caveat emptor doctrine in Ohio

2025Spalla v. Fransen, 2010-Ohio-3461 , ¶ 32 (11th Dist.). {¶32} Regarding the doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware), the Supreme Court of Ohio in Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176 (1988), stated: The doctrine of caveat emptor is one of long standing. . . . [T]he doctrine performs a function in the real estate marketplace.

2024The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the doctrine of caveat emptor “precludes recovery in an action by the purchaser for a structural defect in real estate where (1) the condition complained of is open to observation or discoverable upon reasonable inspection, (2) the purchaser had the unimpeded opportunity to examine the premises, and (3) there is no fraud on the part of the vendor.” Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 176 , 519 N.E.2d 642 (1988), syllabus, following Traverse v. Long, 165 Ohio St. 249 , 135 N.E.2d 256 (1956).

2026Furthermore, the doctrine of caveat emptor “is designed to finalize real estate transactions by the preventing disappointed real estate buyers from litigating every imperfection existing in residential property.” Nieberding, 2021- Ohio-2593, at ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), quoting Thaler v. Zovko, 2008-Ohio-6881, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.).

2024We disagree with this suggestion, but shall provide an overview of the defense given the Raptises’ claim. {¶25} “‘In Ohio, real property sold “as is” is subject to the doctrine of caveat emptor’” or “let the buyer beware.” McDonald v. Fogel, 2019-Ohio-1717, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.), quoting Loomis v. Troknya, 2006-Ohio-731, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); Waleszewski v. Angstadt, 2004-Ohio-335, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).“The doctrine of caveat emptor, although virtually abolished in the area of personal property, remains a viable rule of law in real estate sales.” (Citation omitted.) Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 17

2024We disagree with this suggestion, but shall provide an overview of the defense given the Raptises’ claim. {¶25} “‘In Ohio, real property sold “as is” is subject to the doctrine of caveat emptor’” or “let the buyer beware.” McDonald v. Fogel, 2019-Ohio-1717, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.), quoting Loomis v. Troknya, 2006-Ohio-731, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); Waleszewski v. Angstadt, 2004-Ohio-335, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).“The doctrine of caveat emptor, although virtually abolished in the area of personal property, remains a viable rule of law in real estate sales.” (Citation omitted.) Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 17

2019Under this standard, “the appellate court must * * * independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245, ¶ 26 . {¶14} “In Ohio, real property sold ‘as is’ is subject to the doctrine of caveat emptor.” Loomis v. Troknya, 165 Ohio App.3d 300 , 2006-Ohio-731 , 846 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); Huegel v. Scott, 11th Dist.

2004An "as is" clause, however, does not relieve the seller of liability for fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment." Id. {¶ 57} Therefore, as long as a seller does not engage in fraud, these two principles, caveat emptor and the "as is" clause, bar any claims brought by a buyer. {¶ 58} Because Moreland agreed to take the property "as-is," Ksiazek was not required to disclose latent defects in order to prevail under the doctrine of caveat emptor.

2003See also, Quintile , citing Rogers v. Hill (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 468 , 471 ; Buchanan , 115 Ohio App.3d at 257 . {¶ 16} Hence, where the doctrine of caveat emptor applies or when the sales contract contains an "as is" clause to limit the liability of the seller, fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation will preserve liability against the seller for the buyer.

2003See also, Quintile , citing Rogers v. Hill (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 468 , 471 ; Buchanan , 115 Ohio App.3d at 257 . {¶ 16} Hence, where the doctrine of caveat emptor applies or when the sales contract contains an "as is" clause to limit the liability of the seller, fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation will preserve liability against the seller for the buyer.

2002See, generally, Buchanan v. Geneva Chervenic Realty (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 250 , 685 N.E.2d 265 ; McCann v. Anastasio , Portage App. No. 2000-P-0078, 2001-Ohio-4300 ("Common law principles are applied for misrepresentation in the disclosure document as R.C. 5302.30 provides no remedies."); Barr v. Wolfe (Feb. 24, 2000), Lawrence App. No. 99 CA 17 (applying caveat emptor to purchaser's claim that sellers committed fraud by stating on the residential property disclosure form that they knew of no problems with the foundation of the home or of material cracks); Belluardo v. Blankenship (June 4, 1

2024Cardi v. Gump, 121 Ohio App.3d 16, 22 (8th Dist. 1997) (“[i]t is clear that the doctrine of caveat emptor cannot be used to protect a vendor if the 8 Case No. 2024-T-0029 buyer can prove fraud”); Jones v. Gilbert, 2023-Ohio-754, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.) (“neither the doctrine of caveat emptor nor the presence of an ‘as is’ clause forecloses a buyer from recovery when the seller has perpetrated a fraud”); Lapos Constr.

2012No. 88667, 2007-Ohio-6809, ¶ 31 . {¶39} However, “[t]he doctrine of caveat emptor * * * relieves a vendor of the obligation of revealing every imperfection that might exist in a residential property.” Cardi, supra, at 21-22 , citing Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176 (1988).

2026Schmiedebusch v. Rako Realty, Inc., 2005-Ohio-4884, ¶ 19 (5th Dist.).

2008However, I believe that caveat emptor does not apply to appellants’ claims against appellees Findeiss Realty Company and Zemba Brothers Ltd., for the rationale set forth in this court’s opinion in Schmiedebusch v. Rako Realty, Inc., 2005-Ohio-4884 , 2005 WL 2266701 . 1 Therein, this court did not require fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation as a necessary prerequisite to overcoming the application of caveat emptor. *352 Rather, we found that caveat emptor does not apply when the real estate agent fails to disclose to his or her clients any fact that was known or should have been known by the

2023Franklin No. 19AP-686, 2020-Ohio-4078, ¶ 35 , quoting Gentile v. Ristas, 160 Ohio App.3d 765 , 2005-Ohio-2197, ¶ 49 (10th Dist.). “‘Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, a seller has an obligation to disclose only those defects known by the seller that could not be readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection.’” Id., quoting Gentile at ¶ 50 .

