Date: 12-10-2013

Case Style: Jeffrey C. Rowsey v. Frank N. Fore, et al.

Case Number: CJ-2011-7735

Judge: Dana Kuehn

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael James King and S. Greg Pittman for Jeffrey C. Rowsey

Defendant's Attorney: Stacy Lynn Acord, Andrew M. Conway and Archer Scott McDaniel for William B. Ford

James Earle Weger, Roger N. Butler and Jennifer Lea Struble for Blake A. Loveless, Peter M. Walter & Associates, Peter M. Walter, Katherine Sue Frame

Mary Quinn Cooper, Jessica L. Dickerson and William S. Leach for Frank N. Fore and Leigh Ann Fore

David K. McPhail and Steven J. Johnson for Brewer Russell, Inc.

Mark Smiling for Erickson Inspections, LLC

Robert N. Lawrence, Terry J. Barker, and Joseph C. Woltz for Environmental Hazard Control Lab, Inc.

Description: Jeffrey C. Rowsey sued Frank N. Fore, Leigh Ann Fore, Blake A. Loveless, Peter M. Walter & Associates, Inc., Peter Walters, Katherine Sue Frame, William B. Ford, Brewer Russell, Inc, Environmental Hazard Controls Lab, Inc., Accurate Roofing, Inc. and Erickson Inspections, LLC on professional negligence, fraud, breach of contract and other theories.

1. Plaintiffs, Jeffrey C. and Lisa Rowsey, husband and wife (hereinafter collectively “Rowsev”) are individuals who reside in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. Defendants Frank N. Fore and Leigh Aim Fore, husband and wife (hereinafter collectively ““) are individuals, who upon information and belief, reside in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Blake A. Loveless (hereinafter “Loveless”) is an individual, who upon information and belief, resides in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

4. Defendant Katherine Sue Frame (hereinafter “Frame”) is an individual, who upon information and belief, resides in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

5. Defendant Peter M. Walter & Associates, Inc. (hereinafter “Walter & Associates”) is an Oklahoma corporation having a principal place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

6, Peter M. Walter (hereinafter “Walter”) is an individual, who upon information and belief, resides in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

7. Defendant William B. Ford (hereinafter ““) is an individual, who upon information and belief, resides in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

8. Defendant Brewer Russell, Inc. (hereinafter “Brewer Russell”) is an Oklahoma corporation having a principal place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

9. Defendant Environmental Hazard Control Lab, Inc. (hereinafter “Environmental”) is an Oklahoma corporation having a principal place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

10, Defendant Accurate Roofing, Inc. (hereinafter “Accurate”) is an Oklahoma corporation having a principal place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

11. Defendant Erickson Inspections, LLC (hereinafter “Erickson”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company having a principal place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

12. The parties entered into various contractual relationships in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. All events giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to OkIa. Stat. tit. 12 § 2004(F) and Okla. Const. Art. VII, § 7.

14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to OkIa. Stat. tit. 12 § 139, 142.

General Allegations

15. In or around November 2009, Rowsey began looking for a home to purchase in Tulsa
and engaged the services of Loveless, who is a real estate agent and associate with Walter &
Associates. Upon information and belief, Loveless is an employee and/or agent of Walter &
Associates.

16. Loveless showed Rowsey that certain home located at 2110 East 461h Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma (hereinafter “House”) owned by Fore. Frame was the real estate agent engaged by Fore to list the House. Frame is a real estate agent and associate with Walter & Associates.

17. Upon information and belief, Fore purchased the House in August 2001. From August 2001 to May2010, Fore owned and occupied the House and constructed new improvements.

18. On or about February 13,2010, Fore tendered to Rowsey a copy of Fore’s Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement (hereinafter “Disclosure Statement”) concerningthe House.

19. On or about March 8, 2010, Fore and Rowsey entered into that certain Oklahoma
Uniform Contract of Sale of Real Estate for the purchase of the House by Rowsey for the sum of $1,300,000.00 (hereinafter “Contract”).

20. After signing the Contract in March 2010, Rowsey engaged the services of Ford to conduct a structural and air duct inspection of the House. Ford conducted the inspections and issued a report dated March 25, 2010 and a follow-up report on May 20, 2010.

21. After signing the Contract in March 2010, Rowsey engaged the services of Brewer Russell to conduct a termite and wood rot inspection of the House. Brewer Russell conducted the inspections and issued a report dated March 25, 2010 and a follow-up report on May 20, 2010.

22. After signing the Contract in March 2010, Rowsey engaged the services of Environmental to conduct a mold inspection of the House. Environmental conducted the inspections and issued a report dated March 29, 2010.

23. After signing the Contract in March 2010, Rowsey engaged the services of Accurate to conduct a roof inspection of the House, Accurate conducted the inspections and issued a report which was dated March 22, 2010.

24. After signing the Contract in March 2010, Rowsey engaged the services of Erickson to conduct an electrical, mechanical, and plumbing inspection of the House. Erickson conducted the inspections and issued a report dated March
22, 2010 and March 24, 2010.

25. On or about May 24, 2010, closing occurred and Rowsey and Fore consummated the purchase and sale of the House.

26. After taking possession of the House, Rowsey first became aware of problems with the House that were not disclosed on the Disclosure Statement and/or on an amended Disclosure Statement, and which were purposeflully concealed by Fore. These defects materially affect the monetary value of the House. Rowsey alleges that Fore knew that such defects existed before execution of the Contract and the Disclosure Statement, and failed to properly disclose the existence of such defects on the Disclosure Statement and/or amend the Disclosure Statement.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 60 S 831 d seq. by Fore)

27. Rowsey, for their first cause of action against the Fores, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 26 above as though fully restated herein.

28. This cause of action states a claim for relief against Fore for violation of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 60 §831 et seq. (hereinafter “RPCDA”).

29. For an unknown period of time before Fore completed the Disclosure Statement or entered into the Contract, Fore knew that the House was affected by the defects. In spite of this knowledge, Fore did not disclose these defects to Rowsey on the Disclosure Statement and/or amend the Disclosure Statement.

30. Pursuant to the RPCDA, Fore had a duty to disclose to Rowsey the existence of the defects on the Disclosure Statement and/or amend the Disclosure Statement.

31. As a direct result of Fore’s violation of the RPCDA, Rowsey is entitled to recover their actual damages, including but not limited to recision and the costs to repair the defects, and should be awarded actual damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($10,000.00), the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Okia. Stat. tit. 60 $ 831 sit seq. by
Loveless, Frame, Walter and Walter & Associates)

32. Rowsey, for their second cause of action against Defendant Loveless, Defendant Frame, Defendant Walter, and Defendant Walter & Associates, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph nunibers 1 through 31 above as though fully restated herein.

33. This cause of action states a claim for relief against Loveless, Frame, Walter and Walter & Associates for violation of the RPCDA.

34. Walter and Walter & Associates were the realtors in connection with the purchase of the House by Fore and were aware of defects existing in the House. Loveless and Frame also knew or should have known about the defects existing in the House.

35. Rowsey asserts that Loveless, Frame and Walter all knew, or should have known, about the defects before the parties entered into the Contract, but failed to disclose the existence of the defects to Rowsey.

36. At all times relevant to this case, Loveless, Frame and Walter were acting within the scope of their employment and authority as an employee, agent, or representative of Walter & Associates. Rowsey alleges that Walter & Associates is jointly and severally liable for violations of the RPCDA.

37. As a direct result of Loveless, Frame, Walter and Walter & Associates’ violation of the RPCDA, Rowsey is entitled to recover actual damages, including but not limited to recision and the costs to repair the defects, and should be awarded actual damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($10,000.00), the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Ford)

38. Rowsey, for their third cause of action against Defendant Ford, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 37 above as though fttlly restated herein.

39. Ford failed to identify defects existing in the House during his inspections.

40. Ford’s failure to properly identify these defects constitutes a material breach of the panics’ agreement without cause and without excuse.

41. Ford’s failure to properly identify defects in the House has damaged Rowsey in an amount in excess of $10,000, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Nealipence by Ford)

42. Rowsey, for their fourth cause of action against Defendant Ford, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers I through 41 above as though frilly restated herein.

43. Ford owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in performing his inspection services.

44. Ford breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when he failed to identify defects existing in the House,

45. As a direct and proximate result of Ford’s negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of$10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Brewer Russell)

46. Rowsey, for their fifth cause of action against Defendant Brewer Russell, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 45 above as though ftilly restated herein.

47. Brewer Russell failed to identi& defects existing in the House during its inspections.

48. Brewer Russell’s failure to properly identi& these defects constitutes a material breach of the parties’ agreement without cause and without excuse.

49. Brewer Russell’s failure to properly identil5’ defects in the House has damaged Rowsey in an amount in excess of $10,000, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Nephi2ence by Brewer Russell)

50. Rowsey, fortheir sixth cause of action against Defendant Brewer Russell, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 49 above as though fhlly restated herein.

51. Brewer Russell owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in performing its inspection services.

52. Brewer Russell breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when it failed to identil3’ defects existing in the House.

53. As a direct and proximate result of Brewer Russell’s negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of$ 10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Environmental)

54. Rowsey, for their seventh cause of action against Defendant Environmental, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 53 above as though fully restated herein.

55. Environmental failed to identify mold and other related defects existing in the House during its inspections.

56. Environmental’s failure to properly identifS’ mold constitutes a material breach of the parties’ agreement without cause and without excuse.

57. Environmental’s failure to properly identi& mold in the House has damaged Rowsey in an amount in excess of $10,000, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Environmental)

58. Rowsey, for their eighth cause of action against Defendant Environmental, by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 57 above as though fully restated herein.

59. Environmental owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in performing its inspection services.

60. Environmental breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when it failed to identif, mold existing in the House.

61. As a direct and proximate result of Environmental’s negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of$ 10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Accurate)

62. Rowsey, for their ninth cause of action against Defendant Accurate, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 61 above as though frilly restated herein.

63. Accurate failed to identif’ roofing defects existing in the House during its inspections.

64. Accurate’s failure to properly identifi roofing defects constitutes a material breach of the parties’ agreement without cause and without excuse.

65. Accurate’s failure to properly identi’ roofing defects in the House has damaged Rowsey in an amount in excess of $10,000, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Ne1iaence by Accurate)

66. Rowsey, for their tenth cause of action against Defendant Accurate, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers I though 65 above as though fullyrestated herein,

67. Accurate owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in performing its inspection services.

68. Accurate breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when it failed to identi’ roofing defects existing in the House.

69. As a direct and proximate result of Accurate’s negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Erickson)

70. Rowsey, for their eleventh cause of action against Defendant Erickson, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 69 above as though fully restated herein.

71. Erickson failed to identify defects existing in the House during its inspections.

72. Erickson’s failure to properly identify defects constitutes a material breach of the parties’ agreement without cause and without excuse.

73. Erickson’s failure to properly identify defects in the House has damaged Rowsey in an amount in excess of $10,000, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Erickson)

74. Rowsey, for their twelfth cause of action against Defendant Erickson, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 73 above as though fully restated herein.

75. Erickson owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in performing its inspection services.

76. Erickson breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when it failed to identify defects existing in the House.

77. As a direct and proximate result of Erickson’s negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of$lO,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Fore)

78, Rowsey, for their thirteenth cause of action against the Fores, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 77 above as though fully restated herein. Rowsey alleges their breach of contract cause of action against Fore in the alternative to their RPCDA claims in the event the RPCDA not be applicable or violative of Oklahoma law.

79. Fores failed to identify defects existing in the House and this failure to properly identify defects constitutes a material breach of the Contract without cause and without excuse.

80. Fores’ breach of the Contract has damaged Rowsey in an amount in excess of
$10,000, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Fore)

81. Rowsey, for their fourteenth cause of action against the Fores, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 80 above as though fully restated herein. Rowsey alleges their negligence cause of action against Fore in the alternative to their RPCDA claims in the event the RPCDA not be applicable or violative of Oklahoma law.

82. Fore owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in disclosing defects existing in the House.

83. Fore breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when they failed to disclose defects existing in the I-louse, and instead concealed those defects.

84. As a direct and proximate result of Fore’s negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud by Fore)

85. Rowsey, for their fifteenth cause of action against the Fores, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 84 above as though fully restated herein. Rowsey alleges their fraud cause of action against Fore in the alternative to their RPCDA claims in the event the RPCDA not be applicable or violative of Oklahoma law.

86. The representations and statements made by Fore to Rowsey in the Disclosure Statement were not true at the time they were made, and did not become true at any time thereafter. In fact, Fore attempted to conceal their misrepresentations and the true condition of the House.

87. Fore knew at the time they made the representations and statements described in the Disclosure Statement that such representations were not true, or made such representations and statements with reckless disregard for the rights of Rowsey, and/or intentionally failed to amend the representations made on the Disclosure Statement, Fore knew that the House had severe defects, including but not limited to drainage issues, moisture issues, mold, and structural problems. Fore actively attempted to conceal the defects with the intention of Rowsey relying on the representations and closing on the House.

88. Fore made the false representations and statements with the intent to deceive Rowsey by having Rowsey, in reliance on the false representations and statements, close on the purchase of the House on the terms reflected in the Contract. Fore intended that Rowsey rely upon the false and misleading representations made by Fore,

89. Rowsey relied on the false representations and statements by Fore in closing on the purchase of the House on the terms reflected in the Contract. At no time before the date of closing
were Rowsey aware that Fore’s representations and statements were false. Had Rowsey known of the falsity ofthe representations and statements, they would not have purchased the House from Fore for the purchase price, or otherwise closed on the terms reflected in the Contract.

90. Rowsey’s reliance on Fore’s false representations and statements was justifiable and reasonable.

91. Reliance on the truth of representations and statements materially affected Rowsey’ s decision making with regard to whether to close on the terms reflected in the Contract, including the purchase price. Any reasonable person contemplating purchasing the House from Fore would consider misrepresentations as to the defects existing in the House but concealed significant enough to affect the decision to purchase or the purchase price.

92. As result of Fore’s false misrepresentations and statements, Rowsey should be awarded actual damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/l 00 Dollars ($10,000.00).

93. Such false and misleading representations of Fore were intentional or made with reckless disregard of the rights of Rowsey and therefore Rowsey should be awarded punitive damages against Fore.

94. Rowsey has been damaged and should be awarded punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/i 00 Dollars ($10,000.00).

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Fore)

95. Rowsey, for their sixteenth cause of action against the Fores, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 94 above as though fully restated herein, Rowsey alleges their intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action against Fore in the alternative to their RPCDA claims in the event the RPCDA not be applicable or violative of Oklahoma law.

96. Fore intentionally and knowingly concealed severe defects in the House from Rowsey with the intent to cause emotional distress to Rowsey.

97, As result of Fore’s conduct, Rowsey has suffered severe mental and emotional distress.

98. As result of Fore’s conduct, Rowsey should be awarded actual and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($10,000.00).

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Loveless, Walter & Walter & Associates)

99. Rowsey, for their seventeenth cause of action against Defendant Loveless, Defendant Walter, and Defendant Walter & Associates, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 98 above as though hilly restated herein. Rowsey alleges their negligence cause of action against these Defendants in the alternative to their RPCDA claims in the event the RPCDA not be applicable or violative of Oklahoma law.

100. Loveless, Walter, and Walter & Associates owed a duty to Rowsey to exercise ordinary care in representing Rowsey in the sale and in disclosing defects existing in the House.

101. Loveless, Walter, and Walter & Associates breached the duty of care owed to Rowsey when they failed to disclose defects existing in the House, and instead concealed those defects.

102. As a direct and proximate result of Loveless, Walter, and Walter & Associates’ negligent acts and/or omissions as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud/Concealment by Loveless, Frame. Walter. and Walter & Associates)

103. Rowsey, for their eighteenth cause of action against Defendant Loveless, Defendant Frame. Defendant Walter, and Defendant Walter & Associates, incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraph numbers 1 through 102 above as though fuily restated herein. Rowsey alleges their fraud/concealment cause of action against these Defendants in the alternative to their RPCDA claims in the event the RPCDA not be applicable or violative of Oklahoma law.

104. Defendant Loveless, Defendant Frame, Defendant Walter, and Defendant Walter & Associates all knew that the House had severe defects and concealed and/or failed to disclose those defects to Rowsey.

105. The existence of these defects were material to the purchase of the House.

106. Defendant Loveless, Defendant Frame, Defendant Walter, and Defendant Walter & Associates concealed and failed to disclose the existence of the defects with the intent of creating a false impression of the actual facts in the mind of Rowsey.

107. Defendant Loveless, Defendant Frame, Defendant Walter, and Defendant Walter & Associates concealed and failed to disclose the defects with the intention that Rowsey would close on the purchase of the House.

108. Acting in reliance on these failures and concealment, Rowsey closed on the House to their detriment.

109. As a direct and proximate result of Loveless, Frame, Walter, and Walter & Associates’ fraudulent concealment as described above, Rowsey has sustained damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proved at the trial of this matter.

