Woodahl v. Matthews

No. 81-303

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F

1981

JAMES A. WOODAHL and BARBARA A .
WOODAHL, husband and w i f e ,

P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

VS.

C R L N K.
AOY M THW ,
AT E S

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade
Honorable John McCarvel, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For A p p e l l a n t s :

S m i t h , B a i l l i e & Walsh, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana

For Respondent:

S c o t t , L i n n e l l & Newhall, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana

S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : November 5 , 1 9 8 1

Decided: F e b r u a r y 3 , 1982

Filed: FE0 3 1982-
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.

P l a i n t i f f s , James and B a r b a r a Woodahl a p p e a l a f i n a l
judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l

~ i s t r i c denying t h e i r c l a i m f o r r e s c i s s i o n and o r d e r i n g t h e
t

s p e c i f i c performance of a c o n t r a c t between p l a i n t i f f s and

d e f e n d a n t , C a r o l y n K . Matthews.

James Woodahl, a n a c t i v e r e a l e s t a t e d e v e l o p e r working

p r i m a r i l y i n G r e a t F a l l s and B i l l i n g s , developed t h e P a r k

P l a z a r e s i d e n t i a l condominiums i n G r e a t F a l l s . Barbara

Woodahl i s James' w i f e .

C a r o l y n Matthews was t h e owner of a house a t 1909

E l e v e n t h S t r e e t S o u t h w e s t , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. She had

been a r e a l e s t a t e s a l e s p e r s o n f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x months

when s h e was approached by a n a g e n t of t h e Woodahls r e g a r d i n g

t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u r c h a s e a P a r k P l a z a Condominium.

N e g o t i a t i o n s commenced between t h e two p a r t i e s i n l a t e

1979. The n e g o t i a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n a s e r i e s of a g r e e m e n t s

b e i n g e n t e r e d i n t o on J a n u a r y 8, 1980, whereby t h e Woodahls

would l e a s e u n i t s 7 and 4C of P a r k P l a z a t o Matthews i n
A

exchange f o r Matthews s e l l i n g t h e Woodahls h e r home. The

l e a s e f o r 7 c o n t a i n e d an o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e u n i t on
A

F e b r u a r y 1, 1981. The o p t i o n was t o be e x e r c i s e d by Matthews'

f o r g i v i n g t h e o b l i g a t i o n of t h e Woodahls under t h e i r p r o m i s s o r y

n o t e on t h e house.

On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1980, t h e Woodahls, t h e i r i n t e r i o r

d e c o r a t o r , Tom Matsko, and Richard Newman, a b u i l d i n g c o n t r a c t o r ,

e n t e r e d t h e house t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n f o r remodeling

purposes. While i n t h e u p s t a i r s m a s t e r bedroom, M r . Woodahl

n o t e d t h a t t h e f l o o r a p p e a r e d t o be o u t of l e v e l . using h i s
l e v e l , M r . Newman d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f l o o r s l o p e d toward

t h e n o r t h a t a r a t e of 5 1 / 2 i n c h e s o v e r t h i r t y f e e t . Other

rooms a l s o were d e t e r m i n e d t o be o u t of l e v e l , most n o t a b l y

t h e d o w n s t a i r s t e l e v i s i o n room.

Out of c o u r t a t t e m p t s t o c u r e t h e problem t o t h e s a t i s -

f a c t i o n of b o t h p a r t i e s f a i l e d . On May 5, 1980, p l a i n t i f f s

f i l e d a complaint i n t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t a l l e g i n g

f r a u d ; o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , m i s t a k e on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t .

They r e q u e s t e d r e s c i s s i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t ; o r , i n t h e a l t e r -

n a t i v e , damages t o be measured by t h e c o s t of r e s t o r i n g t h e

house t o a s t r u c t u r a l l y sound and h a b i t a b l e s t a t e . Defendant

f i l e d a n answer and c o u n t e r - c l a i m on May 2 0 , 1980, r e q u e s t i n g

s p e c i f i c performance of t h e agreements.

A t t r i a l , C a r o l Matthews t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e and h e r

f a m i l y had r e s i d e d i n t h e house f o r t e n y e a r s and t h a t s h e

had n e v e r n o t i c e d t h e f l o o r s were n o t l e v e l . She had n o t i c e d

t h a t two d o o r s , t h e m a s t e r bedroom d o o r and t h e d o o r t o

a n o t h e r u p s t a i r s bedroom, tended t o a u t o m a t i c a l l y slam s h u t .

