Kannavos v. Annino

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden
356 Mass. 42, 247 N.E.2d 708 (1969)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A seller's affirmative statements or conduct concerning a property, such as advertising it for a particular use, creates a duty to disclose all material facts, including any legal impediments to that use. A failure to make such a disclosure constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation if the partial disclosure creates a misleading 'half-truth'.

Facts:

The vendors, trustees of Annino Realty Trust, purchased several single-family houses in a Residence A district, where multi-family use was prohibited by the zoning ordinance.
The vendors converted the single-family houses into multi-family apartment buildings without obtaining building permits and in violation of the zoning ordinance.
The vendors knew that both the conversion and the multi-family use of the properties were illegal.
The vendors, through their real estate broker, advertised the properties as income-producing multi-family dwellings.
The vendors represented to the vendees, Kannavos and Bellas, that the properties were being rented as multi-dwelling properties and that the vendees could continue to operate them as such for profit.
The vendees, who had no prior real estate experience, relied on the vendors' representations and the appearance of the properties, and purchased them to operate as rental properties.
After the sale, the city notified the vendees that the multi-family use violated zoning ordinances and the building code.
The properties were worth substantially less as lawful single-family dwellings than as unlawful multi-family dwellings.

Procedural Posture:

The vendees, Kannavos and Bellas, filed bills in equity in the Superior Court seeking to rescind the property purchases from the vendors, the trustees of Annino Realty Trust.
The vendors' demurrers to the amended bills were overruled by the trial court.
The case was referred to a master who made findings of fact.
The Superior Court confirmed the master's report and entered a final decree ordering rescission in favor of the vendees.
The vendors, as appellants, appealed the final decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

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 a seller's partial disclosure and affirmative conduct, which creates a misleading impression about a property's lawful use as a multi-family dwelling, constitute fraudulent misrepresentation justifying rescission, even if the buyer could have discovered the truth through public records?

Opinions:

Majority - Cutter, J.

Yes. A seller's partial disclosure and affirmative conduct that creates a misleading impression constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation justifying rescission. The court distinguished this case from the 'bare nondisclosure' rule in Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Bank, where a seller who remained completely silent about a latent defect (termites) was not liable. Here, the vendors did not remain silent; they affirmatively advertised the properties as multi-family income properties, provided income figures, and represented that this use could continue. These actions created a misleading half-truth because they failed to disclose the critical fact that the use was illegal. Once a seller speaks on a matter, they are bound to disclose all material facts necessary to make their statements truthful and not misleading. The court rejected the argument that the vendees' failure to check public records barred their claim, holding that a buyer's lack of due diligence is not a defense to a seller's fraudulent misrepresentation.

Analysis:

This decision significantly refines the doctrine of misrepresentation in real estate transactions by clarifying the line between permissible 'bare nondisclosure' and actionable 'half-truths.' It narrows the scope of caveat emptor ('buyer beware') by establishing that a seller's affirmative conduct or statements, even if not literally false, can trigger a duty to make a full and complete disclosure. The ruling places a greater burden on sellers to be forthcoming about known defects that contradict the impression they have created. For future cases, this precedent means that sellers cannot strategically discuss a property's positive attributes while concealing a related, material defect, especially a legal one.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kannavos v. Annino (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature