Facts
- A. Waldman & Sons, Inc., a developer, marketed a residential lot and house to Richard using a plot plan it prepared or supplied.
- The plot plan represented that the house sat with a 20-foot side yard, matching the minimum side-yard requirement under local zoning regulations.
- Richard relied on the plot plan’s setback depiction and purchased the property.
- After closing and delivery of deeds, the house was discovered to be approximately 1.8 feet from the boundary line, not 20 feet.
- The inaccuracy stemmed from a mistake regarding boundary location and/or zoning assumptions, reflected in an incomplete or inaccurate plan.
- Richard sued in tort for false representation (misrepresentation), alleging he was induced to purchase by the inaccurate plan and suffered loss from the diminished yard and nonconformity.
Issues
- Whether a seller-developer may be liable in tort for misrepresentation when it supplies a materially inaccurate plot plan that induces a sale, even if the seller did not know of the mistake at the time of the transaction.
- Whether the buyer’s reliance on the plot plan was legally sufficient to support recovery for misrepresentation and resulting damages.
Decision
- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Richard.
- The court held that a seller may be liable in tort for misrepresentation in connection with a sale when the buyer is induced to act in reliance on the seller’s material representations.
- The court upheld the finding that Richard relied on the seller-supplied plot plan depicting a compliant 20-foot side yard.
- The court rejected the argument that lack of contemporaneous knowledge or intent to deceive defeated liability, treating the claim as actionable misrepresentation based on failure to ensure accuracy.
- The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the misrepresentation caused compensable loss given the substantial disparity between the represented and actual setback.
Legal Principles
- A party to a sale may incur tort liability for material representations that induce the other party to contract and that prove false, causing loss.
- A seller who provides factual representations about property characteristics in a transaction has a duty to use reasonable care to ensure those representations are accurate.
- Misrepresentation liability does not require proof of fraudulent intent when the claim rests on non-intentional misrepresentation and the elements of falsity, materiality, reliance, and damages are established.
- Contractual sale relationships do not bar tort recovery when the buyer’s assent is procured by actionable misrepresentations.
Conclusion
The court affirmed tort recovery for a homebuyer who reasonably relied on a developer’s inaccurate plot plan depicting a zoning-compliant setback, holding that the seller had a duty to ensure the accuracy of such material representations and could be liable even absent intentional deceit.