## Facts

- Robin and Sharon Luchini sold a Fairbanks, Alaska residence to Raymond Amyot (and a co-purchaser) for $181,500.
- Before listing the home, the Luchinis retained an engineer who provided a letter stating the foundation was stable and the structure had substantial remaining useful life.
- During negotiations, the Luchinis provided the engineer’s letter to Amyot.
- Under Alaska’s residential real property disclosure statute, the seller completed a written transfer disclosure statement indicating that, to the best of his knowledge, there were no wall or foundation defects, and also described the foundation as “good” in a listing profile.
- Amyot knew the foundation was made of all-weather wood, was told a fireplace had previously fallen into the basement, and personally observed multiple conditions suggesting problems (including uneven and spongy floors, irregularities in a foundation wall, and cracked beams); he also had a contractor inspect the house.
- After closing, while preparing to install an indoor pool, Amyot discovered major foundation problems; a later engineering inspection reported the foundation had completely failed.
- Amyot sought rescission and, after refusal, undertook major repairs estimated at about $100,000, then sued for innocent, negligent, and intentional misrepresentation.
- The trial court ruled that Alaska’s disclosure statute precludes an innocent misrepresentation claim and entered judgment for the sellers.

## Issues

1. Whether Alaska’s residential real property disclosure statute (AS 34.70.010 et seq.) precludes a buyer’s common-law claim for innocent misrepresentation based on inaccurate but good-faith seller disclosures in a covered residential sale.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the sellers.
- The court held that AS 34.70.010 et seq. precludes buyer recovery under a theory of innocent misrepresentation in residential transactions governed by the statute.
- The court reasoned that the statute creates a disclosure duty while limiting seller liability to situations involving at least actual knowledge of falsity or lack of good faith, which is inconsistent with strict-liability-style innocent misrepresentation.

## Legal Principles

- When a residential sale is governed by AS 34.70.010 et seq., a seller’s liability for disclosure inaccuracies is limited by the statute’s good-faith and actual-knowledge framework.
- Common-law innocent misrepresentation, which can impose liability for inaccurate statements made without knowledge of falsity, is displaced to the extent it conflicts with the statutory liability limits for covered residential disclosures.
- The decision addresses preclusion of innocent misrepresentation; it does not purport to eliminate claims requiring fault elements such as knowledge or bad faith.

## Conclusion

In Alaska residential real property transfers covered by AS 34.70.010 et seq., a buyer may not recover from a seller on a common-law theory of innocent misrepresentation based on inaccurate disclosure statements made in good faith without actual knowledge of falsity; the statute’s liability limits control.


Amyot v. Luchini, 932 P.2d 244 (Alaska 1997)