Peters v. Roza

Peters v. Roza

The seller could not warrant that the condominium corporation would not later approve a special assessment because the board had not made that decision at contract acceptance; the estoppel certificate did not show any assessment or default and the buyer had the responsibility to obtain and review such documentation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 NSSM 102
Parties
Claimant: Terry Peters; Defendant: Jopeph A. Roza; Defendant: Alison M. Gillis; Defendant: Francis F. Gillis; Defendant: Alice I. Gillis
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Special Assessment, Estoppel Certificate, Representations and Warranties, Duty to Inquire, Latent Defect
Source Language
english
Real Property Condominium Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Non Disclosure Special Assessment Estoppel Certificate Representations and Warranties +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Peters

Claimant

Jopeph A. Roza

Defendant

Alison M. Gillis

Defendant

Francis F. Gillis

Defendant

Alice I. Gillis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sellers failed to disclose a forthcoming special assessment and are liable for its cost
  2. 2 Whether the seller's contractual representation and warranty that no special assessments were contemplated binds the seller for assessments later approved by the condominium corporation
  3. 3 Whether the seller's solicitor had a duty to disclose the contents of the estoppel certificate to the purchaser

Ratio Decidendi

The seller could not warrant that the condominium corporation would not later approve a special assessment because the board had not made that decision at contract acceptance; the estoppel certificate did not show any assessment or default and the buyer had the responsibility to obtain and review such documentation and conduct inquiries or inspections, therefore the claim for the special assessment failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against the Defendants