734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

REAL ESTATE 53: Complaint filed for violation of Seller Disclosure Act.

Plaintiffs purchased a home in Michigan. At the time of the sale, the owners of the home, defendants, had been suffering from dementia for several months and were living in assisted-living facilities. Their daughter, defendant L, as their power of attorney, filled out the Seller’s Disclosure Statement (SDS) as required by the SDA. According to L’s affidavit, she did so at her attorney’s insistence even though she had lived out of state and knew practically nothing about the home.

Seller Disclosure Act (SDA)

On the SDS, defendant L indicated that the condition of numerous aspects of the home were unknown to her and, despite the SDS’s instructions, she left several questions blank.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants, alleging three separate counts: one for violations of the SDA, one for common-law fraud, and one for silent fraud.

The complaint listed multiple alleged defects that plaintiffs claimed L was required but failed to disclose including water leaks in the basement and multiple roof leaks.

Defendants moved for summary disposition. With respect to the claim alleging SDA violations, defendants argued that the SDA did not create an independent cause of action. With respect to the two fraud claims, defendants argued that plaintiffs were unable to prove numerous elements of their claims.

The trial court granted defendants’ motion.

Seller Disclosure Act (SDA) Violations

Although MCL 565.954(3) and (4) allow a purchaser to terminate a purchase agreement for the sale of real estate before the transfer of title if disclosures are not made as required in the SDS, the SDA provides no other remedy. The SDA does not create an independent cause of action but instead relies on common-law causes of action in fraud.

Common Law Fraud

To prove a claim of common-law fraud, also known as fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish six different elements: (1) the defendant made a material representation; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the defendant knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without knowledge of its truth, and as a positive assertion; (4) the defendant made it with the intention that the plaintiff should act upon it; (5) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the representation; and (6) the plaintiff thereby suffered injury.

Unlike a claim of innocent misrepresentation, which does not require proof of intent to deceive by the party making the misrepresentation, a claim of common-law fraud does require proof of an intent to deceive. Here, plaintiffs have shown to no false representation made by L. This is fatal to their claim of common-law fraud.

Silent Fraud

To prove silent fraud, also known as fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant suppressed the truth with the intent to defraud the plaintiff and that the defendant had a legal or equitable duty of disclosure. Establishing silent fraud requires more than proving that the seller was aware of and failed to disclose a hidden defect.

While good faith and honesty are required when completing an SDS, if at the time the disclosures are required to be made, an item of information required to be disclosed under the SDA is unknown or unavailable to the transferor, the transferor may comply with this act by advising a prospective purchaser of the fact that the information is unknown.

Plaintiffs’ claim of silent fraud fails for the same reasons as their claim of common-law fraud. Plaintiffs failed to offer proof that L suppressed the truth about the conditions in her parents’ home with an intent to defraud plaintiffs.

Skilled Real Estate Litigation in Michigan

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a purchase or sales disputes? Seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

Basic responsibilities of an executor

Originally posted on 01/11/2017 The emotional toils of dealing with the death of a loved one can be considerably difficult. Nevertheless, perseverance is paramount; especially if you are appointed to be an executor to one’s...

What you need to compliment your will

Originally posted on 02/08/2017 Making end-of-life plans usually end with a will, but they shouldn't. Some believe that simply having a will is enough. However, this post will briefly explain how having other estate planning...

The benefits of home health care providers

Originally posted on 03/22/2017 As we get older or suffer an injury, we need a little extra help. Home health care providers or caregivers can provide the assistance needed to handle your or your loved one's health and safety...

What to know about bail conditions

Originally posted on 03/06/2017 If you have been arrested and are being held on the suspicion that you have committed a particular crime, chances are that the only thing you are thinking about is getting out of jail as soon as possible and...

College students and estate planning

Originally posted on 12/16/2016 With college semesters starting up in Michigan, it may not be so easy to get college students to think responsibly. This time can be especially tough with the need of moving back to school and getting...

Three reasons to put a power of attorney in place

Originally posted on 11/08/2016 While no one wants to think of the unfortunate possibility of being incapacitated or of a time when we can't handle our own affairs, this circumstance is a real possibility. If something happens and this...

How to approach parents about estate planning

Originally posted on 12/09/2016 Family forms a strong foundation for many people's first and most intimate community. It is important to strengthen these first relationships so even uncommon questions become natural. For those...

PROBATE 44: Petition for Mental Health Treatment

Michigan’s Mental Health Code governs the civil admission and discharge procedures for a person with a mental illness. Specifically, MCL 330.1434 sets forth the procedure and content requirements for a petition for mental health treatment.

Should you get your criminal record expunged?

Originally posted on 04/12/2017 If you have been convicted of a crime, have served your sentence, and have followed all court recommendations, you should be able to put your past behind you and move on with life. Moving forward is critical...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405