Mike Otto (07272)

OTTO LAW, LLC

P.O. Box 981806
Park City, Utah 84098
Telephone: (435) 640-7221
Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiffs

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WASATCH COUNTY

STATE OF UTAH

)
ALEC WRIGHT, an individual, and ) COMPLAINT
TARYN WRIGHT, an individual, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. _________________
v. )
) Judge ____________________
KOURI RICHINS, an individual, and K. )
RICHINS REALTY, LLC, a Utah limited )
liability company, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
) Tier III
)
)
) JURY DEMANDED
)

Alec Wright and Taryn Wright (“Plaintiffs”) through their counsel of record complain

against Kouri Richins and K. Richins Realty. LLC (“Defendants” collectively herein), alleging

as follows:

1
 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Kouri Richins is an individual residing in Summit County, Utah and the sole

member, managing member and principal of K. Richins Realty, LLC.

2. K. Richins Realty, LLC is a Utah limited liability company organized on or about

April 26, 2019. Kouri Richins is its principal and sole member. She is a real estate agent

licensed in Utah and has been since before 2020.

3. Alec Wright is an individual residing in a one-story 1,965 square foot single-family

residence with a basement (the “Residence” herein) located at 550 East 550 North, Heber, City,

Wasatch County, Utah 84032 (the “Property” herein). Alec Wright is the husband of the

plaintiff Taryn Wright.

4. Taryn Wright is an individual residing at the Property and is the wife of the plaintiff

Alec Wright.

5. Plaintiffs are the biological and legal parents of three (3) minor children: “ESW,”

“LSW” and “AWW.”

6. Plaintiffs are the joint legal and equitable owners of the Property.

7. Plaintiffs purchased the Property from Defendants in January 2020 pursuant to a

Real Estate Purchase Contract (“REPC” herein) that the parties signed in December 2019 and

that incorporated a sworn Seller’s Property Condition Disclosure dated October 17, 2019. This

case seeks to enforce Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property under the REPC.

8. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and ca uses of action set forth herein

pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78A-5-102. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to Utah Code

Ann. §§ 78B-3-301(1), 78B-3-304(1) and 78B-3-307(1).

2
 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Before 2019, Val Maynard was the legal owner of the Property.

10. In 2019, Val Maynard sold the Property to Defendants Kouri Richins individually

and/or K. Richins Realty, LLC.

11. Defendants were the legal and equitable owners of the Property from 2019 until they

sold it to Plaintiffs in January 2020.

12. Defendants listed the Property for sale before October 17, 2019.

13. On or about October 17, 2019, a Seller’s Property Condition Disclosure (“Property

Disclosure” herein) specific to the Property was made with Defendant “K. Richins Realty” listed

as “Seller” and that Defendant Kouri Richins signed. The Property Disclosure listed “Elite

Choice Real Estate” as Seller’s Brokerage and as the “Company” referred to therein.

14. Defendant Kouri Richins’ signature to the Property Disclosure was verified.

15. Defendant Kouri Richins’ verified signature to the Property Disclosure was not

made in a designated representative capacity for Defendant K. Richins Real Estate or any other

entity. Defendant Kouri Richins accordingly by default and under Utah law signed the Property

Disclosure individually and under oath.

16. The Property Disclosure stated (upper case lettering in original; emphases supplied):

SELLER IS OBLIGATED UNDER LAW, REGARDLESS OF OCCUPANCY, TO

DISCLOSE TO BUYERS DEFECTS IN THE PROPERTY AND FACTS KNOWN TO
SELLER THAT MATERIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USE AND
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THAT CANNOT BE DISCOVERED BY A
REASONABLE INSPECTION BY AN ORDINARY PRUDENT BUYER. This
disclosure form is designed to assist Seller in complying with these disclosure
requirements. Please thoroughly disclose your actual knowledge regarding the
condition of the Property. The Company, other real estate agents and buyers will
rely on this disclosure form.

*****
3
 Please be specific when describing any past or present problems, malfunctions or
Defects (location, nature of problem, etc.). Use an additional addendum if necessary.

17. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s question “How long has the

Seller owned the Property?” represented “2 months.”

18. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “[H]ave you

remodeled, made any room additions, made structural modifications or other alterations or

improvements to the Property?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your knowledge, the nature of

any such remodel/alteration work” represented “county approved and licensed contractors.

Given at possession.”

19. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “Are you aware of

any past or present leaks in the roof?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your knowledge, the

nature and location of any past or present leaks” represented “No.”

20. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “Other than leaks, are

you aware of any past or present problems or defects with the roof, for example, structural

issues, dry rot, moisture and/or ice damage, etc?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your

knowledge, the nature and location of any past or present defects in the roof” represented “No.”

21. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “Has all or any

portion of the roof been rea[aired or replaced during your ownership?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please

describe, to your knowledge, the nature of any roof repairs or replacements” represented “Yes”

but did not provide any description of any roof repairs or replacements.

22. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “Has all or any

portion of the roof been rea[aired or replaced during your ownership?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please

4
describe, to your knowledge, the nature of any roof repairs or replacements” represented “Yes”

but did not provide any description of any roof repairs or replacements.

23. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “To your knowledge,

are there any written warranties presently in place for the roof?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please attach

copies of any warranties in your possession” represented “Yes” but did not provide any copy of

any roof warranty. They instead wrote “Given at possession {sic}.”

24. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “With the exception

of any occasional mold and mildew accumulating in bathroom shower, tub and sink area, are you

aware of any past or present mold on walls ceilings, floors, or any other interior portion of the

Property?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your knowledge, the nature and location of any such

mold” represented “No.”

25. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “Have you had the

Property inspected for the existence of any mold?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your

knowledge, the results of the inspection, and attach copies of any inspection records in your

possession” represented “No.”

26. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “In reference to the

basement and/or crawlspace, are you aware of any past or present water leakage, water

accumulation or dampness?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your knowledge, the nature of any

such water leakage, accumulation or dampness” represented “No.”

27. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “Are you aware of

any past or present water or moisture-related damage caused by: flooding; lot drainage; moisture

seepage or condensation; leakage; sewer overflow/backup; leaking or broken pipes; pipe fittings;

or plumbing fixtures; or leaking appliances, fixtures, or equipment?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please
5
describe, to your knowledge, the nature and location of any such water or moisture-related

damage” represented “No.”

28. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s request to “Please describe, to

your knowledge, any attempts to repair any moisture-related damage and/or prevent any

recurrence of water and moisture-related problems to the Property” responded “No.”

29. Defendants in response to the Property Disclosure’s questions “With the exception

of methamphetamines . . . are you aware of any past or present hazardous conditions, substances,

or materials on the Property . . . ?” and “If ‘Yes,’ please describe, to your knowledge, the nature

of any such hazardous conditions” represented “No.”

30. Defendants represented through their verified Property Disclosure that they prepared

it and the information contained therein was accurate and complete to the best of their actual

knowledge on the date they signed it. Defendants further represented through their verified

Property Disclosure that they understood and agreed to update the Property Disclosure if any of

that information became inaccurate or incorrect in any way.

31. In December 2019 Plaintiffs and Defendants signed the REPC.

32. The REPC listed Plaintiffs as the Property’s Buyers and Defendant K. Richins

Realty as its Seller.

33. Defendant Kouri Richins’ signed the REPC.

34. Defendant Kouri Richins’ signature to the REPC was not made in a designated

representative capacity for Defendant K. Richins Real Estate or any other entity. Defendant

Kouri Richins accordingly signed the REPC individually.

35. The REPC specified as part of Plaintiffs’ due diligence their review and approval of

the Property Disclosure “and any other tests, evaluations and verifications of the Property
6
deemed necessary or appropriate by Buyer, such as the physical condition of the Property, the

existence of any hazardous substances, environmental issues or geologic conditions, the

condition of the roof, walls, and foundation; [and] the condition of the plumbing, electrical,

mechanical, heating and air conditioning systems and fixtures . . ..”

36. Defendants as Seller under the REPC represented that they:

Acknowledge and agree that in reference to the physical condition of the Property,
Seller agrees to (a) disclose to writing to Buyer defects in the Property known to Seller
that materially affect the value of the Property that cannot be discovered by a reasonable
inspection by an ordinary prudent Buyer; [and] (b) carefully review, complete, and
provide to Buyer a written Seller property condition disclosure . . ..

37. The REPC specifies that it and its addenda made the complete contract between

Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the Property and the REPC and its addenda could be

modified only in writing signed by Plaintiffs and Defendants.

38. The REPC provided: “In the event of litigation or binding arbitration arising out of

the transaction contemplated by the REPC, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs and

reasonable attorney fees . . .. This contract shall be governed by and construed by the laws of the

state of Utah.”

39. Plaintiffs closed on their purchase of the Property in January 2020.

40. Defendants never provided Plaintiffs with the roof warranty that Defendants

represented through the Property Disclosure and REPC would be provided upon delivering

possession of the Property.

41. Defendants never provided Plaintiffs any permits or other documentation of any

work that the “county approved and licensed contractors” that Defendants referenced in the

Property Disclosure, despite Defendants’ representation that these materials would be “Given at

possession {sic}.”
7
 42. In January 2021, the main water line into the single-family residence on the Property

started leaking from corroded copper piping under the stairs, flooding that area and a portion of

front left basement bedroom. Plaintiffs paid third-party contractors who repaired and replaced the

corroded piping.

43. During the spring of 2021, Plaintiffs noticed water accumulation on both floors of the

Residence, particularly after rain.

44. In August 2021 Plaintiffs discovered mold growing out of the walls in a basement

bedroom that their minor son occupied. Plaintiffs retained Peak Restoration, whose agents did not

find any cracks in the foundation of the single-family residence on the Property where water

would have entered.

45. In the fall of 2021 a licensed contractor removed some of the drywall in the flooded

basement bedroom to investigate where water was coming into the Residence. Plaintiffs

determined that water was leaking through new windows in the basement that had not been

properly installed properly. Plaintiffs ordered new windows. Due to the COVID pandemic the

windows were back ordered and Plaintiffs were not able to get them installed until February 2022.

46. In early March of 2022 the drywall in the basement bedroom in which Plaintiffs

found mold was repaired and replaced. Plaintiffs’ minor son began using that bedroom again.

47. After March of 2022 Plaintiffs again found mold growing from the walls of their

minor son’s same basement bedroom. The Residence also continued to take on water that

manifested again through more water accumulations, particularly after rain.

48. Plaintiffs contacted Holliman Siding, figuring that the Residence’s siding might be

causing the water accumulations in the Residence that generally followed rain.

8
 49. Agents of Holliman Siding visited the Property in late August 2022. They determined

that the roof of the Residence was rotting on the sides, which in turn had caused the attached soffit

and fascia to come apart along the roof’s sides. Water entered the Residence through the

compromised soffit and fascia, particularly during and after rain. Agents of Holliman Siding and

Plaintiffs also found not fewer than three (3) holes in the roof itself through which water also

entered the Residence and also particularly during and after rain.

50. After Plaintiffs identified the defects in the roof of the Residence and its attached

soffit and fascia, Plaintiffs asked Defendants for the written roof warranty that Defendants

represented under oath in their Property Disclosure would be delivered to Plaintiffs’ upon them

taking possession.

51. As of the date of this Complaint, neither Defendant has produced the written roof

warranty or any other materials concerning the roof of the Residence. Neither Defendant has

responded to Plaintiffs’ repeated requests that Defendants provide the roof warranty whose

existence they represented under oath and that they promised under oath to provide Plaintiffs.

52. Also in August 2022, agents of Precision Home Inspections in Salt Lake City visited

the Property and took samples of the air inside the Residence.