She propped t h e s e d o o r s open w i t h a v a l e t i n t h e m a s t e r

bedroom and a t o y i n t h e o t h e r bedroom. These o b j e c t s were

i n p l a c e e a c h t i m e t h e Woodahls t o u r e d t h e house. The

a u t o m a t i c c l o s i n g problem was a t t r i b u t e d by M r s . Matthews t o

e i t h e r l o o s e h i n g e s o r i n c o r r e c t hanging of t h e d o o r s .

She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e problem had a r i s e n a f t e r h e r husband

o i l e d t h e h i n g e s on t h e d o o r s .

The Matthews completed s e v e r a l remodeling p r o j e c t s and

b u i l t two a d d i t i o n s t o t h e home d u r i n g t h e i r r e s i d e n c e . In

1975 t h e g a r a g e b e n e a t h t h e m a s t e r bedroom was c o n v e r t e d t o
a den and a new g a r a g e c o n s t r u c t e d a d j a c e n t t o t h e den. In

1976 t h e k i t c h e n was remodeled and a d i n e t t e c o n s t r u c t e d .

Russ J o n e s was t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r b o t h
projects. He t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t h e had n o t n o t i c e d any

u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n s o o u t of t h e o r d i n a r y a s t o w a r r a n t b e i n g

b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of M r s . Matthews.

F u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y by M r . J o n e s concluded t h a t had t h e

house s e t t l e d 5 1/2 i n c h e s , c r a c k s i n t h e f o u n d a t i o n of t h e

house and b r e a k a g e of p i p e s would have o c c u r r e d . Mr. Jones

n o t i c e d no c r a c k s o r b r e a k s a t t h e t i m e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n

p r o j e c t s were performed.

Mr. James Walsh, a salesman f o r c o n t r a c t f l o o r i n g ,

performed a n e s t i m a t e f o r f l o o r c o v e r i n g f o r t h e m a s t e r

bedroom of t h e house. H e n o t i c e d no u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n w h i l e

p e r f o r m i n g h i s e s t i m a t e and he was n e v e r informed by t h e

c a r p e t l a y e r o f any problem.

Mr. James G r e e r , a c a r p e n t e r , r e s i d e d t h e house. He

noticed nothing unusual. Mr. Vern F l e s c h , a p a i n t e r and

paperhanging c o n t r a c t o r , a p p l i e d s t r i p e d w a l l p a p e r t o t h e

w a l l s and c e i l i n g o f t h e u p s t a i r s bathroom. He n o t i c e d no

p a r t i c u l a r u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n w i t h i n t h e bathroom which he

considered exceptional.

James Woodahl t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t h e had t o u r e d t h e

house two t i m e s p r i o r t o t h e J a n u a r y 8 , 1980, a g r e e m e n t s .

Mrs. Woodahl t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had accompanied h e r husband

on t h o s e t o u r s . N e i t h e r p l a i n t i f f n o t i c e d t h e f l o o r s t o be

o u t of l e v e l d u r i n g t h e t o u r s . The f l o o r ' s u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n

w a s f i r s t n o t i c e d by James Woodahl on F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1980.

James Woodahl h i r e d W i l l i a m F e r r o t o p r o f e s s i o n a l l y

a p p r a i s e t h e house p r i o r t o t h e s i g n i n g of t h e c o n t r a c t

agreements. Mr. Ferro d i d not observe t h e unlevel condition

when h e a p p r a i s e d t h e home, nor d i d h e d i s c o v e r any e v i d e n c e

of s e t t l e m e n t . He a p p r a i s e d t h e home a t $190,000. He

e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n would r e d u c e t h e v a l u e

of t h e home by t e n t o f i f t e e n p e r c e n t .
 I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t

Mrs. atth thews was n o t aware of a n u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n i n

p o r t i o n s of t h e home when i t was s o l d t o t h e Woodahls." The

c o u r t a l s o found " t h a t t h e u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n i n p o r t i o n s of

t h e home was n o t o b s e r v a b l e by p e r s o n s engaged i n normal

u s a g e of t h e home, d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e h a b i t a b i l i t y of t h e

home and d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e Woodahls from u s i n g t h e home

f o r t h e p u r p o s e which t h e y o r i g i n a l l y i n t e n d e d . " Matthews

was n o t found t o b e g u i l t y of f r a u d o r m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ;

mutual m i s t a k e between t h e two p a r t i e s was n o t found t o

e x i s t ; and no m a t e r i a l f a i l u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n w a r r a n t i n g a

r e s c i s s i o n of t h e agreement was found.

T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d , s i n c e t h e home was

h a b i t a b l e d e s p i t e t h e u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n s , "Woodahls r e c e i v e d

t h e p r o p e r t y f o r which t h e y b a r g a i n e d . " Finally, the court

h e l d Matthews n o t l i a b l e f o r damages a s a r e s u l t of t h e

u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n of t h e home and found Matthews e n t i t l e d t o

s p e c i f i c performance of t h e agreements.

On a p p e a l i n g t h e o r d e r f o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e , Woodahls

r a i s e d the following issues:

(1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n
i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t r e l i e f on t h e t h e o r y of e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y .

(2) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n

by f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had knowledge of t h e

d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n of t h e home when s h e s o l d it t o t h e

plaintiffs.

(3) Whether t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n
t

by f a i l i n g t o g r a n t r e s c i s s i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t s i n v o l v e d .

(4) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n

i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t r e l i e f on t h e b a s i s of c o n s t r u c t i v e

f r a u d o r u n j u s t enrichment.
 (5) Whether, having f a i l e d t o g r a n t r e s c i s s i o n , t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o award

damages t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s .

W w i l l d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e of w a r r a n t y , c o n s o l i d a t e o u r
e

d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i s s u e s b e a r i n g on r e s c i s s i o n a n d , b e c a u s e

we a f f i r m , t h e damage i s s u e i s moot.

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION I N REFUSING
TO G A T RELIEF ON THE THEORY O EXPRESS WARRANTY.
R N F

Not o n l y d i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e t o g r a n t r e l i e f

on t h e t h e o r y of e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y , it t o t a l l y f a i l e d t o

a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e i n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of

law. Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g e x p r e s s w a r r a n t i e s

and a p p l y i n g r e l e v a n t c o n t r a c t law t o t h e f a c t s a s we found

them, we a g r e 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

a p p e l l a n t on t h e t h e o r y of e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y .

I n t h e l i s t i n g f o r t h e house, M r s . Matthews d e s c r i b e d

t h e c o n d i t i o n of h e r home a s e x c e l l e n t . However, nowhere

i n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y i s t h e r e an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t e i t h e r M r . or

M r s . Woodahl r e l i e d on t h a t l i s t i n g s t a t e m e n t when d e c i d i n g

whether o r n o t t o p u r c h a s e t h e house. T h e r e can b e no

express warranty without r e l i a n c e . J o n e s v . Armstrong

( 1 9 1 5 ) , 50 Mont. 168 a t 1 7 5 , 145 P . 949 a t 951.

Mr. and M r s . Woodahl d i d s t a t e t h a t on t h e i r second

t o u r of t h e house, t h e y a s k e d M r s . Matthews: " A r e t h e r e any

problems w i t h t h i s house?" Mrs. Matthews a l l e g e d l y r e p l i e d :

"None w h a t s o e v e r . " Mr. Woodahl s t a t e d t h a t h e r e l i e d on

t h i s comment when d e c i d i n g whether t o p u r c h a s e t h e house.

Mrs. Matthews d e n i e d t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n e v e r o c c u r r e d . The

t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o make a f i n d i n g of f a c t r e g a r d i n g t h e

o c c u r r e n c e of t h i s p u r p o r t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n .

However, even i f t h e c o u r t had found t h a t t h e c o n v e r s a -

t i o n d i d t a k e p l a c e and t h a t M r . Woodahl d i d r e l y on M r s .

Matthews' r e s p o n s e , r e l i e f s h o u l d n o t have been g r a n t e d on
t h e t h e o r y of e x p r e s s w a r r a n t y . A Real P r o p e r t y P u r c h a s e

Agreement was s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s on J a n u a r y 8 , 1980,

which c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e s :

"8. Conveyance of t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y and i m -
provements t o P u r c h a s e r s h a l l be by g e n e r a l
w a r r a n t y deed. Acceptance of t h e deed by
P u r c h a s e r s h a l l be deemed t o b e , and c o n s t i -
t u t e , f u l l performance and d i s c h a r g e of e v e r y
agreement and o b l i g a t i o n s e t f o r t h h e r e i n and
no c o v e n a n t o f t h i s agreement s h a l l s u r v i v e
t h e closing except a s s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h
herein. "

and

"12. T h i s Agreement c o n s t i t u t e s t h e s o l e and
e n t i r e agreement between t h e p a r t i e s and s u p e r -
s e d e s any and a l l p r i o r w r i t t e n o r o r a l r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n s , promises, covenants, understand-
i n g s , o r o t h e r agreements between t h e p a r t i e s . "

W r i t t e n c o n t r a c t s s u p e r s e d e a l l o r a l n e g o t i a t i o n s which

p r e c e d e d t h e s i g n i n g of t h e c o n t r a c t . S e c t i o n 28-2-904,

MCA, states:

" E f f e c t of w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t on o r a l agreements.
The e x e c u t i o n of a c o n t r a c t i n w r i t i n g , whether
t h e l a w r e q u i r e s i t t o be w r i t t e n o r n o t , s u p e r -
sedes a l l t h e o r a l negotiations o r s t i p u l a t i o n s
c o n c e r n i n g i t s m a t t e r which p r e c e d e d o r accom-
p a n i e d t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e i n s t r u m e n t . "

P u r s u a n t t o t h i s s e c t i o n , Woodahls' e x e c u t i o n of t h e

Real P r o p e r t y P u r c h a s e Agreement s e r v e d t o waive a l l o t h e r

o r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by Matthews t o t h e Woodahls. This

would have i n c l u d e d t h e comment "none w h a t s o e v e r , " had t h a t

comment been made by Matthews and r e l i e d upon by Woodahls.

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING
TO GRANT RESCISSION O THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED.
F

S e c t i o n 28-2-1711, MCA, g o v e r n s when a p a r t y may r e s c i n d

a contract. S e c t i o n 28-2-1711(1), MCA, allows r e s c i s s i o n

when " t h e c o n s e n t of t h e p a r t y r e s c i n d i n g . . . was given

by m i s t a k e o r o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h d u r e s s , menace, f r a u d , o r

undue i n f l u e n c e . . ." Appellants i n t h i s case a l l e g e both

m i s t a k e and f r a u d , s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d .
 C o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d i s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 28-2-406, MCA,

t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n of which s t a t e s :

"Constructive fraud consists in:

" ( 1 ) any b r e a c h of d u t y which, w i t h o u t a n
a c t u a l l y f r a u d u l e n t i n t e n t , g a i n s a n advan-
t a g e t o t h e p e r s o n i n f a u l t o r anyone c l a i m -
i n g under him by m i s l e a d i n g a n o t h e r t o h i s
p r e j u d i c e o r t o t h e p r e j u d i c e of anyone
c l a i m i n g under him."

T h i s C o u r t i n Mends v. Dykstra (1981), Mont. I

P . 2d , 38 St.Rep. 2010, e x t e n d e d t h e c o n c e p t of

c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d t o t r a n s a c t i o n s such a s a c o n t r a c t f o r

t h e p u r c h a s e of a house. T h e r e f o r e , c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d may

be r a i s e d a s a n i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e ; however, p u r s u a n t t o t h e

e x p r e s s t e r m s of s e c t i o n 28-2-406(1), MCA, constructive

f r a u d r e q u i r e s t h e b r e a c h of a d u t y . Therefore, a f a c t u a l

d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of a d u t y must be made

p r i o r t o any f i n d i n g o f c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t "Matthews w a s n o t

aware of a n u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n i n p o r t i o n s of t h e home when

i t was s o l d t o t h e Woodahls . . ." Testimony by M r s . Matthews

and s e v e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s who performed work on t h e house

substantiate t h i s finding. In addition, appellants failed

t o n o t i c e t h e c o n d i t i o n on two o c c a s i o n s and t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l

a p p r a i s e r t e s t i f i e d t o b e i n g unaware of t h e c o n d i t i o n a t t h e

t i m e he conducted t h e a p p r a i s a l .

