Slater v. Haddock CA1/5

Filed 2/22/16 Slater v. Haddock CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

KAREN SLATER, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144820 v. JAMES HADDOCK, (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. CGC-14-537692) Defendant and Appellant.

Karen Slater purchased a home from James Haddock in 2013. She sued Haddock for failing to disclose drainage problems in the home.1 The matter was tried to the court and, despite factual findings in Slater’s favor, judgment was entered for Haddock on the ground that Slater failed to produce evidence of cognizable damages under the applicable statute, Civil Code section 3343.2 Slater filed a motion for new trial, alleging surprise that the court applied the statute. The court granted the motion and Haddock appeals. We reverse. I. BACKGROUND In February 2014, Slater sued Haddock for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud arising from the 2013 home sale. She alleged Haddock failed to fully disclose drainage problems that affected lower-level bathrooms in the house and cost $76,982 to

1 Slater also sued Haddock’s wife, Erin, but the trial court later entered judgment for Erin on the ground she did not sign the contract as a seller or make any representations to Slater about drainage in the house. Slater did not appeal that judgment. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.

1

repair. She alleged that Haddock breached disclosure terms of the sales contract and negligently and intentionally failed to disclose the drainage problem when he had a duty to do so. As to each cause of action, Slater alleged damages in the amount of the repair costs. Haddock answered with a general denial. A bench trial took place on February 3 and 4, 2015. After closing arguments, the court took the matter under submission. The record does not reflect that either party requested a statement of decision.3 On February 9, the court issued an order entitled, “Judgment After Court Trial,” that contained findings of fact and conclusions of law and ended with the language, “judgment is entered in favor of [Haddock] . . . and against [Slater].” In the judgment, the court made the following factual findings. In July 2006, a toilet in the lower level of the house backed up, and Haddock hired Roto-Rooter to fix the problem. Another backup occurred in March 2007, and Haddock had the plumbing line inspected. The inspection disclosed a broken sewer pipe, and Haddock paid for necessary repairs. Haddock then discovered that a back flow device (“flapper”), which prevented outside sewage from coming into the home, had been damaged; he removed it. However, no further plumbing or sewer problems occurred while Haddock owned the house. The court found that Haddock “actually and reasonably believed that the 2007 repair work performed by Atlas resolved the toilet backups that had occurred in 2006 and 2007.” In his disclosures to Slater related to the property sale, Haddock did not include the history of toilet backups or the removed flapper, but he did disclose that the sewer drain was repaired in 2007 and that the lower-level bathrooms were below street grade. “Knowing that the Property is on a hill and concerned about how the drainage system in the lower level bathrooms worked, . . . Slater’s agent Mindy Kershner asked . . . Haddock’s agent Robert Downes about that drainage system.” Downes responded, “ ‘It all goes to the sewer like normal. No pump. It is built on a hill so, you know the saying