McEneaney v. Chestnut Hill Realty Corp.
1995 Mass. App. LEXIS 431, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 573, 650 N.E.2d 93 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A real estate agent's statement of opinion can be treated as an actionable statement of fact for a misrepresentation claim if the agent possesses special knowledge of facts unknown to the buyer. Additionally, a condominium unit owner may maintain a nuisance action against the condominium association for a substantial and unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their unit that emanates from a common area.
Facts:
- On August 21, 1987, McEneaney inquired about purchasing a condominium unit at the Brook House.
- He asked the real estate agent, Brenda Marsh, if the unit was quiet.
- Marsh assured McEneaney that 'the unit was quiet and that there [were] no noise problems with the unit.'
- At the time of the purchase, an air conditioning chiller system located in a common area of the building was inoperative.
- McEneaney's employer, Chestnut Hill Realty Corporation, maintained an on-site real estate office at the Brook House and had been involved since its conversion to condominiums.
- In June 1990, the previously inoperative air conditioning chiller system was activated.
- After the system was activated, McEneaney began to experience significant noise and vibrations in his condominium unit.
- The trustees of the Brook House Condominium Trust did not remedy the noise and vibration issue.
Procedural Posture:
- McEneaney (plaintiff) filed an action in the Superior Court against Brenda Marsh and Chestnut Hill Realty Corporation (defendants) for misrepresentation.
- McEneaney also sued the trustees of the Brook House Condominium Trust (defendants) for nuisance and breach of fiduciary duty.
- All defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The Superior Court judge dismissed the misrepresentation claims, ruling the agent's statement was a non-actionable opinion.
- The Superior Court judge also dismissed the nuisance claim, ruling it requires two separate parcels of land, and consequently dismissed the related fiduciary duty claim.
- McEneaney (appellant) appealed the judgment of dismissal to the Appeals 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:
1. Does a real estate agent's statement that a condominium is "quiet" constitute an actionable statement of fact for misrepresentation when the agent has specialized knowledge about the property? 2. Can a condominium unit owner maintain a private nuisance action against the condominium's governing association for a nuisance originating in a common area?
Opinions:
Majority - Porada, J.
Yes, as to both issues. A statement that is formally an opinion may be treated as a statement of fact if the speaker has special knowledge of facts that are unknown to the recipient, which can be inferred here from the realtor's on-site presence. Furthermore, a condominium unit owner can sue the condominium association for a nuisance on the common areas because the unique dual-ownership structure of a condominium is akin to that of adjacent property owners, and the unit owner lacks control over the common areas where the nuisance originates.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kass, J.
No, as to the first issue (misrepresentation); Yes, as to the second issue (nuisance). The claim against the real estate agent should be dismissed because the plaintiff's own complaint admits the unit was, in fact, quiet for three years after the purchase. The noise problem only arose from a later equipment change, meaning the agent's statement was true when made, and she could not be expected to predict future changes. The justice concurs that a unit owner can sue the condominium association for a nuisance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts two areas of property law. First, it broadens potential liability for real estate agents by treating their professional 'opinions' about a property's condition as actionable statements of fact when their expertise and position imply superior knowledge. This puts a greater duty of care on agents regarding their representations. Second, the ruling adapts the traditional tort of nuisance to the modern context of condominium living, empowering individual unit owners to hold their governing associations legally accountable for problems in common areas, which they cannot control themselves.
