Williams v. Estate of Morrison, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01085-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01085-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-30-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Negligent misrepresentation - Disclosure statement - Personal knowledge Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J. Concurs in Result Only: GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-01-2006 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Robert L. Lancaster Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE MORRISONS Case Number: 2004-1110-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JAMES BARTON WILLIAMS AND PAMELA ANN TALBOT WILLIAMS |
MICHAEL LEE DULANEY |
||
| Appellee: | ESTATE OF C. E. MORRISON, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH JIM MORRISON, EXECUTOR, AND CARLA J. MORRISON | KATHERINE S. KERBY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Negligent misrepresentation - Disclosure statement - Personal knowledge |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Williams and Pamela Williams filed suit against C.E. Morrison and Carla Morrison for a breach of contract for the sale of real estate. The Williamses’ amended complaint alleged fraud, intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation by the Morrisons in the sale of their home to the Williamses. The Morrisons filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims, which was granted by the court. The Williamses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Williamses argue that the Morrisons had personal knowledge of the foundation problems and the water problems that they discovered subsequent to their purchase of the property and intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented the condition of the property on the disclosure statement. The facts presented do not lead to the conclusion that the Morrisons had any personal knowledge of the conditions discovered by the Williamses subsequent to their purchase. Dr. Morrison’s deposition testimony was that he had no personal knowledge of the conditions complained of by the Williamses or that any such problems existed during the years he and his family occupied the home. Mrs. Morrison’s testimony supported Dr. Morrison’s, in that she also had no personal knowledge of the conditions complained of by the Williamses. The seller is only under a duty to disclose information that he or she has personal knowledge of and cannot be held liable for defects or conditions that he or she was not personally aware of at the time of the sale. Additionally, the Williamses hired their own licensed inspector prior to the closing of sale, and pursuant to his recommendations, the Williamses were apparently satisfied enough with the conditions of the property to follow through with the contract and purchase the property. Thus, the chancellor was not in error when he granted summary judgment to the Morrisons and dismissed all claims. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
