Ward v. Glover

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 25, 2006
• Docket: CUMcv-06-42
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06- fiLC , -cl-Lk . , ,'- WILLIAM WARD, NORENE WARD, and SUMMIT FAB, INC.

Plaintiffs ORDER ON PROMENADE EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.'S ALFRED B. GLOVER, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT LILLIAN S. GLOVER, ON THE PLEADINGS AND KENNETH HALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAINE COAST PROPERTIES and D O N A L D L. GARBRECHI PROMENADE EAST LAW LIBRARY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

Defendants

Before the Court is Defendant Promenade East Condominium

Association's ("Association") motion for judgment on the pleadings on Count I

(Failure to Disclose), Count IV (Violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices

Act), Count V (Breach of Contract), Count VI (Violation of Maine Condominium

Act 33 M.R.S.A. 5 1604-112)' Count VII (Violation of Maine Condominium Act 33

M.R.S.A. 5 1604-113), and Count VIII (Violation of Maine Condominium Act 33

M.R.S.A. § 1604-108), and summary judgment on Count I11 (Fraudulent

Misrepresentation) and Count 111' (Negligent Misrepresentation) of William

Ward, Norene Ward, and Summit Fab, Inc.'s ("Plaintiffs") amended complaint.

1 In Plaintiffs' amended complaint, their Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation causes of action are both labeled "Count 111." The only remaining count in the amended complaint, Count 11, does not

implicate the Association.

UNDISPUTED FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Association is a Maine non-profit corporation that manages a

condominium building ("Building") in Portland, Maine. The Building has a brick

facade with a history of water infiltration problems dating back to when the

complex opened in the 1970s. In February 2004, Becker Engineering ("Becker")

evaluated the Building's exterior. This evaluation exposed structural problems

and resulting safety issues with the facade. In May 2004 Becker conducted a

second study on the Building's exterior. This study led Becker to suggest that,

due to safety concerns, the issues related to the facade should be addressed

immediately. Following a meeting with representatives of the Association,

Becker conducted one more study of the Building's facade on July 30, 2004. This

study found numerous examples of poor workmanshp on the facade, leaving its

prefabricated brick panels in an unsafe condition. These studies made the

Association aware that there were serious concerns about the structural integrity

of the brick facade of the building. In a step toward addressing those concerns,

the Association began interviewing facade specialists in August 2004.

In September 2004, Alfred and Lillian Glover ("Glovers"), the owners of

unit #226 in the Building, put their unit up for sale with the help of their broker

Kenneth Hall ("Hall"). Plaintiffs, with the assistance of their broker John Bernier

("Bernier"), made a purchase offer to the Glovers for unit #226. The Glovers

accepted Plaintiffs' purchase offer without revision. The purchase offer contained

no right to inspect. Plaintiffs' only personal viewing of the Building consisted of

walking up the stairs and loolung at the unit. Plaintiffs never toured the rest of the condominium property, did not view the exterior of the building and did not

ask any questions of the Glovers at that time.

In connection with the agreement between the Glovers and Plaintiffs, the

Association prepared a resale certificate. The resale certificate included a section

stating "Capital Expenditures Antici ated Bv the Association: There are (no/yes)

capital expenditures currently anticipated by the Association." The resale

certificate then included a short space for a response. In that space was written

"exterior wall repair + water proofing - cost unknown - in engineering study."'

Plaintiffs had ten days from receipt of the certificate to terminate the contract.

Prior to closing, Bernier posed six written questions relating to the resale

certificate to Hall. Hall's answers to these questions were based upon responses

received from the Association's office manager. The second question posed by

PIaintiffs stated, "Monthly Common Expense Assessments. What are new

monthly common expense assessments for time beginning October 1,2004?What

has been the history of assessments for last five years. Is there a cap on condo fee

increases?" Hall's response was "[tlhere is no anticipate [sic] increase in condo

fee. The fee is voted on annually. Very smalI increases since 2000." Also prior to

closing, Mr. Ward spoke with Brian Gagne who performed electrical work for the

Association. AIthough it is disputed what Mr. Gagne said, it is undisputed that

he at least made some reference to problems with the Building.

