Utah Supreme Court
What knowledge standard applies to fraudulent nondisclosure claims? Anderson v. Kriser Explained
Summary
The Andersons purchased a lot from Country Living Development employee Matthew Kriser and later discovered structural problems in their home caused by unstable soil. They sued Kriser for fraudulent nondisclosure, but failed to prove he had actual knowledge of a soil report indicating problematic conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment for Kriser, which the court of appeals affirmed.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Anderson v. Kriser, the Utah Supreme Court clarified a crucial evidentiary standard for fraudulent nondisclosure claims, holding that plaintiffs must prove defendants had actual knowledge of concealed information, not merely constructive knowledge.
Background and Facts
David and Kristine Anderson purchased an undeveloped lot from Country Living Development through employee Matthew Kriser. Unknown to the Andersons, Country Living had obtained a geotechnical soil report in 1997 indicating the presence of “slightly collapsible soils” throughout the development. Kriser testified he never saw the report. After building their home, the Andersons discovered structural problems including cracks in flooring and window frames caused by excessive settling from unstable soil. They sued Kriser for fraudulent nondisclosure, but the trial court granted summary judgment after finding no evidence that Kriser actually knew of the soil conditions.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether fraudulent nondisclosure requires proof of actual knowledge versus constructive knowledge of undisclosed information, and (2) whether developers have different disclosure duties than builder-contractors under Smith v. Frandsen.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that fraudulent nondisclosure is an intentional tort requiring proof that defendants had actual knowledge of concealed facts. The court distinguished this from negligent nondisclosure, which only requires showing defendants “should have known” the information. The court reasoned that allowing constructive knowledge to satisfy fraudulent nondisclosure claims would improperly convert negligent acts into fraudulent ones. Additionally, the court clarified that Smith v. Frandsen addressed only duties owed by developers to remote purchasers through intermediary developers, not direct purchaser relationships like the one in this case.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes a demanding evidentiary standard for fraudulent nondisclosure claims. Practitioners must gather concrete evidence of defendants’ actual awareness of concealed facts, such as testimony, documents, or communications demonstrating knowledge. Circumstantial evidence may support inferences of fraudulent intent, but only when actual knowledge is established. The ruling also clarifies that different disclosure duties may apply based on the relationship between developers, contractors, and purchasers.
Case Details
Case Name
Anderson v. Kriser
Citation
2011 UT 66
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20091032
Date Decided
October 25, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant had actual knowledge of undisclosed information to satisfy the second element of a fraudulent nondisclosure claim.
Standard of Review
Correctness (court of appeals decision reviewed on certiorari)
Practice Tip
When pursuing fraudulent nondisclosure claims, gather specific evidence that the defendant actually knew of the undisclosed information, as constructive knowledge or what the defendant ‘should have known’ is insufficient.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.