DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre

M. Eileen Richards (defendant) was a real estate broker who worked for Hingham Centre, Ltd. (Hingham) (defendant). Paul and Lauren Tribuna hired Richards and Hingham to sell their house. Paul told Richards that the property was zoned as either Business B or Residential Business B. However, Residential Business B was not a valid zoning classification. Residential B was a zoning classification for small at-home businesses. Business B was a zoning classification for businesses only, not homes. Richards could see that some properties across the street were being used as businesses, but the house and the neighboring houses were not currently being used as businesses. Without conducting any further investigation, Richards advertised that the property was zoned as Business B. Daniel DeWolfe (plaintiff) saw one of these advertisements. DeWolfe was looking for a property to use as a six-station hair salon, and Business B zoning would allow this use. DeWolfe visited the property and saw Business B zoning papers that Richards had placed at the property. DeWolfe then bought the property. The sale contract contained an exculpatory clause in which DeWolfe acknowledged that he was not relying on any representations to make his purchase unless the representations were (1) listed in the agreement, (2) made previously in writing, or (3) listed below that specific clause. No representations were listed below the clause. After the sale, DeWolfe learned that the property was zoned as Residential B, not Business B, which meant that he was not allowed to use the property for a six-station hair salon. DeWolfe sued Richards and Hingham for negligently misrepresenting the property’s zoning classification. The trial court granted summary judgment to Richards and Hingham and dismissed the lawsuit. DeWolfe appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed to review the case.