Poeppel v. Lester
827 N.W.2d 580, 2013 S.D. 17, 2013 SD 17 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The parol evidence rule, which normally bars extrinsic evidence that contradicts a written contract, does not apply when a party presents evidence to prove they were fraudulently induced into signing the agreement, even if the contract is unambiguous and contains clauses disclaiming reliance on outside representations.
Facts:
- Rob Poeppel owned a 25% voting interest (100 shares) in Coldwell Banker Lewis-Kirkeby-Hall Real Estate, Inc. (CBLKH).
- In March 2008, Luke Lester, a broker associate at CBLKH, approached Poeppel about purchasing his shares.
- On March 28, 2008, Poeppel and Lester entered into a written contract for the sale of the 100 shares for $500,000.
- The contract, which Lester presented to Poeppel, contained a clause stating that the buyer (Lester) had formed his own opinion as to the value of the shares and that his decision was based on his own investigation, not on representations by the seller (Poeppel).
- The contract set a closing date of May 15, 2008.
- Lester failed to appear at the closing and did not pay the $500,000 purchase price.
- On May 22, 2008, Lester sent Poeppel a letter stating he was unable to secure financing for the purchase.
Procedural Posture:
- Rob Poeppel filed a lawsuit against Luke Lester for breach of contract in a state trial court.
- Lester asserted the affirmative defense that his consent to the contract was obtained by fraud.
- Poeppel's three separate motions for summary judgment were denied.
- Prior to trial, the trial court granted Poeppel's motions in limine, ruling that the contract was unambiguous and that the parol evidence rule barred Lester from introducing evidence of the alleged fraud.
- Following the court's evidentiary rulings, Lester stipulated to the breach of contract.
- A court trial was held on the sole issue of damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Poeppel for $250,000, plus prejudgment interest and costs.
- Lester, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
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 the parol evidence rule bar the admission of evidence of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations used to induce a party to enter into an unambiguous written contract that contains specific disclaimers of reliance on outside representations?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilbur, Justice.
No. The parol evidence rule does not bar the admission of evidence to prove fraudulent inducement. While the contract's language was clear and unambiguous, the trial court erred as a matter of law by applying the parol evidence rule to exclude Lester's evidence of fraud. The court explained that the rule against admitting extrinsic evidence to alter a written contract is a rule of substantive law, but it has a long-standing exception for claims of fraud in the inducement. Citing South Dakota precedent and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, the court held that a party cannot use disclaimer or merger clauses within a contract to shield themselves from their own fraud. The court clarified and limited a prior holding in Schwaiger v. Mitchell Radiology Assocs., stating its 'direct contradiction' rule was dictum and reaffirming that justifiable reliance in a fraud claim is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law to be summarily decided based on a contract's boilerplate language.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms South Dakota's adherence to the traditional majority rule that claims of fraudulent inducement are an exception to the parol evidence rule. The court's clarification of the Schwaiger precedent is significant, as it prevents lower courts from using that case to dismiss legitimate fraud claims at a preliminary stage based solely on disclaimer clauses. This ruling strengthens the legal principle that the policy of preventing fraud in contract formation outweighs the policy of enforcing the finality of written agreements. It ensures that allegations of pre-contractual misrepresentation will typically be treated as questions of fact for a jury to decide, preserving a crucial remedy for parties who may have been deceived into entering a contract.
Unlock the full brief for Poeppel v. Lester