Based on the Ianguage in the resale certificate and the conversation with

Mr. Gagne, Mr. Ward instructed Bernier to make inquiries of the GIovers and

It is disputed whether the statement said "exterior wall repair + water proofing . . . " or "exterior wall repair -water proofing . . . " Exhibit C contains the document with this statement hand written on it. It appears that it is a "+" not a "-" but interpretation of this symbol does not affect the outcome of any issue in the case. Hall. When Bernier did so, he was told to contact the Association. The existence

and substance of these inquiries and who they were made upon are disputed. At

no time did Bernier or Plaintiffs ask the Association for copies of its engineering

studies on the facade. These studies would have been available to Bernier upon

request.

Plaintiffs closed on the sale of unit #226 in October 2004. In April 2005, the

Association received a report from an engineering firm that specializes in

building facade problems confirming the previous assessment of Becker that wall

repairs were necessary. At that time, the facade specialist made specific

recommendations for repairs, including providing the Association with its first

cost estimate for the repairs. On June 19, 2006, the Association approved a

$45,699 assessment against unit #226 for its share of the cost of the wall repair.

Had Bernier known of the results of Beckerls studies, he would have

recommended that Plaintiffs not go through with their purchase. Had Plaintiffs

known about these problems, they would not have closed on the purchase.

Plaintiffs filed a nine-count amended complaint against the Glovers, Hall,

and the Association on March 14, 2006. Of the nine-counts, five are asserted

against the Association. Of those five counts, the Association moves for

judgment on the pleadings on Count I (Failure to Disclose) and Count VIII

(Violation of Maine Condominium Act, 33 M.R.S.A. § 1604-108). In addition, the

Association moves for summary judgment on Count I11 (Intentional

In its motion, the Association argues for judgment on the pleadings on counts V-VII in addition to those mentioned above. Plaintiffs state that those counts are not applicable to the Association under their amended complaint. As a result, those counts, namely breach of contract and breaches of express and implied warranties in violation of the Maine Condominium Act, are not addressed here. Misrepresentation), Count I11 (Negligent Misrepresentation) and Count 1V

(Violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act).4

DISCUSSION

I. Judgmenton the Pleadings

A. Standard of Review

A "motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent of a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Stevens v. Bouchard, 532 A.2d 1028,

1029 (Me. 1987). The Court must "examine the complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiffs to determine whether it alleges the elements of a cause

of action or facts entitling the plaintiffs to relief on some legal theory" and

"assume that all factual allegations in the complaint are true." Id. at 1030.

B. Count I (Failure to Disclose)

Plaintiffs make no argument in opposition to the Association's motion for

judgment on the pleadings regarding this count. To briefly address its substance,

for a party to be liable for a failure to disclose, there must be a duty to disclose

the information in question. There is no relationshp, contractual or otherwise,

alleged by Plaintiffs under which such a duty might arise.

C. Count VIII (Violation of Maine Condominium Act 33 M.R.S.A. 5 1604-108)

Under 33 M.R.S.A. § 1604-108, "a unit owner shall furnish to a purchaser

before execution of any contract for sale of a unit . . . a reasonably current

certificate" containing twelve statements, including a statement of any capital

The Association originally moved for judgment on the pleadings on Count IV. Arguments by the parties, however, incorporated matters outside the pleadings. As a result, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(c),the Court notified the parties that it would treat the Association's motion on Count IV as a motion for summary judgment and permitted the submission of additional materials in light of this change in procedural posture. expenditures anticipated by the Association. It was the Association's

responsibility to "within 10 days after a request by a unit owner . . . furnish a

certificate containing the information necessary to enable the unit owner to

comply with [the statute]." 33 M.R.S.A. § 1604-108(b).

The Association argues that the statute, by its plain meaning, creates no

duty for the Association regarding the Wards as the unit buyer. Instead, the

statute creates a duty for the Association to supply a resale certificate to the

Glovers, as the unit owner, which the Association did. Plaintiffs make no

argument countering the Association's assertion that the resale certificate statute

creates no grounds for a cause of action by Plaintiffs against the Association.

