Michigan Seller Disclosure Act -- No Claim for Innocent Misrepresentation, Supreme Court Affirms Ruling

On June 17, 2009, Michigan Supreme Court entered an order affirming a 2008 Michigan Court of Appeals decision, which had held that Michigan law did not recognize claims for innocent misrepresentation under the Michigan Seller Disclosure Act (MCL 565.951, et seq).

As we reported in an earlier posting (here), Roberts v Saffell involved a claim that Defendant Sellers failed to disclose a termite infestation in the home they sold to Plaintiff Buyers. Plaintiff's claim was based on Defendant's "No" answer on their Seller Disclosure Statement in response to the question: "History of infestation, if any: (termites, carpenter ants, etc.)"

In affirming the Court of Appeals decision, the Michigan Supreme Court held:

the [Michigan Seller Disclosure Act] provides that a seller is “not liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission in any information delivered pursuant to this act if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was not within the personal knowledge of the transferor . . . .” MCL 565.955(1). Thus, because a claim for innocent misrepresentation requires that a defendant make a false statement without knowledge of its falsity, the Court of Appeals correctly held that innocent misrepresentation does not constitute a viable cause of action under the SDA. Whether defendants did or did not possess personal knowledge of the infestation is a matter not before this Court as a result of plaintiffs’ abandonment of their fraudulent misrepresentation claim and their exclusive focus on their innocent misrepresentation claim.

Full Cite: Roberts v Saffell, 280 Mich App 397 (2008), aff'd, 483 Mich 1089 (2009).

Bottom line: Always have your own home inspection done before buying a house!

Questions? Contact Peter Cavanaugh or call (248) 543-8320.

Michigan Seller Disclosure Act (SDA): Innocent Misrepresentation Not a Claim under SDA Rules Michigan Court of Appeals

Holding that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA) (MCL 565.951, et seq), the Michigan Court of Appeals recently reversed a judgment awarding Plaintiffs $86,813 in damages and costs and remanded the case for entry of a judgment in favor of the Defendant-Sellers. Roberts v Saffell, ___ Mich App ___ (2008) (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-67463 - 12 pages) (published opinion) (Markey, J., joined by Wilder, J.) (White, J., dissenting). On appeal from the Leelanau County Circuit Court; Rodgers, J.. Click here for the slip opinion.

In this case, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants failed to disclose a termite infestation in the home they purchased from Defendants. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs successfully moved for dismissal of all claims, except one for innocent misrepresentation. This claim was based on Defendants' "No" answer on their Seller Disclosure Statement in response to the item "History of infestation, if any: (termites, carpenter ants, etc.)"

The Court of Appeals found nothing in the plain terms of the act requiring a transferor of property covered by the SDA "to exercise ordinary care to discover defects in the property being transferred." The act requires a transferor "to answer all items required by MCL 565.957 honestly, based on information actually known to the transferor at the time the SDS is completed." Apart from the SDS, the Legislature had not modified the rule of caveat emptor and its common law exceptions imposing liability for fraud.

A transferor cannot "be held liable for any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in the SDS unless they were within his personal knowledge." Since liability for innocent misrepresentation can be imposed "without regard to whether the party making the representation knew it was false or was acting in good faith and because MCL 565.955(1) precludes imposition of liability on transferors who lack personal knowledge with respect to errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in an SDS, there is no liability for a disclosure made on an SDS under a theory of innocent misrepresentation."