Cruze v. Hudler
Oregon Court of Appeals
267 P. 3d 176 (2011)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Tyrone Cruze and his wife (plaintiffs) owned property that they wished to sell to a developer. Martin Hudler, a real-estate developer, and Charles Markley, an attorney (defendants), were partners in a number of interconnected real-estate-development companies. Hudler began negotiations with Cruze to purchase the property Cruze owned. Throughout the negotiations, Hudler, with Markley’s knowledge, represented that he and Markley’s businesses were very successful, that they had invested substantially in the businesses, and that they had high net worths. Hudler eventually convinced Cruze to form a joint venture, and Cruze subsequently paid or loaned money totaling over $3,500,000 to three of Hudler and Markley’s companies. Cruze later discovered that many of Hudler’s representations about the success of the companies, and his and Markley’s investments in those companies, were false and that Hudler was in fact attempting to operate a Ponzi-type scheme to raise investments to repay earlier investors and hide losses. Cruze sued Hudler and Markley for fraud and other violations. Hudler and Markley both filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Hudler’s motion but granted Markley’s motion for summary judgement because there was no evidence that Markley had personally made any misrepresentations to Cruze. Cruze appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schuman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