110. As result of these Defendants’ conduct, Rowsey should be awarded actual and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($10,000.00).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Jeffrey C. and Lisa Rowsey, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against the Defendants, in the following particulars:

a. With respect to the First Cause of Action against Defendants Frank N. Fore and Leigh Aime Fore, for damages, including recision and actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of$lO,000; and

b. With respect to the Second Cause of Action against Defendant Blake A. Loveless, Defendant Katherine Sue Frame, Defendant Peter M. Walter and Defendant Peter M. Walter & Associates, Inc., for damages, including recision and actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of $10,000; and

c. With respect to the Third and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendant William B. Ford, for actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of $10,000; and

d. With respect to the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action against Defendant Brewer Russell, Inc., for actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of$lO,000; and

e. With respect to the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action against Defendant Environmental Hazard Control Lab, Inc., for actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of$l0,000; and
I With respect to the Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action against Defendant Accurate Roofing, Inc., for actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of $10,000; and

g. With respect to the Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action against Defendant Erickson Inspections, LLC, for actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of $10,000; and

h. With respect to the Thirteenth Cause of Action against Defendants Frank N. Fore and Leigh Anne Fore, for actual damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of $10,000; and

i. With respect to the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Causes of Action against Defendants Frank N. Fore and Leigh Anne Fore, for actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of$ 10,000; and

j. With respect to the Seventeenth Cause of Action against Defendant Blake A. Loveless, Defendant Peter M. Walter and Defendant Peter M. Walter & Associates, Inc., for actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of$lO,000; and

k. With respect to the Eighteenth Cause of Action against Defendant Blake A. Loveless, Defendant Katherine Sue Frame, Defendant Peter M. Walter and Defendant Peter M. Walter & Associates, Inc., for actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined prior to or at trial in an amount in excess of $10,000; and

1. Award Plaintiffs prejudgment interest, costs, and a reasonable attorneys’ fee; and
m. Such further and legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.



Accurate Roofing, Inc. appeared and answered as follows:

Paragraph 1. Defendant admits having met Jeffery and Lisa Rowsey.

Paragraph 2. Defendant has no knowledge of Fore.

Paragraph 3. Defendants admits knowing Blake Loveless.

Paragraph 4. Defendant to best of knowledge has not met Frame.

Paragraph 5 -6. Defendant admits to knowing Peter Walters.

Paragraph 7. Defendant has no knowledge of Ford

Paragraph 8. Defendant admits to knowing of Brewer Russell

Paragraph 9. Defendant has no knowledge of Environmental Hazard Control Lab Inc.

Paragraph 10. Defendant admits to being Owner of Accurate Roofing Inc.

Paragraph 11. Defendant admits to knowing Erickson Inspections LLC.

Paragraph 12. Defendant denies having any knowledge of contractual relationships entered into other than defendant was
asked to perform Roofing Inspection by Blake Loveless.

Paragraph 13.-14. Acknowledged.

Paragraph 15-22. Defendant has no knowledge of events.

Paragraph 23. Defendant was asked by Blake loveless to perform roofing inspection at subject property. Defendant admits performing inspection and presenting report dated March 2010.

Paragraph 24-61. Defendant has no knowledge of.

Paragraph 62-69. Defendant admits to performing roofing inspection. Defendant denies material breach of agreement or failure of ordinary care. Great amount of time was spent on roof and in the attic to all accessible areas. Mrs. Rowsey and I had lengthy discussions about areas of concern on roof. Known problems were identified in report. I performed all known repairs at no charge. During this time moisture at east chimney was noted and I installed a new chimney Pan again at no charge. The only monies received was 75.00 for roofing report. From that point on at no time was I made aware of any roofing issues with this home.

Paragraph 70-110. Defendant has no knowledge of.

Wherefore, Defendant Accurate Roofing Inc. , Paul Munoz states all services were performed to the best of my ability and has no knowledge of any existing problems with the roof, respectfully request all claims against Accurate Roofing Inc., Paul Munoz be dismissed.

William B. Ford appeared and answered as follows:

1. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph No. 1 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

2. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph No. 2 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

3. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph No, 3 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

4. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 4 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

5. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 5 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

6. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 6 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

7. Ford admits the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Petition.

8. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 8 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

9. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 9 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

10. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 10 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

11. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 11 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

12. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph No. 12 of the Petition, to the extent they are directed at parties other than Ford, and therefore denies said allegations. Ford admits that his services were provided in Tulsa County.

