Misrepresentations and the DTPA -- Even Unknowingly False Statements Can Lead to Liability

San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:

As a real estate lawyer in San Antonio, TX, I have always perceived the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") to be a mixed bag -- one of those statutes with equal parts good and bad implications. My belief has been developed over the past decade based upon what I characterize as a "strict liability" interpretation of the DTPA adopted by the Texas Supreme Court and its subordinate Texas state courts.

One would be hard-pressed to argue legitimately against the DTPA's policy purpose:  to protect consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices, unconscionable actions, and breaches of warranty.  However, the DTPA's application in real estate fraud cases has oft' reminded me of the old maxim: "the road to hell paved is with good intentions." 

For better or worse, since at least 2002, Texas courts have  rejected the argument that an individual cannot be held liable under the DTPA when he does not know the falsity of his representations.  Stated differently, the law in Texas provides for strict liability for misrepresentations, as follows:

“[A] DTPA claim does not require that the consumer prove the [defendant] acted knowingly or intentionally. The DTPA requires that the consumer show that the misrepresentation was false and that the false misrepresentation was the producing cause of the consumer's damages. A consumer is not required to prove intent to make a misrepresentation to recover under the DTPA."

Miller v. Keyser, 90 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Tex. 2002)(emphasis added). Moreover, "misrepresentations that may not be actionable under common law fraud may be actionable under the DTPA." Id.

In the context of a typical real estate dispute, DTPA claims are frequently asserted in connection with misrepresentation or failure to disclose (concealment) allegations. These allegations are usually made by a Buyer against the former Seller and/or that Seller's broker-agent. Often the DTPA is thrown-in as a "catch-all" allegation, when the real crux of the Plaintiff's claims sound in fraud or breach of contract. 

I have seen DTPA causes of action filed in cases relating to a given property's: a) suitability for a certain purpose; b)  zoning classification; c) propensity to flood; d) right of access to a water well; e) existence or non-existence of a foundation warranty; and f) access to a public roadway. The underlying representations were made innocently -- without knowledge of their falsehood, and in all of these instances, the Seller-Defendant (or that defendant's broker) asserted some variant of the defensive argument that they did not know that their representations were false at the time that they were made.  Because this defensive theory goes to intent, which is not a necessary element of proof for recovery under the DTPA (or any strict liability claim), it is usually unsuccessful.

Thus, where real estate representations (or misrepresentations) are concerned, a DTPA violation is usually much easier to prove than a fraud claim.  This is so because, in order to prevail on a fraud claim, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant knew (or should have known) of the falsehood of their representation at the time that such representation was made.  Proving 'intent to defraud' can be difficult because it requires some evidence of the state of mind or knowledge of the actor. By contrast, simple falsehood (however innocent) is the only showing required by the DTPA, and can usually be proven by circumstantial evidence without inquiry into an actor's knowledge or intent. 

DTPA claims are nebulous; and, thus, tough to defend.  For the Plaintiff they can be tough to prosecute because of various procedural requirements.  This is definitely one area in which having a knowledgeable lawyer can make a huge difference.

NOTE:  Section 17.49(i) of the Texas Business & Commerce Code exempts from the DTPA claims against TREC licensees arising from an act or omission by the person while acting as a broker or salesperson, except for claims arising from

(1)  an express misrepresentation of a material fact that cannot be characterized as advice, judgment, or opinion;

(2)  a failure to disclose information in violation of Section 17.46(b)(24); or

(3)  an unconscionable action or course of action that cannot be characterized as advice, judgment, or opinion.

When Is the Seller of Real Estate Liable for Misrepresentations Regarding Restrictions on Use?

As a San Antonio lawyer with an active real estate litigation practice, I'm often confronted with scenarios under which a Seller has assured a Buyer of real property that the property is acceptable for the Buyer's intended use.

There are all kinds of scenarios under which these types of representations are made. Some memorable situations I've encountered relate to use of residential property for commercial purposes, construction of certain facilities on the property, the right of the owner to maintain various animals (pit bulls and horses come to mind), and the existence or non-existence of restrictive covenants.

In some situations the Sellers are clearly misinformed or ignorant about whether the Buyer's proposed activities are permissible -- "Sure , you can use the property for anything you want!" These representations are often made without much thought or consideration of the consequences. Other times, Sellers or their agents knowingly make false representations for the purpose of inducing the Buyer to purchase the property. In both situations, Buyers frequently rely on these pre-sale representations to their own detriment.

I'm frequently asked to explain when the Seller liable for these types of misrepresentations about real estate, and when a Buyer be responsible for his own decision to rely on the Seller's representations.

The Answer to this question is not a simple one, and can differ significantly based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction and the property in question.

Under Texas caselaw, a very simplistic distinction and determination of liability is often tied to the following:

1. Whether the Seller knew facts that were unknown to the Buyer.
2. Whether the Buyer actually relied on the Seller's representations.
3. Whether the Buyer undertook an independent investigation (through inspection, examination, attorney review or even the purchase of a title policy) of facts that may have been covered by the Seller's representation.

The 3rd of these factors -- independent investigation -- is somewhat important. In the context of real estate sales in Texas when a seller makes an affirmative representation, the law imposes a duty upon the seller to know whether such a statement is true. First Title Co. of Waco v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.1993). However, when a Buyer undertakes his own investigation -- regardless of the result --the buyer's decision to undertake such an investigation indicates that he or she is not relying on the seller's representations about the property.

Even in these instances, however, Sellers can be liable for intentionally fraudulent representations, or for facts that could not have been discovered by the Buyer through his own investigation.

Another avenue of potential recovery for a duped Buyer lies with the persons or entities who participated in the Buyer's investigation -- title examiners, attorneys, real estate agents and others who should have but did not discover restrictions on the property's use. Reliance on a title committment issued by a title insurance company and/or on an opinion by an attorney are sometimes easier to prove than reliance on a Seller's representations about the property.

If you are the Buyer or Seller of real estate, you should be careful to fully examine all facts surrounding the property, to conduct a reasonable and diligent investigation, and to limit your affirmative representations to the opposing party. Both Buyers and Sellers of real property are encouraged to involve a licensed Texas attorney experienced in real estate transactions and disputes.