Massie v. Colvin
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 66, 373 S.W.3d 469, 2012 WL 177591 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements, representations, or predictions about an independent third party’s future acts are not actionable as fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation because a party has no legal right to justifiably rely on them.
Facts:
- The Colvins listed their farm for sale with the United Country real estate agency.
- Plaintiff Massie expressed interest in the property but conditioned her interest on being able to fence and gate the property for her animals.
- United Country agent Christina Madajik informed Massie that a neighbor, Leroy Jones, held a recorded access easement across the property.
- Madajik, another agent, and Mr. Colvin all opined that Jones was a 'nice guy' and that gating the easement would not be a problem.
- Madajik later told Massie that a title company had advised that she could gate the easement as long as she provided Jones with a key.
- The real estate contract included a special agreement for Mr. Colvin to erect fencing and gates.
- After Massie purchased the property, Mr. Colvin installed a gate across the easement.
- Jones objected to the gate, as the terms of his recorded easement prohibited any obstruction, including gates.
Procedural Posture:
- Leroy Jones sued Plaintiff Massie in a separate action and obtained a judgment requiring removal of the gate and payment of $3,500 in damages.
- Plaintiff Massie subsequently sued the Colvins for fraudulent misrepresentation and United Country for negligent misrepresentation in the trial court.
- After discovery, all parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Colvins and United Country.
- Plaintiff Massie appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For the purpose of a fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation claim, does a property buyer have a right to justifiably rely on a seller's or real estate agent's predictions that an independent third-party easement holder will consent to a gate across the easement?
Opinions:
Majority - Daniel E. Scott, Judge
No. A buyer has no right to rely on such predictions for a misrepresentation claim. Statements about what an independent third party, like the easement holder Jones, might do in the future are considered predictions or opinions, not actionable representations of existing fact. Both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims require that the plaintiff's reliance on the statement be justifiable. As a matter of law, reliance is not justifiable when the statement concerns the future actions of an independent third party over whom the speaker has no control. Massie knew of the easement and never contacted Jones directly, so she had no legal right to rely on the sellers' or agents' optimistic assurances about his future consent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical element of justifiable reliance in misrepresentation claims, establishing a clear boundary for what constitutes an actionable statement. It clarifies that predictions about the future conduct of independent third parties are non-actionable opinions, not statements of fact. The ruling places a significant due diligence burden on buyers; if a third party's consent is crucial to a transaction, the buyer must obtain confirmation directly from that third party rather than relying on the seller's or agent's assurances. This precedent protects sellers and agents from liability for expressing optimistic, but ultimately incorrect, opinions about matters outside their control.
