## Facts

- Robert Dezero installed a heating appliance in Peter Turner’s home.
- Before Dezero began the work, Turner represented to Dezero that Turner had an interest in the home.
- Turner also represented that he had received money from an estate and had that money in his possession.
- Turner further stated that, after the work was completed, he would use part of those funds to pay Dezero.
- Dezero completed the installation without being paid in advance, relying at least in part on Turner’s representations.
- Turner failed to pay after completion.
- Dezero sued Turner in tort for deceit, seeking damages equal to the unpaid amount for the installation.
- The lower court found for Turner, and Dezero appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged misstatements of present fact (such as current ownership interest and present possession of funds), made in connection with a promise of future payment, can be actionable in deceit.
2. Whether a plaintiff must prove the misrepresentation was the sole inducement for acting, or whether it is enough that the misrepresentation was a material inducement.
3. Whether the allegations sufficiently connected the claimed fraud to the claimed loss (causation and resulting damages).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Vermont reversed the judgment for Turner and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court treated the alleged statements about Turner’s present interest in the property and present possession of estate funds as assertions of existing fact that, if false and made to obtain the work, could support an action for deceit even though they were linked to a future-payment assurance.
- The court rejected any requirement that the misrepresentation be the only reason Dezero performed the work; it was enough if the misrepresentation materially induced him to proceed.
- The court concluded the pleadings adequately alleged that the misrepresentations led Dezero to do the work without payment security and that nonpayment produced the claimed loss.

## Legal Principles

- Deceit may be based on a knowingly false representation of a present or past fact made to induce another to act, with resulting damage.
- A mere promise of future performance, standing alone, is not an actionable misrepresentation of fact; however, a promise tied to an alleged false statement of existing fact may support deceit when the existing-fact portion is what is claimed to be false.
- The misrepresentation need not be the sole inducement; it is enough that it was a material inducement to the plaintiff’s conduct.
- A deceit claim must allege a causal link between the misrepresentation, the plaintiff’s action in reliance, and the damages claimed as a natural result of that reliance.

## Conclusion

Dezero v. Turner holds that allegations that a homeowner falsely stated present financial and property facts—such as having an interest in the home and possessing estate funds—made to obtain installation work and coupled with a promise to pay later, can state a claim for deceit where those statements materially induced the contractor’s performance and the pleaded loss flows from the resulting nonpayment.


Dezero v. Turner, 22 A.2d 173 (1941)