Shapiro

Shapiro v. Sutherland

Good Law
64 Cal. App. 4th 1534
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 1998B103078California7,916 words

Opinion

Opinion

In this case, we review a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants David P. and Mary Sutherland (the Sutherlands) and Prudential Resources Management, formerly known as Prudential Relocation Management [1] (Prudential; collectively, the defendants). [2] Plaintiff, Barry D. Shapiro, seeks to overturn the summary rejection of his complaint for rescission and damages arising out of a fraudulent misrepresentation and material nondisclosure which allegedly occurred in connection with his purchase of a residential property from the defendants. The trial court granted the Sutherlands' motion for summary judgment on the ground that they were "remote" sellers and lacked privity with the plaintiff; Prudential's motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that it had made no misrepresentation to the plaintiff and was unaware of the information which plaintiff claims should have been disclosed.

Because we conclude the Sutherlands cannot escape liability for their express misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts, we reverse the judgment as to them. However, the ruling of the trial court that Prudential was not liable for…

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.