Moschelle v. Hulse

No. 79-81 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 SHERWOOD MOSCHELLE and BARBARA MOSCHELLE, Plaintiffs and Respondents, vs . GUY HULSE and HELEN HULSE, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Madison. Hon. Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: R. T. Garrison, Virginia City, Montana Chester Lloyd Jones, Virginia City, Montana Morrow, Sedivy, Olson and Scully, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: May 30, 1980 Decided: (1 i ~ . ~ 2.7, / 982 Filed: A N27 198l m7**&& 9 . &f&&$+ Clerk Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. The defendant sellers appeal the judgment of the Madison County District Court which permitted rescission of a con- tract for purchase of the defendants' bar in Virginia City. The central issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that the defen- dants made misrepresentations of fact which constituted constructive fraud within the meaning of section 28-2-406, MCA, so as to entitle the plaintiffs to rescission of the contract. The sellers contend that any misstatements made to plaintiffs were nothing more than sales talk or puffing and that they did not attempt to deliberately mislead the plain- tiffs. Defendants raise several issues directed at the right of the plaintiffs to seek rescission. First, they contend that a reasonable investigation by the plaintiffs would have led them to the facts relevant to the transaction. Second, they contend that the misrepresentations were not material and that the plaintiffs should be confined only to seeking damages. Third, they contend that by waiting nine months after the inception of the contract to bring the action for rescission, the plaintiffs either waived their right or are barred by laches. The laches argument is raised for the first time on appeal. Fourth, they contend that the plain- tiffs were in default on their contract payments at the time they elected to rescind and that this prevents them from availing themselves of the rescission remedy. We affirm the judgment . Contact with the defendants in relation to selling their Tavern Bar in Virginia City, was initiated in October 1975. At that time, plaintiff Barbara Wilkins (later to become Barbara Moschelle) and her then fiance, Kevin McGuinn, met with defendants Guy Hulse and Helen Hulse, to discuss the possible purchase of the tavern. The defendants showed plaintiff Barbara Wilkins their business income records for the month of July 1975 and a tax form apparently indicating the defendants' gross income for 1974. Defendants told plaintiff Wilkins that income from the tavern during the winter months was slim, but defendants refused her request to see records of their earnings during the winter months of that year. Plaintiff Wilkins and her fiance deposited $2,000 earnest money but did not proceed with the transac- tion and forfeited most of this sum. Plaintiff Wilkins, however, remained interested in purchasing the tavern. She interested her new husband, Brent Moschelle, in purchas- ing the tavern. In August 1976, Brent and Barbara Moschelle negotiated with the defendants to purchase the tavern. The defendants again refused to permit the plaintiffs to inspect their business records, but Helen Hulse assured them that earnings during the winter months would allow them to make payments and earn living expenses. The defendants also told the plaintiffs that income from the Labor Day holiday alone would be sufficient to make one or two monthly payments. These statements, it later turned out, were not entirely accurate; indeed, they were more than a little misleading. Defendants also made several representations to the plaintiffs concerning the condition of the premises, and the plaintiffs later found them to be false. Helen Hulse told the plaintiffs that although the building was 100 years old, it was in good condition. Guy Hulse told plaintiff Brent Moschelle that he had installed wiring in the building. Defendants also told plaintiffs that the tavern was con- nected to the city sewer system. On August 20, 1976, the parties executed a contract calling for a purchase price of $62,000. The down payment was $13,000 with payments to be $440 per month. On the same day, the plaintiffs paid the down payment and assumed pos- session of the tavern. