Douglas v. Visser

The Vissers (defendants) renovated a fixer-upper house but decided to sell it instead of finishing the work. The Douglases (plaintiffs) offered to buy it. The Vissers' disclosure statement admitted they didn't know the answers to many questions; the Douglases asked for clarification but found the supplemental answers still inadequate, yet never followed up further. Their hired inspector found rot and decay near the roof and under the house but concluded it wasn't structurally threatening; the Douglases never discussed the report with either the inspector or the Vissers. After closing, the Douglases discovered mold, pests, and worse structural damage, and eventually concluded the Vissers had made cosmetic repairs to hide the problems before selling. The Douglases sued for fraudulent or negligent concealment, and the trial court ruled for them; the Vissers appealed.