Peterson v. McCavic

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Contract Law
  • Date Filed: 04-18-2012
  • Case #: A139691
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Landau, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To prevail on a fraud claim a plaintiff must show a representation; its falsity; its materiality; the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; his intent that it will be acted on by the listener; the listener's ignorance of its falsity; his reliance on its truth; his right to rely thereon; and his consequent and proximate injury. Plaintiff may prevail if he can show a reasonable inference of reliance based upon the evidence.

Amerititle appealed from the denial of its motions for directed verdicts on Peterson's negligence claims and Peterson cross-appealed the dismissal of his claims for misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Peterson purchased a piece of property under the pretense it was Lot 8, Phase 1. However, the property was conveyed as Lot 8, 1st addition by Amerititle. The Court determined the lower court erred in granting summary judgment on Peterson’s misrepresentation claim. To prevail on a fraud claim a plaintiff must show a representation; its falsity; its materiality; the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; his intent that it will be acted on by the listener; the listener's ignorance of its falsity; his reliance on its truth; his right to rely thereon; and his consequent and proximate injury. Plaintiff may prevail if he can show a reasonable inference of reliance based upon the evidence. Additionally, Amerititle owed a duty of due care when preparing property documents. Affimed on Amerititle’s appeal. Reversed and remanded on the misrepresentation claim. Otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search