverable by a visual inspection.
- Byers advertised the subdivision as a choice residential area.
- Several homeowners (plaintiffs), including the Griffiths, selected lots in the subdivision for construction of new homes by independent building contractors.
- The building contractors purchased the lots directly from Byers and, after completing construction, conveyed the homes and lots to the respective homeowners.
- The homeowners later discovered the soil was sterile when their attempts to landscape the properties failed, as grass, shrubs, and trees died.
Procedural Posture:
- Three sets of homeowners, including the Griffiths, filed separate actions against Byers Construction Co. of Kansas, Inc. in district court.
- The plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of an implied warranty of fitness and for fraudulent concealment.
- The three actions were consolidated in the district court.
- The defendant, Byers, moved for summary judgment against all plaintiffs.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Byers on all claims.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's entry of summary judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a real estate developer be held liable for fraudulent concealment to the ultimate homeowners for failing to disclose a known, latent soil defect, even when the developer sold the lots to intermediate builders rather than directly to the homeowners?
Opinions:
Majority - Fromme, J.
Yes. A real estate developer can be liable for fraudulent concealment to ultimate purchasers, despite a lack of privity, if the developer fails to disclose a known, latent defect in the land. While there is no implied warranty of soil fertility in the sale of real estate, a developer has a duty to disclose known defects to the class of persons it intends to reach. The court rejected the implied warranty claim, holding that implied covenants in land sales are limited by statute and do not extend to soil quality, which is an economic issue, not a matter of public health or safety. However, the court found the fraud claim viable. It extended the rule that a vendor's silence about a known, latent defect constitutes fraudulent concealment. The court dismissed the privity defense, reasoning that Byers developed the lots with the intent and expectation that they would be sold to homeowners. The builders were merely a 'conduit or temporary way station' for the legal title. Therefore, Byers' duty to disclose the latent saline defect extended to the foreseeable ultimate purchasers, the plaintiffs.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands developer liability by piercing the traditional defense of lack of privity in fraud cases. By treating intermediary builders as mere conduits, the court holds developers directly accountable to the end consumer—the homeowner—for failing to disclose known, latent defects. This aligns real estate law more closely with modern tort principles, where a duty can extend to a foreseeable class of persons who will be affected by a defendant's actions. The ruling makes it more difficult for developers to shield themselves from liability by using intermediaries in the chain of title, thus strengthening protections for homebuyers.
