# Sitter v. Warner

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 16, 2007 · 961 So. 2d 1258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7789687

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Shane SITTER and Rachel Allison Sitter v. Michael Sean WARNER, Jacqueline Elaine Mann Warner, Shirley Davis, Era World Real Estate, Inc. & The Board of Commissioners of The Bossier Levee District
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** May 16, 2007
- **Citations:** 961 So. 2d 1258; 2007 La. App. LEXIS 1021; 2007 WL 1427475
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Caraway, Gaskins, Moore, Peatross
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7789687

## Opinion text

BROWN, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
11 Although the majority opinion recognized that the report of the civil engineer, dated October 26, 2000, recommended additional work because the house was on fill material which had settled about one inch, the opinion did not consider the engineer’s recommendation in finding that a sufficient disclosure was provided. Nine days before the report the buyers submitted a written offer, and two days after the report the sellers agreed to the offer. The buyers then signed the property condition disclosure statement as originally written, i.e., foundation “unknown.” On October 30, 2000, five days after the engineer’s report the sale was closed. There is nothing in this record to show that the additional work was done.
The alleged verbal disclosure between the real estate agents was that the “crack” was fixed, meaning the crack as stated in the July 2000 disclosure statement. According to the deposition of the seller’s realtor, Shirley Davis, no particulars of what was done or what was left to be done was disclosed — just that it (crack) was fixed.
Eight months after the closing, Interstate Foundation came back out and found that the house had settled and was in the same condition as when Interstate first inspected the house for the builder in August of 2000. Obviously, the additional work had not been completed.
The substantial work that had been done and still needed to be done should have been clearly disclosed. There are material fact questions, and summary judgment was not appropriate.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7789687. Public record. Not legal advice.