AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Joseph and Linda Gammon, with the assistance of their realtor French & French Fine Properties, Inc. (FFFP), purchased a property and divided it into two lots smaller than the covenant allowed. The neighboring property owners, including Clarence and Susan Simmons who purchased adjacent land, sued the Gammons and FFFP for violating the covenant. The Simmons also filed a suit against FFFP for negligent misrepresentation, claiming they were unaware of the covenant violation and relied on FFFP's representations (paras 1-8).

Procedural History

• District Court, April 16, 2013: Ruled against the Gammons on the enforceability of the covenant and against FFFP on the negligent misrepresentation claims, awarding compensatory damages to the Simmons (paras 10-11).

Parties' Submissions

• FFFP: Argued that the Simmons did not prove FFFP made misrepresentations during the sale and that the Simmons did not prove justifiable reliance necessary for their negligent misrepresentation claim (para 2).
• Simmons: Asserted they relied on FFFP's representations regarding the enforceability of the covenant and were unaware of the covenant violation, which influenced their decision to purchase the property.

Legal Issues

• Whether the restrictive covenant is enforceable by any owner of land within the HMBL Property (para 68).
• Whether FFFP negligently misrepresented the status of the covenant’s waiver and amendment to the Simmons during the sale of the Trust Property (para 68).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the award of compensatory damages for the pecuniary loss to the Simmons. It remanded the award of disgorgement of commission, transaction costs, and attorney’s fees for recalculation consistent with the opinion (para 69).

Reasons

• The court found that the restrictive covenant was enforceable by any owner within the HMBL Property, dismissing FFFP's arguments against its enforceability (paras 14-25). It held that FFFP negligently misrepresented the status of the covenant to the Simmons, leading to their decision to purchase the property under false pretenses (paras 27-38). The court determined that the Simmons were entitled to actual damages for the overpayment based on the property's diminished value due to the covenant violation and for FFFP's commission related to this overpayment. It also allowed for the recalculation of carry-cost damages and differentiated between recoverable and non-recoverable attorney's fees, stemming from defending against FFFP's suit and pursuing negligent misrepresentation claims, respectively (paras 39-67).