## Facts

- Thomas and Joan McDonald purchased a residence from Kenneth and Jo Ann Lyons in late 1983.
- During a pre-sale tour, Thomas asked Kenneth whether there were any particular problems with the property; Kenneth responded that there were none that he knew of.
- The McDonalds’ written purchase proposal (Oct. 17, 1983) made the sale “subject to termite inspection and clearance,” and provided that if termites were found, the seller would treat at the seller’s expense.
- The Lyons obtained a document dated Oct. 19, 1983 stating the home had been treated for termites and that there was no active infestation at that time.
- Joan McDonald repeatedly requested the termite document at closing, but Kenneth did not produce it (stating he had left it in the glove compartment of his truck); the parties closed anyway (Dec. 12, 1983).
- After closing, Thomas told Kenneth he planned to remodel and remove a bulkhead. Kenneth cautioned him not to, stating that Thomas did not know what he would “run into” if he tore it out.
- On the first day of remodeling, removal of the bulkhead revealed serious termite damage; further inspection showed extensive structural termite damage throughout most of the house (except two rooms added by the Lyons).
- Contractors advised that the house would need to be gutted and structurally reinforced to repair the damage.
- Evidence showed Kenneth had been told by a prior owner that the house had termites and had been treated, and that a contractor who performed work for the Lyons had discovered termite damage and informed them.
- The McDonalds testified they likely would not have purchased the home had they known of the termite damage.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found fraudulent misrepresentation and awarded $21,992.11 in compensatory damages and $7,330.70 in punitive damages against both Kenneth and Jo Ann Lyons.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the Lyons fraudulently misrepresented or concealed termite damage in the sale of the residence.
2. Whether Kenneth Lyons acted as Jo Ann Lyons’s agent in the transaction so that his conduct and statements could be attributed to her.
3. Whether the evidence supported an award of punitive damages.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the McDonalds.
- The court held the record supported the trial court’s findings that the Lyons knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material condition (termite damage) and that the McDonalds relied on the misrepresentation to their detriment.
- The court upheld the finding that Kenneth acted with authority on Jo Ann’s behalf in connection with the sale, making her jointly liable.
- The court affirmed the compensatory damages award and the punitive damages award.

## Legal Principles

- Fraudulent misrepresentation requires: (1) a material misrepresentation of past or existing fact (or concealment where there is a duty to speak), (2) made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, (3) intent to induce action, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting injury.
- In a real-estate sale, a seller who responds to a buyer’s direct inquiry about problems with the property may make an actionable factual representation; knowingly false assurances and concealment of known latent defects support fraud liability.
- A contractual termite-inspection/clearance condition can show that termite-related information is material to the buyer’s decision and can support a finding of reliance and causation.
- Agency principles apply in property transactions: when one spouse is authorized to handle the sale and acts within that authority, the principal-spouse may be liable for the agent-spouse’s fraudulent representations made in the course of the transaction.
- Punitive damages may be awarded in fraud cases when the evidence supports a finding of conscious, intentional wrongdoing (not mere mistake), serving punishment and deterrence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a bench-trial judgment holding Kenneth and Jo Ann Lyons liable for fraud and punitive damages because the evidence supported that the Lyons knew of significant termite damage yet assured the McDonalds there were no particular problems, failed to disclose the condition despite the termite-inspection contingency, and induced the McDonalds to complete the purchase and suffer substantial repair costs.


Lyons v. McDonald, 501 N.E.2d 1079 (1986)