## Facts

- Bryon and Vanessa Throckmartin purchased a home in Gillette, Wyoming in November 2005.
- In August 2006, they discovered severe basement leakage during heavy rain, crumbling foundation conditions, and alleged uninhabitability.
- The Throckmartins retained Kathie Hove, a broker with Century 21 Top Realty, and executed a written broker agreement designating Hove and Century 21 as transaction intermediaries.
- The home was listed by another brokerage, and the Throckmartins first viewed it through the listing side’s agent; Hove did not show the home and first saw it at the scheduled inspection.
- The purchase contract placed responsibility on the buyers to evaluate the property’s condition and disclaimed reliance on oral statements or information from the seller or the seller’s agents about condition.
- The sellers provided a written property-condition disclosure noting defects in the basement walls, and the Throckmartins discussed those basement-wall issues directly with the seller.
- Professional inspectors were hired, but they were not given a copy of the seller’s disclosure statement.
- After closing and discovery of the extensive problems, the Throckmartins sued multiple parties, including Hove and Century 21, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment.

## Issues

1. Whether a real estate broker and brokerage acting as statutory intermediaries owed duties beyond those stated in the intermediary statute and brokerage agreement, including duties to investigate, inspect, or verify property condition.
2. Whether the record created a genuine dispute that the intermediary broker or firm actually knew of additional adverse material facts about the basement/foundation that were not disclosed.
3. Whether summary judgment was properly granted on claims for negligence, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment against the intermediary broker and firm.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Century 21 Top Realty and Kathie Hove.
- As intermediaries, they owed only the statutorily defined duties, including disclosure of adverse material facts actually known to them.
- The evidence did not show actual knowledge by Hove or Century 21 of undisclosed structural defects beyond the problems already disclosed to and discussed with the buyers.
- Without proof of actual knowledge or a broader duty to investigate, the negligence, contract, and fraudulent concealment claims failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A real estate professional acting as an intermediary has limited duties defined by statute and the written brokerage agreement, rather than traditional fiduciary duties to one side.
- An intermediary must disclose adverse material facts actually known to the intermediary; the standard is actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or what the intermediary should have known.
- The intermediary statute does not impose a general duty to inspect the property, verify seller disclosures, or discover latent defects.
- Contract terms allocating responsibility to the buyer to evaluate condition and limiting reliance on representations may reinforce the limited scope of an intermediary’s obligations.
- Fraudulent concealment requires proof of knowledge of a material defect and intentional nondisclosure; absent evidence of such knowledge, the claim cannot survive summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that an intermediary broker’s liability to buyers depends on proof that the intermediary actually knew of an adverse material fact and failed to disclose it; absent such proof, and absent a statutory or contractual duty to investigate or manage inspections, summary judgment for the intermediary broker and firm is proper.


Throckmartin v. Century 21 Top Realty, 226 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2010)