13. Ford admits jurisdiction is proper in this Court.

14. Ford admits venue is proper in this Court.

15. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 15 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

16. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 16 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

17. Ford lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of in Paragraph No. 17 of the Petition, and therefore denies said allegations.

* * *

Frank N. Fore appeared and answered as follows:

1. The Fores lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore deny same.

2. The Fores admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. The Fores lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 3-Il of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore deny same.

4, The Fores state that the Rowseys purchased a home from the Fores, which is located in Tulsa County. The Fores lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore deny same.

5. The allegations in Paragraphs 13-14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 13-14.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. The Fores lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 15-16 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore deny same.

7. The Fores state that they purchased the home located at 2110 East 46th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, in August 2001, that they occupied the home, and that they engaged contractors to perform renovations and improvements. The Fores deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

8. The Fores admit that a copy of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement was provided to the Rowseys and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition,

9. The Fores admit that the Fores and the Rowseys entered an agreement for the sale of the home to the Rowseys for $1.3 million, as alleged in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

10. The Fores lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 20-24 of Plaintiffs’ etition, and therefore deny same.

11. The Fores admit the allegations in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

12. The Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Petition,

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of OKEA. STAT. tit. 60, § 831 et seq. by the Fores)

13. Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

14. The Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 28-31 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of OKLA. STAT. tit. 60, § 831 et seq. by
Loveless, Frame, Walter, and Walter & Associates)

15. Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required, To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

16. Paragraphs 33-3 7 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 33- 37 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Ford)

17. Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

18. Paragraphs 39-4 1 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 39- 41 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Ford)

19. Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

20. Paragraphs 43-45 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 43- 45 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Brewer Russell)

21. Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

22. Paragraphs 47-49 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 47- 49 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Brewer Russell)

23. Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

24. Paragraphs 5 1-53 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 51- 53 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Environmental)

25. Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

26. Paragraphs 55-57 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 55- 57 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Environmental)

27. Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

28. Paragraphs 59-61 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 59- 61 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Accurate)

29. Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

30. Paragraphs 63-65 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 63- 65 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Accurate)

31. Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

32. Paragraphs 67-69 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 67- 69 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by Erickson)

33. Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

34. Paragraphs 71-73 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 71- 73 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Erickson)

35. Paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

36. Paragraphs 75-77 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 75- 77 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

THIRTEENTh CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract by the Fores)

37. Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Fores specifically deny that the Rowseys have a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract as to the Fores,

38. The Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 79-80 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by the Forcs)

39. Paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Fores specifically deny that the Rowseys have a legally cognizable claim for negligence as to the Fores.

40. The Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 82-84 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud by the Fores)

41. Paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Fores specifically deny that the Rowseys have a legally cognizable claim for fraud as to the Fores.

42. The Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 86-94 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by the Fores)

43. Paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny thc allegations in Paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Fores specifically deny that the Rowscys have a legally cognizable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the Fores.

44. The Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 96-98 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence by Loveless, Walter and Walter & Associates)

45. Paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

46. Paragraphs 100-102 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 100-102 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud/Concealment by Loveless, Frame, Walter and Walter & Associates)

47. Paragraph 103 of Plaintiffs’ Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraph 103 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

48. Paragraphs 104-110 are directed to other defendants and no response is required by the Fores. To the extent a response is required, the Fores deny the allegations in Paragraphs 104-110 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

49. The Fores deny Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief requested in the unnumbered paragraph beginning “WHEREFORE,” and in sub-parts a-rn thereto.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a clairn upon which relief rnay be granted.

2. Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy as to the Fores is the right of action and remedies provided under the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (RPCDA), OKLA. STAT. tit. 60, § 831 etseq.

3. Plaintiffs have failed to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, rescission, and punitive damages as to the Fores.

4. Plaintiffs have failed to plead their fraud claim with sufficient particularity.

5. The Fores accurately completed the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement.

6. The Fores disclosed all conditions known to them.

7. The Fores had no actual or constructive knowledge of any defect in the home.

8. The Fores owed no duty to Plaintiffs beyond any duty imposed under the
RPCDA.

9. The Fores breached no duty to Plaintiffs.

10. No breach of duty by the Fores caused any harm to Plaintiffs.

11. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.

12. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, are not of the nature or to the extent alleged.

13. The Fores breached no contract with Plaintiffs.

14. The Fores did not act intentionally.

15. The Fores made no material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs.

16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Plaintiffs’ own comparative and/or contributory negligence.

