## Facts

- Rita H. Massie bought a farm from Barry Arthur Colvin and Beverly Colvin.
- The Colvins listed the property through United Country–Missouri Ozarks Realty, Inc.; its agent Christina Madajik worked with Massie.
- Massie told Madajik she would purchase only if she could fence and gate the farm to keep animals.
- Madajik told Massie a neighbor, Leroy Jones, had an access easement over the property, but said she thought “the issue could be worked out” and described Jones as a “nice guy” who should not mind a gate.
- Massie toured the property again with the Colvins and Madajik. Massie repeated that fencing and gates were required; Barry Colvin said it should be “no problem” and agreed to build the fencing and gates.
- Madajik later relayed that she had consulted another United Country agent, Curt Dobbs, who reported that a title company said a gate would be allowed if Jones was given a key.
- Massie never contacted Jones before closing to confirm whether he would agree to a gate.
- The parties executed a purchase agreement that included a special agreement about installing fencing and gates.
- At closing, a title-company employee pointed out the easement to Massie; the easement was also disclosed in the title commitment and referenced in the warranty deed. Massie closed.
- After closing, Barry Colvin installed fencing and a gate across the easement road.
- Jones sued Massie. The easement language prohibited obstructions (including gates). Jones obtained a judgment requiring removal of the gate and awarding $3,500 in damages.
- Massie sued the Colvins for fraudulent misrepresentation and sued United Country for negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Colvins and United Country, and Massie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the sellers’ and broker’s statements that gating the easement would be “no problem,” that Jones would not mind, or that a title company said a gate was permissible, were actionable misrepresentations supporting fraud or negligent misrepresentation rather than nonactionable opinions, sales talk, or predictions about a third party’s future conduct.
2. Whether Massie could show reasonable reliance and causation where the existence of the easement was disclosed in the title commitment and warranty deed and was pointed out at closing, yet she proceeded with the purchase.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Massie could not prove essential elements of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Barry and Beverly Colvin on Massie’s fraudulent-misrepresentation claim and for United Country–Missouri Ozarks Realty, Inc. on Massie’s negligent-misrepresentation claim.
- The court concluded the complained-of statements were not actionable misrepresentations of existing fact; they were opinions, general assurances, or expectations about how Jones might react, and they did not override the recorded easement’s terms.
- The court held Massie could not establish reasonable reliance because she had actual notice of the easement from the title commitment, the deed, and the closing disclosure, and she closed without confirming the easement holder’s position or the easement’s restrictions.
- Because Massie could not satisfy the reliance element (and related causation requirements) even taking her allegations as true, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation require, among other elements, an actionable false representation and reasonable reliance that causes damages.
- Statements that are opinions, general assurances, or predictions about future events or a third party’s conduct ordinarily are not actionable as misrepresentations of existing fact.
- Reliance is not reasonable when the truth is disclosed in readily available written instruments affecting title (such as a recorded easement referenced in the title work and deed) and the purchaser proceeds despite notice of the condition.
- Summary judgment is proper when undisputed facts (or the plaintiff’s version of the facts) still fail to establish an essential element such as reasonable reliance.

## Conclusion

Massie v. Colvin holds that a buyer who closes after being informed—through title documents and closing disclosures—of a recorded easement cannot later recover for fraud or negligent misrepresentation based on oral assurances that gating the easement would be acceptable, especially where the statements amount to opinions or predictions and the easement’s written terms prohibit gates.


Massie v. Colvin, 373 S.W.3d 469 (2012)