Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 4, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Harry Batt, III appeals two judgments from the trial court: one on August 20, 2012, favoring Dr. Kenneth Cohen, and another on October 28, 2012, favoring Gurtler Bros. Consultants, Inc. and Ashley Van Der Meulen, both dismissing Batt’s claims with prejudice. Batt, a dentist, had purchased office space from Cohen in 2006 and engaged Gurtler for an inspection, conducted by Van Der Meulen. After purchasing the property, Batt discovered significant structural damage during renovations, which he claims Cohen concealed by superficially refurbishing the property and failing to disclose known defects. Batt argues that the waivers of warranty and redhibition in the sale documents are invalid due to Cohen's nondisclosure of these defects. He also alleges breach of contract and negligence against Gurtler and Van Der Meulen for failing to identify the latent damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for Cohen, citing the "AS IS" condition of the sale and waivers of redhibition rights acknowledged by both parties in the Agreement to Purchase and Act of Sale. Batt's appeal asserts that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding these claims. An appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, determining if any genuine issues exist and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
PURCHASER waives all warranties related to the sold property, including implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability, acknowledging that such waivers typically apply under Louisiana law (Articles 2520-2548). This waiver encompasses all defects, whether apparent or latent, and remains effective even if defects render the property useless or inconvenient. PURCHASER confirms satisfaction with the property’s condition after thorough examination and understands the waiver, which was discussed and explained. Both PURCHASER and VENDOR recognize that the sale price was influenced by this warranty waiver.
Cohen contends that the property was sold 'as is' with the waiver of warranty and redhibition rights, arguing that any defects could have been discovered through inspection, thus not qualifying as redhibitory defects. He denies committing fraud that would invalidate the warranty waiver. In contrast, Batt opposes Cohen’s motion for summary judgment, asserting that Cohen and his wife misrepresented the property's condition prior to sale, claiming significant repairs had been made and that the property was ready for use as a dental office. Batt argues these misrepresentations constitute material fraud, invalidating the consent to the sale and the effectiveness of the 'as is' clause and the warranty waiver.
During his deposition, Batt admitted he had no direct communication with Cohen before the sale, meeting him only at the Act of Sale. However, he acknowledged a conversation with Edna Rita Cohen about the property’s condition, which they recall differently. Batt claims Mrs. Cohen indicated he was fortunate to buy the property due to recent repairs, while she does not remember making such statements, only that the ground floor was ready for use.
Mrs. Cohen, not a defendant, allegedly informed Batt that the property was in excellent condition while acting on behalf of her husband. Batt failed to provide evidence that Cohen knowingly concealed defects or made intentional misrepresentations about the property prior to sale. Batt agreed to purchase the property "as is," waiving warranty and redhibition rights, and did not demonstrate that Cohen's actions invalidated his consent to the sale terms. Consequently, the trial court's judgment granting Cohen's summary judgment motion and dismissing Batt's claims was upheld.
Gurtler and Van Der Meulen's summary judgment motion relied on an inspection report by Van Der Meulen, which noted deficiencies in crawlspace ventilation. They argued that Batt was aware of the inspection's limitations and that Van Der Meulen visually assessed the crawlspace. Batt did not follow Van Der Meulen's advice to investigate further regarding the inadequate ventilation. Gurtler and Van Der Meulen contended they had notified Batt of potential defects requiring additional examination.
In response, Batt claimed the inspection was inadequate, asserting that Van Der Meulen did not thoroughly inspect the crawlspace. He referenced a contract requiring comprehensive inspection and pointed out that the inspection report indicated the property was in good condition, failing to identify significant structural issues. Batt argued that inadequate ventilation was insufficient to alert him to the serious structural damages discovered post-sale, asserting that a poor inspection led to a lack of reporting on these damages.
Genuine issues of fact remain regarding the scope of the inspection agreed upon between Gurtler and Batt, as the inspection report indicated a limited interior examination, while the Building Inspection Contract outlined a broader scope. This inconsistency raises questions about whether Batt was adequately informed of potential significant structural issues, particularly given Van Der Meulen’s report mentioning inadequate crawlspace ventilation yet stating the property was in "very good condition overall." Consequently, the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Gurtler and Van Der Meulen was erroneous. The August 20, 2012 judgment favoring Cohen is affirmed, while the October 23, 2012 judgment favoring Gurtler and Van Der Meulen is reversed, leading to a remand for further proceedings. The case differs from Royal v. Cook, where the seller knowingly concealed issues, as there is no evidence in this case that Cohen was aware of any defects after the sale.
