Geernaert

Geernaert v. Mitchell

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 27·31 Cal. App. 4th 601·37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483·95 Daily Journal DAR 664·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 386
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1995A063983California3,165 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

Plaintiffs Gerald Geernaert and his wife Pamela Geernaert brought this action for damages against two defendants who formerly owned their residence, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment regarding significant structural and foundation problems with the property. The trial court dismissed the case after determining, on a demurrer, that defendants owed no duty to plaintiffs which would subject them to liability.

We will conclude that the lower court’s ruling is inconsistent with the Restatement Second of Torts section 533 and subsequent California cases that have followed it, and will therefore reverse the judgment.

Background

This appeal, from a judgment of the superior court after it sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, presents us with a pure question of law. (Mirlcin v. Wasserman (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1082, 1087 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 , 858 P.2d 568 ].) We summarize the allegations of the complaint, mindful that we must assume their truth for the purpose of determining whether a cause of action has been stated. (Garcia v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 728, 732 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 779 , 789 P.2d 960 ].)

Plaintiffs are the owners of a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.