Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-25-2024

Case Style:

Juan Manuel Aguilar, et al. v. Suegundo A. Aponte Caceda, et al.

Case Number: 126,485

Judge: Laura H. Lewis

Court: District Court, Ford County, Kansas

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best Dodge City Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory



Defendant's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best Dodge City Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory



Description: Dodge City, Kansas personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendants.

On August 11, 2020, KDOT offered to pay the Apontes $63,605 to establish a right-of-way on property they owned along Highway 50 near Dodge City and to reimburse for damages that would occur during an impending highway expansion. The Apontes ultimately accepted the offer and signed a contract of conveyance on October 13, 2020. The total costs breakdown included: $7,800 for a .78-acre right-of-way, $15,000 for proximity damages, $2,045 for a split-rail fence, $30,600 for tree replacement, $6,780 for the lateral relocation, and $1,380 for four-wire fencing.

Shortly thereafter, the Apontes advertised the property for sale on Facebook. The Aguilars saw this advertisement on October 23, 2020, and arranged a viewing the next day. Rosario showed the Aguilars the property and explained "the City" would be expanding the highway soon and the Aguilars would not have to worry about paying for anything because "[t]he City will take care of it." According to the Aguilars, Rosario never mentioned the fact that KDOT had paid the Apontes for damages that would occur because of the highway expansion. Although the Aguilars admitted they were aware of the highway construction before the sale, they stated they would not have agreed to purchase the property had they known the extent of the construction and damages that would occur.

In any event, because they were interested in buying the property, the Aguilars left a $2,500 cash deposit with the Apontes. The Aguilars then applied for a mortgage loan with Golden Plains Credit Union, which required a home inspection and a real estate appraisal of the property. Before those occurred, on October 28, 2020, the Aguilars signed a contract to purchase the property for $278,900. The property description on the purchase contract listed only the address as "10530 W Highway 50, Dodge City KS."

Before closing on November 30, 2020, the parties signed an amendment to the purchase agreement to add the legal description for the property, as well as a disclaimer stating, "Buyers are aware that the sale of the home is EXCLUDING approximately .78 acres of the legal description mentioned above." The amendment also included a handwritten notation initialed by the parties stating, "Property is as is."

The Aguilars later learned about the agreement between KDOT and the Apontes when Nora contacted employees from Ford County in December 2020 to inquire about "the City" repairing the fence and lateral lines of the septic system. The Aguilars sued the Apontes, alleging they fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the property and breached the terms of the purchase contract by failing to disclose the payment from KDOT.

At trial, the Aguilars agreed that nobody from the title company or anyone else specifically mentioned the KDOT contract or the damages payment when they were buying the property. The Aguilars were aware of the highway construction but believed Rosario had told them everything they needed to know. The Aguilars admitted, however, that they knew they would not be buying the entire property because a portion would be used for the highway construction.

The Apontes, on the other hand, testified the Aguilars were fully aware they would not be receiving the .78-acre portion of the property acquired by KDOT and knew about the payments. They sent the KDOT documents to the title company so that the purchase contract and title work could be completed correctly. Segundo said he did not mention the damages and the KDOT payment to the Aguilars because at the time "that property was no longer part of it. That part of the property already belonged to the City." The Apontes testified that Rosario reduced the purchase price from $350,000 to account for KDOT's acquisition of the .78-acre tract and the money they had received from KDOT.

Michael Miller, the appraiser hired by Golden Plains, assessed the property on November 9, 2020. He said he was aware of the KDOT condemnation but did not believe any transactions had occurred because he found no quitclaim deeds in the county records. Golden Plains had not notified him about any contract involving KDOT. The Apontes' son-who was present during the appraisal-repeatedly said that "the Buyers had been told" about a portion of property being taken by KDOT for the highway construction. Miller appraised the property at $288,000, which reflected the "pre-condemnation" value because Miller assessed it "as of the effective date" based on what he could see and what was available in county records. Miller also stated the property was never worth $350,000 in its pre-condemnation condition by "any stretch of the imagination." Casey Rynerson completed the home inspection on November 10, 2020, but his inspection report also did not mention anything about KDOT repairing the lateral lines of the septic system, nor was Rynerson asked to determine how the property would be affected by the loss of the .78 acres.

At the end of the two-day bench trial, the district court found the Apontes committed fraud by silence "by failing to disclose the extent of the damages to the property from the highway expansion, and the payment for such damages by KDOT to the defendants." The court further set the amount of damages as "the amount of the damage payment received by the defendants from KDOT," and ordered the Apontes to pay the Aguilars $63,305.
Aguilar v. Caceda, 126,485 (Kan. App. Oct 25, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: