FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD D. HOLMES; GINA Y. KOPP, No. 13-35117
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 6:09-cv-06023-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WESTERN TITLE & ESCROW
COMPANY,
Defendant,
and
LLOYD RAGAN; GLENDA RAGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 16, 2017 **
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Donald D. Holmes and Gina Y. Kopp (“Appellants”) appeal pro se the district
court’s judgment in their diversity action against Lloyd and Glenda Ragan (“the
Ragans”). Appellants alleged intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract
under Oregon law in connection with their purchase of a mobile home (“the home”)
from the Ragans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and the district
court’s conclusions of law de novo. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634
F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011). Mixed questions of law and fact are also reviewed
de novo. Id.
1. There was no error in entering judgment for the Ragans on Appellants’
intentional-misrepresentation claim based on an alleged pre-sale statement that the
home had no rodents or mold. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the
Ragans lacked knowledge of rats or mold in the home at the time of the sale
agreement and that the mold found after the storm was not in existence at the time of
the sale agreement. The district court also did not clearly err in finding that
Appellants did not rely on any statements by the Ragans regarding mold or rats when
purchasing the home. Because Appellants did not establish misrepresentation,
2
knowledge, or reliance, there was no error in finding that Appellants failed to prove
intentional misrepresentation. See Or. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Bd. v. Simat, Helliesen &
Eichner, 83 P.3d 350, 359 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
2. There was no error in entering judgment for the Ragans on Appellants’
breach-of-contract claim. Because the Ragans lacked knowledge of rats in the home
at the time of the sale agreement, there was no breach of a warranty of freedom from
material defects or a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
See Brockway v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 391 P.3d 871, 879 (Or. Ct. App.
2017). Further, there was no written agreement regarding a sixty-day limit for repair
of the storm damage, and any oral agreement to that effect would have violated the
statute of frauds. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.580(1)(e); Kazlauskas v. Emmert, 275 P.3d
171, 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). Moreover, the duty of good faith and fair dealing did
not require an assignment of the Ragans’ insurance claim or a power of attorney to
authorize Appellants to direct the home’s repairs to their satisfaction. See Brockway,
391 P.3d at 879.
3. Finally, there was no error in entering judgment for the Ragans on the
parties’ claim and counterclaim for declaratory relief regarding $8,000 the Ragans
placed in escrow pending completion of repairs. The district court did not clearly err
in finding that the parties’ escrow agreement did not include any time limit for the
3
repairs, that the repairs were fully completed, and that Holmes said he would not hold
the Ragans to any repair deadline.
AFFIRMED.
4