17. Plaintiffs’ damage, if any, was caused by third persons for whose conduct the Fores are not responsible and over whom the Fores have no control.

18. No act or omission by the Fores was the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged harm.

19. Any defective conditions in the home arose after the sale of the property and during Plaintiffs’ ownership of the property.

20. Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages under the RPCDA.

21. Plaintiffs are not entitled to rescission under the RPCDA.

22. The conditions of which Plaintiff complain do not constitute defects as defined by the RPCDA.

23. Any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions by the Fores were not within the Fores’ actual knowledge.

24. Plaintiffs are not entitled to multiple recoveries.

25. The Fores are entitled to a set-off of any claims or settlements received from any other person or entity.

26. Plaintiffs’ claim of punitive damages is contrary to the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

27. The Fores adopt any defenses asserted by any co-defendant to the extent they are applicable to the Fores.

28. Any liability of the Fores shall be several only.

29. The Fores reserve the right to amend their Answer to include additional affirmative defenses at the close of discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Frank and Leigh Ann Fore request the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ Petition, enter judgment in favor of the Fores, award the Fores their attorney fees and costs, and award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.


Erickson Inspections, LLC appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.

2. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.

3. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.

4. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.

5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.

* * *

Environmental Hazard Control Lab, Inc. appeared and answered.

Blake Loveless, Peter M. Walter, Peters M. Walter & Associates, Inc., and Katherine Sue Frame appeared and answered.

Environmental Hazard Control, Inc. offered to allow Plaintiff to take judgment pursuant to 12 O.S. 1101 in the amount of $500.00.

Blake Loveless moved for summary judgment in his favor stating:

1. In 2001, the F ores purchased the residence in question. Peter Walter and Walter & Associates was the listing agent. Deposition of Peter Walter at pp. 34-35, attached hereto as Exhibit 1; Deposition of Leigh Ann Fore at p. 43-44, 50, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

2. After purchasing the home, the Fores discovered a number of issues with the home including alleged water intrusion. Exhibit 1 at p. 96-97; Exhibit 2 at p. 138, 11. 2-11, p. 148, 11. 10-19.

3. The Fores addressed their concerns to Peter Walter who participated in a settlement agreement between the former owners and the Fores, contributing monetarily to the settlement amount. Exhibit 1 at 97-99, Exhibit 2 at p. 184, 11. 20-25.

4. Peter Walter did not provide information regarding the sale, the complaints or the subsequent settlement to any person working at Walter & Associates.

Q Do you recall informing anybody who was working at your office after August 31, 2009 that you had previous history
with this house and that there was a file on it?

A No.

Q Do you recall informing anybody at your office that you had actually settled a threatened lawsuit relating to this
house.

A No.

Q At any time prior to the closing of this home, did you ever have a discussion with Ms. Frame as to what had occurred on this house as it related to the sale and purchase of the home by the Fores from the Neals [former owners]?

A No. Prior to the closing?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q At any time prior to the closing, did you have a discussion with Blake Loveless as it relates to what occurred in 2001
and then after that closing?

A No.

Exhibit 1, atp. 58, 11. 9-19.

5. In 2009, the Fores contacted Walter & Associates, specifically Katherine Frame, to market and sell the subject residence. Exhibit 2 at, p. 262, 1. 23 — p. 263, 1. 4, P. 263, 11.
14-17.

6. Frame provided the required Real Estate Disclosure Form to the Fores for them to complete. See, Ex. 2 at 264, 11. 14-20. Deposition of Katherine Frame at p. 25, 11. 13-16, attached as Exhibit 3.

7. Frame only checked to be sure the required Real Estate Disclosure Form was complete and did not ask the Fores if they had filled it out honestly. Frame did not independently verify the information provided by the Fores on the required Real Estate Disclosure Form. Exhibit 3 at pp. 26-27.

8. Neither Peter Walter nor anyone else from Walter & Associates notified Frame of the previous sale and resulting settlement. Exhibit 1 at p. 54, 11. 8-16; p. 58, 11. 9-15; Exhibit 3 atp. 23,11. 8-12; p.23,1.22—p. 24,1.2; p. 32,11.9-21; p. 86,11. 16-24.

9. Peter Walter testified that he simply forgot about the previous issues with that particular residence. Exhibit 1 at p. 77, 11. 19-24.

