## Facts

- A residential seller experienced recurring water-intrusion problems shortly after buying a newly constructed home, including roof and window leaks causing visible damage.
- Over multiple years, the seller contacted the builder and contractors and obtained inspections and repairs; damaged areas were repainted.
- When listing the home, the seller completed a required disclosure form intended to report known defects materially affecting value.
- On the disclosure form, the seller checked “No” to questions about water leakage and prior attempts to control leakage/dampness, while also noting elsewhere that several windows had leaked after construction but had been repaired.
- The buyers received and signed the disclosure form, including a “Buyer Acknowledgment” stating they did not rely on oral representations and that the disclosure was not a warranty but based on the seller’s actual knowledge.
- The seller’s fiancée, acting as the listing agent, knew at least some of the leak and repair history and did not provide further detail beyond the written disclosure.
- After closing, a heavy rain revealed extensive water intrusion and damage, including signs that earlier problems had been concealed by paint.
- The buyers sued the seller, the listing agent, and the brokerage, asserting fraud-based theories, negligent misrepresentation, contract-related claims, and claims under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA).

## Issues

1. Whether the disclosure form’s Buyer Acknowledgment barred the buyers’ contract, tort (fraud and negligent misrepresentation), and KCPA claims against the seller, agent, and brokerage.
2. Whether purchasers of residential real estate may qualify as “aggrieved consumers” entitled to sue under the KCPA.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding knowledge, disclosure, and reasonable reliance/inspection such that summary judgment was improper.
4. Whether the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act (BRRETA) eliminated or limited common-law negligent misrepresentation claims against real estate licensees.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.
- Held the Buyer Acknowledgment did not bar claims premised on misrepresentations or omissions in the written disclosure form itself.
- Reversed summary judgment for the seller on fraudulent inducement, fraud by silence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract because material fact disputes existed.
- Reversed summary judgment for the agent and brokerage on negligent misrepresentation and KCPA claims because material fact disputes existed regarding their knowledge and duties.
- Held that buyers of residential real estate may qualify as “aggrieved consumers” under the KCPA.
- Held BRRETA does not abolish common-law negligent misrepresentation claims against agents who fail to disclose material information actually known to them.
- Reiterated that courts may not resolve disputed issues of material fact on summary judgment, including in claims sounding in equity.

## Legal Principles

- A buyer acknowledgment disclaiming reliance on oral statements protects against later claims based on alleged oral representations, but it does not bar claims based on false or incomplete written disclosures or relieve defendants of duties to make accurate and complete disclosures.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record permits competing inferences on material facts such as a seller’s knowledge of defects, concealment, the scope of an agent’s knowledge, and the reasonableness of a buyer’s reliance and inspection.
- A purchaser of residential real estate may be an “aggrieved consumer” under the KCPA and may pursue KCPA remedies for deceptive or unconscionable acts in connection with the transaction.
- BRRETA regulates brokerage relationships but does not displace common-law liability for negligent misrepresentation when a real estate licensee with actual knowledge fails to disclose material information.

## Conclusion

The court held that a contractual-style acknowledgment limiting reliance on oral statements cannot shield a seller, agent, or brokerage from liability for misstatements or omissions in a written seller disclosure; it further confirmed KCPA standing for residential homebuyers and preserved negligent misrepresentation claims against agents under BRRETA, requiring trial where material factual disputes exist.


Stechschulte v. Jennings, 297 Kan. 2, 298 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2013)