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs' problems started. In the fall of 1976, the refrigerator and cooler stopped operating, and the stove blew up. Plaintiff Brent Moschelle then looked at the wiring in the building and discovered loose wires hanging outside the building. As it appeared to be old, Brent hired an electrician to examine the wiring. The electrician determined that the wiring was very old and that to bring the building up to standard it was necessary to rewire the entire building. Plaintiffs, nonetheless, continued to operate the tavern and made monthly payments in October and November 1977. Business was very poor during the winter months. It was necessary for plaintiff Brent Moschelle to borrow money from his mother to make the December payment. This was the third and final payment made by the plaintiffs, as the tavern income was so poor in January that they could not make the January payment from business earnings. More problems arose in March 1977. The plaintiffs found that the tavern foundation was in extremely bad condi- tion. When the pipes in the women's bathroom froze, Helen Hulse told plaintiff Brent Moschelle about a trapdoor lead- ing to a crawl space in the basement. Brent Moschelle proceeded to look at the floors from underneath. He found that three floors had been built one upon another, and that the joists supporting the bathroom floor had rotted. A professional contractor inspected the building and deter- mined that it would cost approximately $20,000 to bring the building up to standard. In the same month, the sewer line backed up and flooded the basement with four to five feet of water. This flooding shorted out the generator, cooler and lights, and forced the plaintiffs to shut down the business. It was then that plaintiff Brent Moschelle first learned that the tavern was not directly connected with the city sewer system. Indeed, over 200 feet of 100-year-old pipe had apparently frozen solid as the water could not be pumped out of the basement to free the line. The line remained blocked even after using an electric rot0 machine, chemicals, and air blaster. This was the final straw. The plaintiffs closed the business and did not reopen. Later in the spring (although the busi- ness was not then open) seepage from ground water above the tavern caused more flooding in the basement. The primary thrust of the defense is the contention that no constructive fraud was committed because they did not attempt to deliberately mislead the plaintiffs. In this same vein, defendants contend that plaintiffs did not make reasonable inquiry of the condition of the premises or the income of the business, and that such inquiry would have given them all the information they needed to know. This argument, however, overlooks the crux of the trial court's determination that constructive fraud was committed within the statutory meaning of section 28-2-406, MCA. This sta- tute provides that constructive fraud applies to "any breach of duty which, without fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault . .. by misleading another to his prejudice." (Emphasis added.) Dishonesty of purpose or intent to deceive is not a requirement under this statute. Other jurisdictions hold that constructive fraud is invoked as a matter of law to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched as a result of false statements made, even if the 1 deception is not knowingly made. See Olitkowsk~v. St. Casimir's Saving & Loan Ass'n. (Mick 1942), 302 Mich 303, 4 N.W. 2d 664; Hernig v. Harris (N.J. 1934), 117 N.J. Eq. 146, 175 A. 169. See also 37 C. J.S. Fraud 52 (c)(1), at 211, et seq. Although the record does not clearly establish actual fraudulent intent on the part of the defendants, there can be no doubt that their representations concerning the sub- ject of the sale amounted to constructive fraud. Several of their statements were misleading on their face and thus required further elaboration so as not to give the plain- tiffs the wrong impression. Helen Hulse told the plaintiffs that the building was in good condition, but the defects which plaintiffs later discovered showed that further re- pairs were needed to bring the building up to standard. Guy Hulse told plaintiff Brent Moschelle that he had installed new wiring in the building. He neglected to tell him that he had done so more than thirty years before. The cost to bring this wiring up to standard was estimated at $3,259.30. Helen Hulse told plaintiff Brent Moschelle that the tavern was connected to the city sewer system, but she neglected to tell him that he would be responsible for the maintenance of 200 feet of 100-year-old pipe which ran between the tavern and city line. Guy Hulse showed plaintiff Brent Moschelle a sump pump which was used to pump water out of the basement in emergencies. He told Brent that the toilet had backed up on one occasion and caused the basement to flood. He ne- glected to tell Brent that the tavern was subject to seasonal flooding from high ground water seepage. The defendants made misleading statements to the plain- tiffs concerning the profitability of the