Jue v. Smiser

Ken and Victoria Smiser (defendants) employed Tabaloff & Company (Tabaloff) (defendant) to assist in listing and selling their home. Geoffrey and Charlene Jue (plaintiffs) made an appointment with Tabaloff to view the home. During the viewing, the Jues received a brochure stating that the house had been designed by acclaimed architect Julia Morgan. The Jues made an offer on the home and signed a purchase agreement on April 27, 1992. On June 8, 1992, the Jues signed various documents related to the sale, including a document that incorporated a disclaimer stating that the parties recognized that the home was known as a Morgan work, but that there were no blueprints filed with the city confirming this information. Over the next two days, the Jues contacted Morgan’s daughter, who said that she knew of no documents certifying that Morgan designed the Smisers’ home. The Jues received title to the home and closed escrow on June 11. On November 24, the Jues brought suit against Tabaloff and the Smisers, alleging various theories of fraud and misrepresentation. The Smisers moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Smisers’ motion, concluding that the Jues’ claims were barred because they had moved forward with the purchase despite knowing, before escrow closed, that there were no documents certifying the home as a Morgan design. The Jues appealed.