10. Plaintiffs have no evidence Frame was aware of any issues with the residence that should
have been disclosed prior to the closing date for the sale. Deposition of Lisa Rowsey at
pp. 314-316, attached as Exhibit 4; Deposition of Jeff Rowsey at p. 92, 1. 19 — p. 93, 1. 2,
p. 93, 11. 3-24, attached as Exhibit 5.

11. Plaintiffs engaged the services of Blake Loveless of Walter & Associates to assist them in finding a home in Tulsa. Exhibit 5 at p. 74, 11. 15-18; Deposition of Blake Loveless at pp. 43-44, attached as Exhibit 6. Among other possible homes, Loveless showed Plaintiffs the residence owned by the Fores and marketed by Frame.

12. Neither Peter Walter nor anyone else from Walter & Associates notified Loveless of the previous sale and resulting settlement. Exhibit 1 at p. 54, 11. 8-16; p. 58, 11. 16-19; Exhibit 6 at p. 58,1. 17—p. 59,1. 12, p. 62,11. 10-20, p. 64,11.4-11.

13. Loveless was not involved in the drafting of the Disclosure Statement and did not speak to Frame about the details of the disclosure statement. Exhibit 2 at p. 265, 11. 14-21; Exhibit6atp. 31,1.20—p. 32,1.7.

14. Plaintiffs have no evidence Loveless was aware of any issues with the residence that
should have been disclosed prior to the closing date for the sale. Exhibit 4 at p. 303, 1. 23
—p.304,1. 15; p.305,11. 14-23; p.306,11.9-13; p. 3061. 22—p. 307,, 1. 1; p.311,11. 16-
20; p. 314,1. 19—p. 315,1. 6; p. 316, 11. 2-7; p. 320, 11. 8-10; p. 321, 11. 15-18; p. 343,1.
25 — p. 344, 1. 4; Exhibit 5 at p. 92, 1. 19 — p. 93, 1. 2, p. 93, 3-24.

15. Loveless first heard of Fores complaints and issues regarding the residence after the closing with the Rowseys. Exhibit 6 at p. 30, 1. 23 — p. 31, 1. 6.

16. Plaintiffs viewed the residence several times and decided to purchase it. Plaintiffs’ petition at ¶J16-19, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

17. Plaintiffs had the residence extensively inspected with no major issues identified.

18. Plaintiff and the Fores entered into a written agreement for purchase of the residence. Contract for Sale, attached as Exhibit 8.

19. The Contract for Sale included release language.

6. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CONDITION DISCLOSURE:

No representations by Seller regarding the condition of the Property, or environmental hazards, are expressed or implied, other than as specified in the Oklahoma Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement (“Disclosure Statement”) or the Oklahoma Property Condition Disclaimer Statement (“Disclaimer Statement”), if applicable. A real estate licensee has no duty to Seller or Buyer to conduct an independent inspection of the property and has no duty to independently verify accuracy or completeness of any statement made by Seller in the Disclosure Statement or the Disclaimer Statement and any amendment.

***

D. EXPIRATION OF BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL
CONTRACT:

1) Failure of Buyer to complete one of the following shall
constitute acceptance of the Property regardless of its condition:

a. perform any investigations, inspections or reviews;

b. deliver a written list on a TRR form of items to be treated, repaired, and replaced,; or

c. Cancel the Contract with the time period in Investigations, Inspections or Reviews Paragraph.

9. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY: Buyer, upon accepting Title or transfer of possession of the Property, shall be deemed to have accepted the property in its then condition. No warranties, expressed or implied, by Sellers, Brokers, and/or their affiliated licensees, with reference to the condition of the Property, shall be deemed to have survived the Closing.

Exhibit 8 (emphasis added).

20. Plaintiffs further executed a Closing Acknowledgment, which states in pertinent part:

BUYER acknowledges that he has inspected the premises of the above described property and that the same is accepted in its present condition or if the Buyer has not inspected the premises, by closing the sale on the property the Buyer waives all claims, right, and demands against Seller to Walter & Associates, Inc. their agents, employees, representative, sub-agents, and co-brokers from any liability whatsoever.
Closing Acknowledgment, attached as Exhibit 9.
21. Plaintiffs claim damages against these Defendants in the amount required to repair the defects. Exhibit 7 at ¶ 37.

* * *

See: Court Docket for this Case

Outcome: Dismissal without prejudice as to Frank N. Fore.

Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: