The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D listed their farm for sale with United Country (D). P expressed an interest to United Country (D) but only if the property could be fenced and gated. United Country (D) advised that neighbor Leroy Jones had an access easement across the property, but she opined that the issue could be worked out. When asked whether Jones would agree to a gate across the easement/road. United Country (D) replied that Jones would not mind. Another United Country (D) agent was consulted who said P would have no problem putting up a gate. P reiterated her need for fencing and gates because of her animals. D said that he saw no problems in that regard and agreed to erect it. At P's request, the real estate contract included a special agreement between P and D about erecting fencing and gates. At closing P again said she did not want the property unless it could be fenced and gated. The title company informed P of the easement, which also was mentioned in the title commitment and the warranty deed. P closed anyway, after which D fenced the property and put a gate across the road easement. Jones objected to the gate, filed suit, and ultimately won a judgment against P for removal of the gate and $3,500 damages. P sued D for fraudulent misrepresentation and United Country (D) for negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ds. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.