The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law of t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t " w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e and by t h e law." ~auterjwgv. Johnson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 5

Mont. 74 a t 77, 572 P . 2d 511 a t 512-513. W e find there t o

b e s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h i s f i n d i n g of
f a c t and t h e r e f o r e u p h o l d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n

t h a t M r s . Matthews was unaware o f t h e d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n a t

t h e t i m e s h e s o l d t h e h o u s e t o t h e Woodahls.

S i n c e M r s . Matthews was unaware o f t h e d e f e c t , s h e was

u n d e r no d u t y t o d i s c l o s e t h e d e f e c t t o t h e Woodahls. This

Court i n Moschelle v . Hulse (1980), Mont . , 622

P.2d 1 5 5 , 3 7 %Rep. 1506, made i t c l e a r t h a t knowledge o f a

d e f e c t is necessary before t h e duty t o d i s c l o s e t h e d e f e c t

exists. T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 28-2-406, MCA, M r s .
Matthews i s n o t g u i l t y o f c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d a s s h e had no

duty t o breach. W e affirm the D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion

t h a t M r s . Matthews was n o t g u i l t y o f c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e Woodahls

r e c e i v e d t h a t f o r which t h e y had b a r g a i n e d . The t r i a l c o u r t

found :

"Woodahls r e c e i v e d t h e p r o p e r t y f o r which t h e y
bargained. No c o n d i t i o n o f t h e home r e n d e r s
it u n i n h a b i t a b l e o r u n f i t f o r t h e purposes
which t h e y i n t e n d e d . I n s o f a r a s t h e purpose of
t h e a g r e e m e n t s was t o f u r n i s h t h e Woodahls
w i t h a home t o l i v e i n , t h a t p u r p o s e was n o t
f r u s t r a t e d by t h e u n l e v e l c o n d i t i o n o f a p o r -
t i o n o f t h e home."

T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t c o n t e s t e d

on a p p e a l by a p p e l l a n t s . There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e

e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h i s c o n c l u s i o n a s t h e Matthews r e s i d e d

i n t h e home f o r t e n y e a r s . Thus, t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s a c c e p t e d

as stated.

I n o r d e r f o r a m u t u a l m i s t a k e by t h e p a r t i e s t o a

c o n t r a c t t o w a r r a n t r e s c i s s i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e mistake

must b e " s o s u b s t a n t i a l and f u n d a m e n t a l a s t o d e f e a t t h e

o b j e c t o f t h e p a r t i e s i n making t h e c o n t r a c t . " Johnson v .

Meiers ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 1 8 Mont. 258, 164 P.2d 1012. The t r i a l

c o u r t found no m u t u a l m i s t a k e e x i s t e d . However, e v e n i f a
mutual m i s t a k e had been found, t h e m i s t a k e d i d n o t a f f e c t

" t h e o b j e c t o f t h e p a r t i e s i n making t h e c o n t r a c t " a n d

r e s c i s s i o n on t h e b a s i s of mutual mistake does n o t l i e .

F i n a l l y , as t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t a p p e l l a n t s ' r e c e i v e d

t h e p r o p e r t y f o r which t h e y had b a r g a i n e d , t h e r e i s no

m a t e r i a l f a i l u r e of consideration. W e affirm the D i s t r i c t

Court's decision not t o rescind.

WHETHER, HAVING FAILED TO GRANT RESCISSION, THE DISTRICT
COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING T AWARD D M G S T
O A A E O
THE PLAINTIFFS?

W e have previously upheld t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s determination

t h a t t h e r e w a s no b a s i s f o r r e s c i s s i o n . The same t r i a l

c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s f o r e c l o s e a n y c l a i m upon which damages

c o u l d b e awarded.

The t r i a l c o u r t made a n award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o

respondent. The a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a s s i g n t h a t award a s

e r r o r and d i d n o t m e n t i o n t h e i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f . The

m a t t e r i s f i r s t d i s c u s s e d i n t h e r e p l y b r i e f which i s l i m i t e d

t o r e s p o n d i n g t o a r g u m e n t s made i n t h e a n s w e r b r i e f . Therefore,

w e w i l l n o t consider t h e i s s u e on appeal.

The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

W e Concur:

%+d4$, ~-~
Chief J u s t i c e