Plaintiffs argue only that the Association's statements in the resale certificate did

not "accurately and fully disclose its anticipated capital expenditures." The plain

language of the statute supports the position that the only duties created by this

statute are those of a unit owner to provide a resale certificate to a potential

purchaser and of a condominium association to provide a resale certificate to a

unit owner upon r e q ~ e s t . ~

11. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Farrington's Owners' Ass'n v. Conway Lake Resorts, 2005 ME 93, ¶ 9, 878 A.2d 504,

* Even if there were a duty, to maintain a cause of action Plaintiffs need prove that the Association's statement regarding anticipated capital expenditures was false. For reasons discussed at length under the discussion of Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation, the Association's statement was not erroneous. 507. On a summary judgment motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light

that is most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

B. Count 111 (Fraudulent/Intentional Misrepresentation)

In order to succeed on its fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiffs must prove "(1) that [the Association] made a false representation (2) of a

material fact (3) with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether

it is true or false (4) for the purpose of inducing [Plaintiffs] to act in reliance upon

it, and (5) [Plaintiffs]justifiably relied upon the representation as true and acted

upon it to [their] damage." Me. Eye Care Assocs., P. A. u. Gorrnan, 2006 ME 15, ¶ 19,

890 A.2d 707, 711 (quoting Mariello v. Giguere, 667 A.2d 588, 590 (Me. 1995)).

Plaintiffs must prove each element by clear and convincing evidence. Id. ¶ 16,

890 A.2d at 711. Evidence is "clear and convincing" if a factfinder could

reasonably determine that the required findings are proved to be lughly

probable. Id. 9 19,890 A.2d at 711.

1. False Representation

A plaintiff may not satisfy this element of a fraudulent misrepresentation

claim by alleging omissions by silence unless there was a fiduciary relationship

between the plaintiff and defendant. Binette v. Dyer Library Ass'n., 688 A.2d 898,

903 (Me. 1996).In the case of conscious half-truths, however, ""[a] representation

stating the truth so far as it goes but which the maker knows or believes to be

materially misleading because of h s failure to state additional or qualifying

matter[s]' is fraudulent." Zillman, Simmons & Gregory, Maine Tort Law § 11.05

(1999) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 529 (1977)).

Plaintiffs argue that a number of different statements qualify as false

representations by the Association. First, they argue that the language on the resale certificate stating, "exterior wall repair + water proofing - cost unknown -

in engineering study" misleadingly minimized the problem with the faqade

because, at that time, the Association had multiple opinions from Becker that

major repairs were necessary.

The statements in the resale certificate are not fraudulent. Taken in a light

most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Association notified them of the existence of

problems with the facade, that there was at least one engineering study

conducted on this problem and that the Association did not know what the

repair costs would be. These statements are true and not misleading. Rather than

minimizing the costs, these statements take no position. T h s was not fraudulent

as the Association did not know what the repair cost would be.

The heart of Plaintiffs' case on this element is conversations that Plaintiffs'

broker allegedly had with members of the Association. For instance, Bernier

claims that Pauli Daniels, the condominium association manager, told him in a

conversation about waterproofing efforts for the faqade that "no expense

assessment was being considered." In addition, Bernier states that, in a

conversation with Bruce Hopluns, the immediate past president of the

Association, Mr. Hopluns told him that the Association "was in the early stages

of investigating" the maintenance issues with the facade. Lastly, Bernier states

that James Zafirson, the president of the Association board of directors, told h m

that "one corner of the building exterior was leaking and studies were underway

to assess if the building exterior has reached its useful life." When all these

statements were allegedly made, the Association had already received the results

of the Becker studies. The Becker studies were commissioned to determine the

cause and extent of damage to the Building's facade. These studies determined that faulty workmanship led to degradation of the structure of the facade such

that there were serious concerns about its integrity. As a result, the Association

began interviewing facade specialists to determine what repairs were necessary.

The Association's statements are not false representations. As an initial

matter, it is unclear why a statement by the former president of the Association

should be imputed against the Association. There is no claim that Bernier was

led to believe that Mr. Hopkins had authority to speak for the Association.

Because Mr. Hopkins was not an agent of the Association and because there is no

indication that he was cloaked in apparent authority to speak for it, his

statements cannot be imputed to the Ass~ciation.~

Neither of the remaining two statements is affirmatively false or

misleading. Mr. Zafirson told Bernier about the leakage problem with the facade,

told him that studies were underway regarding this problem and even notified

Bernier that the purpose of the studies was to determine whether the facade was

nearing the end of its useful life. Rather than misleading Bernier, this information

accurately summarized the situation. Regarding Ms. Daniels's statement, context

is important. Plaintiffs admit that, along with her statement that there was no

expense assessment being considered, Ms. Daniels stated "that there was a

leaking around the windows of a sidewall on the Walnut street side of building 1

in the condominium complex . . . [and that] the [Association] would be

continuing with waterproofing efforts on the Walnut street wall." (Pls.' Opp'n to

Def's Mot. Summ. J. at 5.) From h s , it is clear that Ms. Daniels did not imply that

6 The Association argues briefly that, similar to Mr. Hopkins, Ms. Daniels had no authority to speak for the Association. Because Ms. Daniels was the Association's manager, it was reasonable for Bernier to assume she had authority to speak for the Association on the Building's condition. no facade repairs would be necessary. In fact, she stated that there was a problem

and that efforts were being made to resolve this problem. The only reasonable

interpretation of Ms. Daniels's statement is that no expense assessment was

being prepared at that time. This statement was true because, at the time Ms.

