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

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

P purchased land with a home from D. The agreement was on a printed form prepared and ordinarily used by D in selling residential property, and it contained a provision that the sale was subject to the zoning ordinances. Nine days after the execution of the agreement, D conveyed the real estate to P by warranty deed containing the usual covenants against encumbrances, except those mentioned in the deed, and thereupon the plaintiffs took possession of the property. At closing D delivered to P a plot plan prepared by a registered engineer and land surveyor. The plot plan showed a side yard of 20 feet as was required by local zoning laws. A certificate of occupancy was erroneously issued based on D's survey. Four months later, P discovered that there was only a 1.8-foot boundary line in violation of zoning laws. P trespassed on his neighbor’s property when entering and leaving by the back door of his house. P sued D for false representation. D claimed that the misrepresentation was innocently made. The court found that D falsely and recklessly represented the side yard as 20 feet for the purpose of inducing action by P, that P was induced to rely on these representations which were mistaken, and not innocent. P was awarded the difference between the actual value of the property and its value as it had been represented. D appealed.

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

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