The sellers of a home were not required to disclose a condition of the home that was apparent through common observation, and their failure to do so did not support a claim of intentional misrepresentation. Part of the claims were lost because the plaintiffs failed to properly respond to a Rule 56.03 statement of undisputed material facts served by defendants.
In McDaniel v. Frazier, No. W2025-00183-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2025), the plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendants without first visiting or viewing the home. Before closing on the home, the defendants completed a disclosure statement affirming that they were not aware of any material defects. The plaintiff buyers hired a home inspector, who provided a report that mentioned minor defects, fogged windowpanes, and a moisture stain in the ceiling. The home inspector recommended routine maintenance on the wood, but the plaintiff buyers did not ask any additional questions after receiving the inspection. When the plaintiff buyers eventually went to the property after closing, they discovered “rotting exterior siding, rotting windows, [and] rotting doorframes” that they asserted were “readily apparent” at the home.
The plaintiff buyers filed this suit asserting claims against several parties, including a claim for intentional misrepresentation against the defendant sellers. The trial court dismissed this claim on summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A plaintiff claiming intentional misrepresentation must show, among other elements, that the alleged misrepresentation was “in regard to a material fact” and that the plaintiff “reasonably relied on the misrepresented material fact[.]” (internal citation omitted). In their motion for summary judgment, the defendant sellers argued that the allegedly misrepresented facts were so obvious that they were under no duty to disclose them. The Court agreed. “[T]here is no duty to disclose a material fact or condition if it was apparent through common observation or if it would have been discoverable through the exercise of ordinary diligence.” (internal citation omitted). The plaintiff buyers repeatedly argued that the undisclosed defects were readily apparent, which ultimately led to the ruling that the sellers were not required to disclose them. The Court wrote that the “defects complained of were open, obvious, and could have been discovered just as easily by the [buyers],” and accordingly affirmed summary judgment for the defendant sellers.
The plaintiffs also asserted claims against the home inspector on several theories, all of which the inspector argued were essentially professional malpractice. The home inspector filed a motion for summary judgment with a statement of undisputed facts, including the fact that the plaintiffs did not have an expert who could opine that his conduct fell below the relevant standard of care. The plaintiffs admitted some facts and denied others, but their denials did not contain any citations to the record. While the plaintiffs submitted additional material facts, the defendants argued that their bare denials were not enough to create issues of fact and that summary judgment was proper, and the Court agreed. Because the plaintiffs did not follow Rule 56.03 and “cite to the record for any evidence to support their” denials, the trial court correctly found that there were no issues of material fact. Summary judgment for the home inspector was affirmed.
This opinion was released two months after oral arguments.