Daniels made her comments, neither she nor anyone else connected with the

Association had been presented with a cost estimate for facade repair work.

Absent a cost estimate, the Association had no basis upon whch to consider an

expense as~essment.~

The last possible source of a false representation was a statement by an

Association representative in a memo, given in response to specific questions by

Plaintiffs' broker, which was then passed on to Bernier. Plaintiffs argue that thrs

statement, that there were no anticipated increases in the condominium fee, was

a false representation in light of what the Association knew about the necessity

for repair work on the facade. Plaintiffs, however, ignore the context of that

statement. The question posed to the Association under the heading "Monthly

Common Expense Assessments" was "[wlhat are new monthly common expense

assessments for time beginning October 1, 2004?" From this question, it is clear

that the response was meant to assert that there were no anticipated increases in

the monthly condominium fee. Because this statement was not misleading, and

because none of the other statements addressed by the Plaintiffs, either

- - - - - -

7 There is no dispute that prior to receipt of the fagade specialist's report in April 2005 the Association had never been presented with a dollar figure for potential repairs to the fagade. An "expense assessment" is the share of common condominium expenses, such as repairs done to the exterior wall of a condominium building, that an individual unit owner is responsible for. See 33 M.R.S.A. 5 1603-115. Logically, there can be no expense assessment considered until a condominium association has a dollar figure to work from in determining each individual unit owner's share of that total. separately or in concert, are misleading, no factfinder could reasonably be

persuaded that the Association has made false representations.

2. Inducing Reliance

Plaintiffs argue that the Association made its allegedly false

representations for the purpose of inducing their reliance. The Association's

motive, according to Plaintiffs, is that the prospect of a serious repair job to the

facade, if fully disclosed to potential purchasers of condominium units, would

have impaired the marketability of all the units in the condominium.

Plaintiffs cite no cases in which a court found that a condominium

association induced reliance on false statements in order to facilitate the sale of

units by unit owners. Logically, it does not follow that the Association, even if it

made false representations, would have done so for the purpose of inducing a

buyer to rely on those representations in buying a unit. There is no motive for the

Association to do so. They are a non-profit organization that does not receive a

percentage of the sales price, or any other benefit, from condominium owners

selling their units. As the Association admits, however, "one who believes that

another is substantially certain to act in a particular manner as a result of a

misrepresentation intends that result, although he does not act for the purpose of

causing it and does not desire to do so." McKinnon v. Tibbetts, 440 A.2d 1028,

1030-31 (Me. 1982) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) 5 531, Comment c OF TORTS

(1977)).Drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, if they could have met their

burden regarding the other elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, summary

judgment against them on this element would be inappropriate.

3. JustifiableReliance The arguments by both sides are extremely spare on t h s element. Neither

cites authority for what constitutes justifiable reliance. By their own admission,

Plaintiffs did not examine the condominium other than the inside of the unit they

purchased. Further, although Plaintiffs were alerted to possible problems with

the facade through the resale certificate and through conversations their broker

allegedly had with Association members, neither they nor their broker took steps

to examine the engineering studies.

"If a party has knowledge of such facts as would lead a fair and prudent

man, using ordinary caution, to make further inquiries, and he avoids the

inquiry, he is chargeable with notice of the facts which by ordinary diligence he

would have ascertained. He has no right to shut his eyes against the light before

him." Gagner v. Kittery Water District, 385 A.2d 206, 207-08 (Me. 1978) (quoting

Knapp v. Bailey, 79 Me. 195, 204, 9 A. 122, 124 (1887)). Because the information

detailing what the Association knew regarding the facade was always available

to the 131aintiffs, and because the Association made known to Plaintiffs that the

engineering studies existed, a factfinder could not reasonably find that Plaintiffs

justifiably relied on a few brief conversations between their broker and

Association members in determining whether the damage to the building was

sufficiently severe to affect their purchase decision.

