Clair v. Hillenmeyer - 232 S.W.3d 544 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007)

Rule:

A single issue of material fact, the resolution of which can reasonably change the outcome of the litigation, is sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Ky. R. Civ. P. 56.03.

Facts:

In April 2004, Paul E. Hillenmeyer and his wife, Mary W. Hillenmeyer (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Hillenmeyer"), listed for sale a certain parcel of real estate located in Dry Ridge, Grant County, Kentucky. Jeffrey K. Clair and his wife, Susan C. Clair (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Clair") made an offer to purchase the property for $219,000.00 on June 9, 2004, which offer was promptly accepted by Hillenmeyer. A standard contract to purchase was prepared and executed by all parties. Clair added a restriction that the septic system servicing the property be repaired. Following execution of the contract to purchase, a meeting occurred in the yard of the subject property between Clair, Hillenmeyer, their respective Realtors, and Jeff Franxman, a local plumber familiar with septic systems. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain suggestions for modifications and repairs to the faulty septic system. Franxman offered several alternatives, but the discussions focused upon a single alternative which involved installation of a secondary leach field which would be accessed via a manually operated valve system. Shortly after the meeting, Clair's real estate agent, Ellen Heile, notified Hillenmeyer of Clair's intention to withdraw from the purchase contract. Therefore, Heile stated Clair was dissatisfied with the proposed modification and further felt that Hillenmeyer had materially misrepresented the condition of the septic system on the Seller Disclosure of Property Condition form completed when marketing the home for sale. Subsequently, Hillenmeyer filed suit alleging breach of the purchase contract and seeking damages as a result thereof. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hillenmeyer. The present appeal followed.

Issue:

Was the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hillenmeyer proper under the circumstances? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court reversed the orders of the trial court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court found that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Such issues included whether the system met any particular code, whether there was a failure within the system, whether the sellers had concealed defects in the system, and whether the purchasers' satisfaction with any proposed repairs was required.