tavern. Helen Hulse told the plaintiffs that business earnings would provide sufficient income to make contract payments and to pay the plaintiffs' living expenses. Records for the year 1975, obtained through discovery, revealed cash flow was so low during the winter months that it was necessary to depend upon excess earnings from the summer months to meet all the winter expenses. In January, February, and March 1975, tavern income available for contract payments, repairs and payroll averaged less than $500 per month. Average monthly income during these months was not sufficient to make contract payments, much less provide a minimal standard of living for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs themselves were faced with this pattern of low winter income in 1977 when they were forced to borrow money to keep up the contract installments. Additional facts were misstated concerning the high volume of Labor Day trade. Helen Hulse testified she told plaintiffs that Labor Day business would be good enough to make several payments under the contract. The plaintiffs could not remain open on Labor Day weekend, however, because trouble arose with motorcycle gangs and the lack of police protection. Helen Hulse did not deny the plaintiffs' testi- mony that she had failed to tell them she also had been forced to close on Labor Day weekend because of trouble with motorcycle gangs. The defendants' statements cannot be excused simply because deliberate misstatements may not have been proven. The facts indicate a pattern of repeated concealments of the true state of affairs concerning the condition of the premises and probable business earnings. Withholding relevant acts c o n c e r n i n g p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y can be a f r a u d u l e n t a c t . See R u s s e l l v. R u s s e l l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 152 Mont. 461, 452 P.2d 77. Furthermore, where a vendor by h i s c o n d u c t o r words c r e a t e s a f a l s e i m p r e s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g a matter of v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e p u r c h a s e r , f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of r e l e v a n t f a c t s may be required. See Twing v . S c h o t t (Wyo. 1 9 5 9 ) , 80 Wyo. 100, 338 P.2d 839; 1 2 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s ( 3 r d . e d . ) 81498, a t 387; R e s t a t e m e n t o f C o n t r a c t s S472 (1)( b ) , Comment b. Under t h e f a c t s h e r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s w e r e under a d u t y t o make such d i s c l o s u r e s a s would erase t h e f a l s e i m p r e s s i o n s c r e a t e d i n t h e minds of t h e p l a i n t i f f s t h a t r e p a i r s t o t h e p r e m i s e s w e r e n o t needed and t h a t w i n t e r e a r n i n g s w e r e s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' needs. Defendants a r g u e t h a t r e l i e f s h o u l d n o t have been g r a n t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d , by t h e i r own i n v e s t i g a t i o n , facts relevant t o the transac- tion. Although it i s t r u e t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e p u r c h a s e r i n making i n q u i r y i n t o t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e p r e m i s e s and income s t a t u s o f t h e b u s i n e s s c a n n o t be o v e r l o o k e d , Hardin v. H i l l ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 149 Mont. 68, 73, 423 P.2d 309, 312, w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e r s h e r e s h o u l d be d e n i e d r e l i e f . The major d e f e c t i n t h e p r e m i s e s was i t s r o t t e d f l o o r and foundation. The r o t t i n g was p a r t i c u l a r l y bad under t h e c a f e p o r t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g where t h e d e f e n d a n t s had p a t c h e d i t . T h e - r o t t e d f o u n d a t i o n c o u l d b e d e t e c t e d o n l y by e n t e r i n g a c r a w l s p a c e under t h e f l o o r . Although i t a p p e a r s t h a t B r e n t Moschelle n o t i c e d t h e p a t c h e d f l o o r , h e d i d n o t e n t e r t h e crawl space. The d e f e n d a n t s knew t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n was rotten. A t t r i a l a c o n t r a c t o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t would r e q u i r e a l m o s t $20,000 t o r e p a i r t h e r o t t e d f l o o r and found- ation. The d e f e n d a n t s knew t h a t t h e f l o o r s and f o u n d a t i o n s r e q u i r e d r e p a i r b u t d i d n o t i n f o r m t h e p l a i n t i f f s of t h i s . B r e n t Moschelle had no e x p e r i e n c e i n c a r p e n t r y and i n d e e d d i d n o t d i s c o v e r t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e t r a p d o o r l e a d i n g t o t h e c r a w l s p a c e u n t i l March 1977. Nor can w e a c c e p t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' arguments t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s had no r i g h t t o r e l y on t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e w i n t e r e a r n i n g s of t h e t a v e r n b u s i n e s s . P l a i n t i f f s had n e v e r b e f o r e i n v e s t e d i n r e a l e s t a t e . The d e f e n d a n t s p r e v e n t e d them from o b t a i n i n g an a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of t h e t a v e r n ' s e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e w i n t e r months. Helen Hulse r e f u s e d t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t t o look a t t h e books, and i n f a c t , even o b j e c t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s making i n q u i r y around town a s t o t h e income of t h e t a v e r n . Given t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e p l a i n t i f f s had l i t t l e c h o i c e b u t t o t a k e t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e i r word t h a t t h e w i n t e r b u s i n e s s w a s s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' needs. Defendants a l s o a r g u e t h a t t h e i r m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w e r e n o t material t o t h e c o n t r a c t and t h u s t h a t r e s c i s s i o n s h o u l d n o t have been g r a n t e d . See Johnson v. Meiers (19461, 1 1 8 Mont. 258, 164 P.2d 1012. Defendants a r g u e t h a t damages a r e a s u f f i c i e n t remedy t o compensate t h e p l a i n t i f f s . There i s no d o u b t , however, t h a t t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e t o t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e p r e m i s e s . Testimony e s t a b - l i s h e d t h a t i t would r e q u i r e o v e r $27,000 i n r e p a i r s t o upgrade t h e t a v e r n t o a s a t i s f a c t o r y condition. The r o t t e d f l o o r s and f o u n d a t i o n s , t h e d e c r e p i t w i r i n g , and t h e s e a s o n a l f l o o d i n g amount t o major problems, and t h e p r o c e s s of making r e p a i r s would p r o b a b l y r e s u l t i n a p r o l o n g e d p e r i o d t h a t t h e t a v e r n would n o t b e open f o r b u s i n e s s . Damages under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s would be c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e . Defendants n e x t a r g u e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s waived t h e i r r i g h t t o rescind, o r w e r e g u i l t y of laches, i n waiting a l m o s t n i n e months t o a c t . The d e c a y i n g f o u n d a t i o n and t h e age of t h e wiring w e r e n o t r e a d i l y observable t o p l a i n t i f f s as inexperienced laymen. The major defects in the premises did not surface until March 1977. Almost immediately there- after, plaintiffs consulted a lawyer. Upon the advice of a lawyer, they stopped payments on the contract and sent notice of rescission to the defendants. We do not find a waiver under these facts. The laches argument must fail because the defendants did not plead this as an affirmative defense at the trial as is required by Rule 8(c), M.R.Civ.P. Defendants cannot now raise this argument for the first time upon appeal. See Elliston Lime Co. v. Prentice Lumber Co. (1971), 157 Mont. 64, 483 P.2d 264; Bull Creek Oil & Gas Development v. Bethel (1953), 127 Mont. 222, 258 P.2d 960. Finally, defendants argue that plaintiffs have no right to rescission because they defaulted on the purchase con- tract. We first note that when plaintiffs gave notice of rescission, they were still within the grace period permitted by the express terms of the contract for curing default on payments. In making a decision to rescind rather than bring the payments up to date, the plaintiffs did not waive. It would be incongruous to hold that when the plaintiffs decided to rescind rather than to bring the payments up to date, they therefore waived their right to rescind. It would, essen- tially, leave them without a remedy. We note, furthermore, that a vendor's fraud vitiates the contract from its incep- tion, and thus, even a purchaser in default may seek rescis- sion. See Gamble v. Beahm (Ore. 1953), 198 Or. 537, 257 P.2d 882, 886; Thompson v. Huston (Wash. 1943), 17 Wash.2d 457, 135 P.2d 834, 837. Also see, 91 C.J.S. Vendor & Purchaser, 5168 at 1126. The judgment granting rescission is affirmed. W e concur: , Chief / Just 'i"B ------ Justices