## Facts

- Kitty Van Camp purchased a single-family residence at 6027 Arcade Drive in Fairfield, Ohio, from Connie Bradford.
- In October 1991, a rape occurred inside the residence while it was occupied by a renter’s family; in December 1991, another rape occurred nearby, and Bradford listed the house for sale that day.
- Van Camp made a written offer on February 4, 1992, and closed on February 21, 1992.
- During a pre-closing walk-through attended by Bradford and real estate agents, Van Camp noticed bars on basement windows and asked why they were necessary.
- Bradford stated the bars were due to a break-in sixteen years earlier and said there was currently no problem with the residence; she also advised Van Camp it was in Van Camp’s best interests to leave the bars in place.
- After closing, a neighbor told Van Camp about the October rape in the house and the December rape nearby.
- Van Camp later experienced a burglary at her home and threatening phone calls, and additional rapes occurred in the neighborhood.
- Van Camp sued Bradford and multiple real estate brokerages and agents, alleging fraud/misrepresentation and negligence based on nondisclosure of the crimes and Bradford’s allegedly misleading statements about the window bars.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing caveat emptor barred liability because the criminal history was not a physical defect.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential seller and real estate professionals have a duty to disclose prior violent crimes on or near the property when the events do not relate to the property’s physical condition.
2. Whether caveat emptor bars a fraud-based claim where the buyer makes a specific safety-related inquiry and the seller allegedly responds in a materially misleading way.
3. Whether summary judgment is proper where disputes exist about what the seller said, the materiality of the undisclosed information, and the buyer’s reliance.

## Decision

- The court held that a seller generally has no duty to volunteer “stigmatizing” information unrelated to the property’s physical condition.
- The court held caveat emptor did not entitle Bradford to summary judgment on the fraud-based theory tied to her response to Van Camp’s direct inquiry about the window bars.
- Summary judgment was denied as to Bradford because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding misrepresentation/concealment, materiality, and reliance.
- Summary judgment was granted to the real estate brokerages and agents because they did not themselves answer the buyer’s specific inquiry and the record lacked a basis for affirmative misrepresentation by them.

## Legal Principles

- In used residential real estate sales, caveat emptor generally imposes no duty to disclose non-physical “stigmatizing” events affecting perceived safety or value.
- A buyer’s direct inquiry can trigger a duty to speak truthfully; a seller may be liable for fraud if the seller’s answer is materially misleading or omits material facts needed to make the statement not deceptive.
- Information not discoverable through reasonable inspection may be treated as latent; when material and known to the seller, it can support liability if coupled with concealment or misrepresentation.
- Summary judgment is improper when reasonable factfinders could differ on the meaning of the seller’s statements, the materiality of the undisclosed facts, or the buyer’s reliance.

## Conclusion

The court declined to impose a general disclosure duty for prior violent crimes unrelated to physical condition, but allowed the claim against the seller to proceed because a reasonable factfinder could view her response to a direct safety-related question as materially misleading; the court dismissed claims against the real estate professionals due to the absence of a comparable misrepresentation by them.


Van Camp v. Bradford, 63 Ohio Misc. 2d 245, 623 N.E.2d 731 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1993)