Real Property – Negligent Misrepresentation – Duty to Disclose

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Defendants made a material misrepresentation or omission when they represented the owner of the home throughout the sale of the home.

We affirmed the trial court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Jesica Meletich, the owner of the subject home, hired licensed real estate broker Rhonda Reid to assist Meletich in selling the home. During a walk-through, Reid noticed “a soft spot in front of the front door.” Reid told Meletich that the spot would have to be fixed and recommended that Meletich “call a flooring company.” Reid stated that although sellers’ agents “can’t require sellers to perform inspections, [Reid] strongly recommended [Meletich] have the structure evaluated due to the soft spot in front of the door.” Several months later, Meletich told Reid that various renovations had been performed on the home. Reid visited the home and noted that the spot in the floor “was no longer soft” and “was no longer giving way with [her] weight.” At no point during the process of listing the home for sale did Reid ever see mold in the home, nor was she ever told by Meletich of any mold, water intrusion, defects, damage, or issues with the home that had not been repaired.

In September 2022, Reid posted online a listing for the home, which included a general description of the home and several photographs of both the interior and exterior of the home. Plaintiffs, who were relocating to North Carolina from California, had contracted with Emily Albertson of Anchor Real Estate of Eastern North Carolina, Inc. to serve as their agent for the purchase of a house in North Carolina. Upon seeing the listing for Meletich’s home, Albertson visited the home on Plaintiffs’ behalf, as they were still living in California. Without having visited the home in person, Plaintiffs submitted a purchase offer. On or about September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs and Meletich executed a purchase agreement for the home. A home inspection conducted on Plaintiff’s behalf revealed “[s]light sloping of the floor” likely due to a “past/present moisture intrusion condition where the subfloor absorbed and swelled from its original state.” The inspection report recommended Plaintiffs hire a qualified specialist to evaluate the crawlspace, areas with possible prior moisture stains, and sloped floors. The inspection report did not indicate the presence of mold in the home. Plaintiffs and Meletich closed on the sale of the home on October 21, 2022.

Plaintiffs visited the home in person for the first time the morning of the closing, at which time they did not discover anything that warranted delaying the sale. Approximately three days after closing, Plaintiffs discovered mold inside the home. Meletich stated she did not have any actual knowledge of the presence of mold in the home at any point during the time which she owned it, and therefore, she did not disclose the existence of mold to Defendants when she hired them as her agents. She also stated she did not receive any notice from those conducting renovations on the home about a discovery or suspicion of mold. Defendants submitted the affidavit of Christina Asbury, a licensed real estate broker with approximately 20 years of experience as a licensed real estate agent in North Carolina. The trial court entered written orders granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contended Defendants negligently and fraudulently failed to disclose the following “material facts”: (1) “that there were defects in the subfloor,” (2) that “farm animals” were present in the home, and (3) “that the entirety of the renovations lauded by [] Reid on the listing were conducted by individuals not qualified to make such repairs.” Plaintiffs argued these are material facts that, if known by them, would have influenced their decision to purchase the home.

At the time she listed the home for sale, Reid had no knowledge of “defects in the subfloor,” and she was under no duty to disclose the former repairs to the subfloor to Plaintiffs, the potential buyers. Plaintiffs also failed to show that Reid’s knowledge of “farm animals” in the home is a material fact that would have impacted Plaintiffs’ decision to purchase the home. Finally, the online listing created by Reid stated that renovations to the home had been completed. Plaintiffs presented no evidence, other than their mere allegations, tending to show that any of these renovations required a permit or must have been completed by “qualified” individuals.

Even if Reid had been under a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs who had performed the renovations, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such disclosure would have impacted their decision to purchase the home. Accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Defendants made a material misrepresentation or omission when they represented Meletich throughout the sale of the home.

Affirmed.

Eberhardt v. Meletich (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-201-25, 12 pp.) (Allegra Collins, J.) Appealed from Onslow County Superior Court (Ricardo Jensen, J.) Agosta Law, PLLC, by Vincent J. Agosta, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Manning, Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by William C. Smith, Jr., and Lawrence D. Graham, Jr., for Defendants-Appellees Rhonda Reid and Harrison Dorn Innovative Property Specialists, Inc. North Carolina Court of Appeals