Plaintiffs bought homes from defendants; the court of
appeals affirmed the dismissal of their various fraudulent concealment etc.
claims based on the condition of the overall development. “While a seller’s duty to disclose may extend
to known nuisances on neighboring properties, California courts have never
suggested that a seller must disclose the financial condition of neighbors to a
prospective buyer. As the district court cogently observed, ‘an indebted
neighbor’ is not akin ‘to one who creates a noxious nuisance on his or her
property.’” Also, defendants’ references
to the “stable,” “traditional,” and “family-based” character of the
developments were too vague to be actionable.
The other challenged representations were either qualified by express
disclaimers, promises from the plaintiffs to the builders, or vague expressions
of defendants’ “desires.” Any reliance
was unjustifiable as a matter of law.
This also doomed the statutory UCL claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment