Lively v. Garnick
287 S.E.2d 553, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2982, 160 Ga. App. 591 (1981)
Rule of Law:
To establish fraudulent concealment in the sale of realty, the buyer must prove that the seller had actual knowledge of latent defects not discoverable by the buyer through due diligence, and concealed them with the intent to deceive; similarly, fraud cannot be predicated on unfulfilled future promises unless made with a present intention not to perform.
Facts:
- On June 27, 1974, the Frosts (appellees) entered into a contract with the Garnicks (appellants) to purchase a house that was partially built.
- The contract stipulated that the Garnicks were to complete construction according to certain specifications.
- At the scheduled closing, some of the special stipulations for completion had not been met.
- Both parties agreed to close the sale, with $1,000 held in escrow, payable to the Garnicks upon completion of the improvements.
- After the sale, the Frosts discovered latent defects in the house's construction, including a faulty air conditioner, a sagging carport roof, and a leaky chimney.
- The house was allegedly situated too close to boundary lines, violating protective covenants and zoning ordinances, and encroached upon drainage and utility easements.
- The Frosts also alleged that the Garnicks made promises at closing to complete the house according to special stipulations, which were not fully performed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Frosts (appellees) instituted an action against the Garnicks (appellants) in a trial court to recover damages, alleging fraud and deceit related to misrepresentations, unfulfilled promises, and latent construction defects.
- The Garnicks filed an answer denying the material allegations.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Frosts.
- Final judgment was entered against the Garnicks based on the jury verdict.
- The Garnicks appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, enumerating several errors, primarily contending that the evidence did not support a finding of fraud.
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 evidence showing that a builder-seller constructed a house with latent defects, failed to disclose boundary/easement violations, or did not fully perform future promises, without proof of the seller's actual knowledge of the defects or a present intent not to perform the promises, support a finding of fraud and deceit?
Opinions:
Majority - Carley, Judge
No, the evidence presented in this case does not support a finding of fraud and deceit because it failed to demonstrate that the builder-sellers had actual knowledge of the defects or a present intent not to perform their promises. The court distinguished fraud from negligence, breach of warranty, or breach of contract, emphasizing that fraud requires "actual moral guilt" and knowledge of falsehood or intent to deceive. For fraudulent concealment, the seller must have "special knowledge not apparent to the buyer" and be aware the buyer is acting under a misapprehension, and the defect must not be discoverable by due diligence. Crucially, the buyer must prove actual, not merely constructive, knowledge of the defect by the seller. The court rejected the inference that a builder's construction of a house that later proves defective automatically implies fraudulent concealment without additional evidence of actual knowledge at the time of sale. Regarding unfulfilled future promises, actionable fraud requires proof that the promise was made with a present intention not to perform, not just a mere failure to perform, which constitutes a breach of contract. Since the evidence only showed negligence or breach of contract/warranty and not actual knowledge or intent to deceive, the trial court erred in denying the appellants' motion for judgment n.o.v.
Dissenting - Deen, Presiding Judge
Yes, even if actual fraud was not strictly proven to the standard of "actual moral guilt," the evidence likely met the requirements for "constructive fraud" or lesser claims such as negligent construction, breach of contract, or breach of warranty. The jury, having heard extensive testimony, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and there was competent evidence to support this verdict and judgment. The dissent argued that the majority's strict interpretation of fraud might overlook other valid legal theories under which the jury's verdict could be sustained.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of fraud claims against builder-sellers in Georgia, particularly regarding latent defects and future promises. By emphasizing the requirement of "actual knowledge" and "moral guilt" for fraudulent concealment, and "present intent not to perform" for promises, the court makes it substantially harder for buyers to succeed on fraud claims based solely on a builder's negligence or failure to meet contractual obligations. It reinforces the distinction between tort (fraud) and contract/warranty law, guiding future litigants to correctly frame their claims and produce specific evidence of the seller's state of mind.