C. Count I11 (Negligent Misrepresentation)

Maine has explicitly adopted the Restatement's approach to the tort of

negligent misrepresentation. Binette, 688 A.2d at 903. In order to prove negligent

misrepresentation, Plaintiffs must show that (1)there was a transaction in which

the Association had a pecuniary interest (2) the Association provided false

information to Plaintiffsin connection with the transaction (3) without exercising reasonable care or competence and (4) Plaintiffs justifiably relied on that false

information in that transaction. See id. Most of these elements overlap with the elements for intentional

misrepresentation in whole or in part. Regarding the pecuniary interest element,

contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, the Association does not admit in its summary

judgment motion that it had a pecuniary interest in the transaction between the

Plaintiffs and Glovers. In contrast, it specifically states that "the Association had

no pecuniary interest in the transaction between the Glovers and the Wards."

What the Association admits is that it had a pecuniary interest in the unit itself

by virtue of its right to collect fees and assessments from the unit's owner. As

discussed earlier, it makes no difference to the Association who owns unit #226.

As a result, it had no pecuniary interest in the sale of that unit.

Regarding the false information element, h s involves identical issues to

the false representations element for intentional misrepresentation discussed at

length. Of note, however, is the fact that Plaintiffs do not argue against the

Association's assertion that, even if the Association had provided false

information, Plaintiffs would be barred from satisfying this element due to

Plaintiffs' contributory negligence. The argument on contributory negligence in

this case mirrors the argument over justifiable reliance above. Because there was

no false information provided by the Association, however, the Court need not

reach the contributory negligence argument.

The final two elements for negligent misrepresentation can be quickly

dispatched. The reasonable care and competence element relates to supplying

false information to Plaintiffs in connection with their transaction. Because there

was no false information supplied, this element is not satisfied. Lastly, the justifiable reliance element is not present for the same reasons discussed in

Section B3 above.

D. Count IV (Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act) Under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), "[ulnfair or

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared

unlawful." 5 M.R.S.A. § 207. As a threshold matter, the Association denies that

UTPA applies because it was never engaged in "trade or commerce" in relation

to Plaintiffs. UTPA defines "trade or commerce" as including the "offering for

sale, sale or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible,

real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity or thing of value

wherever situate, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly

affecting the people of this State." 5 M.R.S.A. § 206(3).

Defendant asserts that the Association does not provide any property,

service or commodity in any lund of exchange and therefore is not engaged in

trade or commerce. Plaintiff argues that, because the Association handles all

financial and property issues for owners of the condominiums for a fee, and

because the Association is involved in the sale of units due to its responsibility

for providing a resale certificate, it is engaged in trade or commerce.

Whle UTPA's definition of trade and commerce is broad, it does not

cover the actions of the Association. In a Connecticut Supreme Court case

involving an unfair trade practices statute virtually identical to UTPA, the court

held that managing a condominium association does not constitute trade or

commerce. Rafalowski v. Old County Rd., 714 A.2d. 675, 676-77 (Conn. 1998).

UTPA is focused on preventing entities that sell products and services from

dealing with purchasers in an unfair or deceptive way. The Association does not provide products or services. It is a non-profit organization that runs a

condominium. To the extent its activities touch on anything related to the act of

selling to a purchaser, it is only tangentially as a result of its statutory duty to

provide resale certificates to unit sellers. This does not transform the Association

into an organization engaged in trade or commerce.

The entry is:

Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Count I (Failure to Disclose) and Count VIII (Violation of Maine Condominium Act) is GRANTED. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Count I11 (Intentional Misrepresentation) and Count I11 (Negligent Misrepresentation) is GRANTED. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Count IV (Violation of Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act) is treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(c) and GRANTED.

Dated at Portland, Maine this x l L \ d a y of (3L&* , 2006.

k obert E. Crowlev Justice, Superior court ROBERT HATCH ESQ &// .L THOMPSON & BOWIE PO BOX 4630 PORTLAND ME 04112-4360

BKUCE MCLAUFLLN ESL) PETRUCCELLI MARTIN & HADDO PO BOX 17555 PORTLAND ME 04112-8555

GLENN ISRAEL ESQ -a BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & &LSON up'-) PO BOX 9729 PORTLAND ME 04104-5029

GERALD MAY ESQ - DAVID PERKINS ESQ PERKINS OLSON PO BOX 449 PORTLAND ME 04112-0449