## Facts

- Waylon and Margaret Campbell were shopping for a home to buy.
- They toured Don and Janet Booth’s home twice before purchasing it.
- During the tours, the Campbells noticed cats in the home and knew the Booths owned dogs.
- The Campbells also observed multiple air fresheners, deodorizers, and candles placed around the home.
- The Campbells purchased the home.
- About one week after the purchase, the Campbells moved in.
- Upon moving in, the Campbells encountered a strong and offensive smell of pet urine in the carpeting.
- To remove the odor, the Campbells replaced the carpet.
- The Campbells sued the Booths for fraudulent concealment based on the pet-urine odor condition.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the Booths, and the Campbells appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the Booths fraudulently concealed a material, latent pet-urine odor condition in the home’s carpeting by failing to disclose it and allegedly masking it during showings.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment for the Booths.
- The court held that the evidence supported the Campbells’ claim that the Booths concealed a material condition affecting the home’s value or desirability and that the Campbells could not reasonably detect the condition during ordinary pre-purchase inspections.
- The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud may be based on concealment when a party with knowledge of a material fact has a duty to disclose it and instead remains silent or uses conduct that prevents the other party from learning the truth.
- In a residential sale, a seller’s duty to disclose can arise when the seller knows of a material condition that is not reasonably discoverable by a buyer through ordinary inspection and the seller’s silence or conduct results in a false impression.
- Concealment is not limited to spoken misrepresentations; it may include acts intended to hide a defect or to keep the buyer from discovering it during pre-sale visits.
- A buyer’s awareness of surrounding circumstances (such as the presence of pets) does not automatically bar recovery if the specific defect is materially worse than what a reasonable buyer would infer and the defect is effectively hidden at the time of inspection.
- When the record supports an inference that the seller knew of the defect, expected the buyer to rely on the incomplete appearance presented during showings, and the buyer in fact relied to the buyer’s loss, a take-nothing judgment for the seller cannot stand.

## Conclusion

Campbell v. Booth involves a home purchase followed by discovery of severe pet-urine odor embedded in the carpeting. Although the buyers observed pets and odor-masking items during their tours, they alleged that the sellers knew of the persistent condition and concealed it rather than disclosing it. The appellate court reversed the judgment for the sellers, concluding the evidence supported fraudulent concealment of a material, non-obvious defect and required further proceedings.


Campbell v. Booth, 526 S.W.2d 167 (1975)