2023Franklin No. 19AP-686, 2020-Ohio-4078, ¶ 35 , quoting Gentile v. Ristas, 160 Ohio App.3d 765 , 2005-Ohio-2197, ¶ 49 (10th Dist.). “‘Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, a seller has an obligation to disclose only those defects known by the seller that could not be readily discoverable by a reasonable inspection.’” Id., quoting Gentile at ¶ 50 .

2007See Brewer v. Brothers (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 148 , 151 , 611 N.E.2d 492 . {¶ 12} Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of McGinty and Charo. {¶ 13} Morever, in real estate transactions, the doctrine of caveat emptor *Page 6 precludes recovery by the buyer for defects in the property when: "(1) the defect complained of is open to observation or discoverable upon reasonable inspection; (2) the purchaser had the full and unimpeded opportunity to examine the premises; and (3) there is no evidence of fraud on the part

2007See Brewer v. Brothers (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 148 , 151 , 611 N.E.2d 492 . {¶ 12} Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of McGinty and Charo. {¶ 13} Morever, in real estate transactions, the doctrine of caveat emptor *Page 6 precludes recovery by the buyer for defects in the property when: "(1) the defect complained of is open to observation or discoverable upon reasonable inspection; (2) the purchaser had the full and unimpeded opportunity to examine the premises; and (3) there is no evidence of fraud on the part

2026But “a seller may still be liable to a buyer if the seller fails to disclose known latent conditions.” Morgan v. Cohen, 2019-Ohio-3662, ¶ 35 (8th Dist.).

2024Cardi v. Gump, 121 Ohio App.3d 16, 22 (8th Dist. 1997) (“[i]t is clear that the doctrine of caveat emptor cannot be used to protect a vendor if the 8 Case No. 2024-T-0029 buyer can prove fraud”); Jones v. Gilbert, 2023-Ohio-754, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.) (“neither the doctrine of caveat emptor nor the presence of an ‘as is’ clause forecloses a buyer from recovery when the seller has perpetrated a fraud”); Lapos Constr.

2024We disagree with this suggestion, but shall provide an overview of the defense given the Raptises’ claim. {¶25} “‘In Ohio, real property sold “as is” is subject to the doctrine of caveat emptor’” or “let the buyer beware.” McDonald v. Fogel, 2019-Ohio-1717, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.), quoting Loomis v. Troknya, 2006-Ohio-731, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); Waleszewski v. Angstadt, 2004-Ohio-335, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).“The doctrine of caveat emptor, although virtually abolished in the area of personal property, remains a viable rule of law in real estate sales.” (Citation omitted.) Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 17

2024We disagree with this suggestion, but shall provide an overview of the defense given the Raptises’ claim. {¶25} “‘In Ohio, real property sold “as is” is subject to the doctrine of caveat emptor’” or “let the buyer beware.” McDonald v. Fogel, 2019-Ohio-1717, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.), quoting Loomis v. Troknya, 2006-Ohio-731, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); Waleszewski v. Angstadt, 2004-Ohio-335, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).“The doctrine of caveat emptor, although virtually abolished in the area of personal property, remains a viable rule of law in real estate sales.” (Citation omitted.) Layman v. Binns, 35 Ohio St.3d 176, 17

2023Summit No. 28184, 2017-Ohio-168, ¶ 15 (where plaintiffs were put on notice by a home inspector of potential water problems in the purchased property, they could not have justifiably relied on defendants’ alleged nondisclosures and misrepresentations); Kramer v. Ratterman, 161 Ohio App.3d 363 , 2005-Ohio-2742 , 830 N.E.2d 416, ¶ 22 (1st Dist.) (where defendants disclosed defects to the property as required by law and plaintiffs chose not to have an inspection where one was clearly warranted, plaintiffs could not claim justifiable reliance on the defendants’ representations). {¶36} The Travises

2023Summit No. 28184, 2017-Ohio-168, ¶ 15 (where plaintiffs were put on notice by a home inspector of potential water problems in the purchased property, they could not have justifiably relied on defendants’ alleged nondisclosures and misrepresentations); Kramer v. Ratterman, 161 Ohio App.3d 363 , 2005-Ohio-2742 , 830 N.E.2d 416, ¶ 22 (1st Dist.) (where defendants disclosed defects to the property as required by law and plaintiffs chose not to have an inspection where one was clearly warranted, plaintiffs could not claim justifiable reliance on the defendants’ representations). {¶36} The Travises

2023Summit No. 28184, 2017-Ohio-168, ¶ 15 (where plaintiffs were put on notice by a home inspector of potential water problems in the purchased property, they could not have justifiably relied on defendants’ alleged nondisclosures and misrepresentations); Kramer v. Ratterman, 161 Ohio App.3d 363 , 2005-Ohio-2742 , 830 N.E.2d 416, ¶ 22 (1st Dist.) (where defendants disclosed defects to the property as required by law and plaintiffs chose not to have an inspection where one was clearly warranted, plaintiffs could not claim justifiable reliance on the defendants’ representations). {¶36} The Travises

2015Bd. of Commrs., 23 Ohio St.3d 69, 73 (1986). {¶19} In this matter, the inspection report revealed a host of problems Kolar designated as “Major Concerns.” These concerns included excessive ice buildup on the roof, found at both the front and rear valleys.