53. Tests on the samples that agents of Precision Home Inspection took from the

Residence confirm hazardous levels of aspergillus/penicillium in the southeast basement bedroom,

basement bathroom and furnace room of the Residence.

54. Tests on the samples that agents of Precision Home Inspection took from the

Residence confirm hazardous levels of arthrinium in the southeast basement bedroom, basement

bathroom and furnace room of the Residence.

9
 55. Tests on the samples that agents of Precision Home Inspection took from the

Residence confirm hazardous levels of basidiospores in the southeast basement bedroom and

basement bathroom of the Residence.

56. In September 2022, more samples of the dust that had settled lower in the Residence

were taken. Tests on those samples confirm hazardous levels of aspergillus versicolor,

aspergillus penicillioids and wallemia sebi inside the Residence.

57. Aspergillus/penicillium, arthrinium, basidiospores, aspergillus versicolor, aspergillus

penicillioids and wallemia sebi are all species of toxic mold and/or its spores.

58. Aspergillus/penicillium, arthrinium, basidiospores, aspergillus versicolor, aspergillus

penicillioids and wallemia sebi are toxic to humans.

58. Aspergillus/penicillium, arthrinium, basidiospores, aspergillus versicolor, aspergillus

penicillioids and wallemia sebi damage or threaten damage to humans’ respiratory, neurological

and cardiological systems.

59. Mold and mold spores have spread throughout the Residence, pervading and/or

settling on without limitation its drywall, structural wood framing, door and window frames,

flooring, carpets, appliances, fixtures and furniture.

60. The mold and mold spores that pervade the Residence also pervade the air that

that Plaintiffs and their minor children breathe, their clothing and their other personal property.

61. Plaintiffs and their minor children moved out of the Residence in August 2022.

62. Plaintiffs have incurred expenses for temporary lodging for themselves and their

minor children, along with expenses for eating out when that temporary lodging impact their

ability prepare meals, medical treatment spawned by contact with mold and mold spores and to

replace infested and infected clothing and personal property.

10
 63. A third test for mold levels in the Residence will be taken in December 2022.

64. Also in August 2022 and after Plaintiffs identified the defects in the roof, soffit and

fascia and Defendants’ repeated failures to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for the roof warranty,

Plaintiffs contacted Val Maynard.

65. When Val Maynard sold the Property to Defendants, the downstairs plumbing of the

Residence could not be used due to leaking and constant water damage. The spigot/faucet from

the Residence to its back yard leaked water back into the Residence whenever it was used. This

was a direct cause of the water accumulation in the basement of the Residence, particularly in the

bedroom of Plaintiffs’ minor son.

66. In approximately 2007 the tar and gravel roof of the Residence cracked down the

center, allowing water to run down the center of the Residence and travel down its interior walls

whenever it rained. Mr. Maynard eventually replaced the roof with a new membrane roof, which

also the warranty referenced in Defendants’ Property Disclosure.

67. Mr. Maynard fully disclosed to Defendants before they purchased the Property that

i) the downstairs plumbing of the Residence could not be used due to leaking and constant water

damage; ii) he spigot/faucet from the Residence to its back yard leaked water back into the

Residence whenever it was used; and iii) this was a direct cause of the water accumulation in the

basement of the Residence.

68. Mr. Maynard also fully disclosed to Defendants before they purchased the Property

that i) in approximately 2007 the tar and gravel roof of the Residence cracked down the center,

allowing water to run down the center of the Residence and travel down its interior walls

whenever it rained; and ii) Mr. Maynard eventually replaced the roof with a new membrane roof,

which also carried the warranty referenced in Defendants’ Property Disclosure.

11
 69. Water damage from the protracted intrusion and accumulation of water into the

Residence through its roof have damaged the fundamental structural components of the

Residence, including without limitation its wooden framing, door frames, window frames,

flooring and drywall.

70. The protracted intrusion and accumulation of water into the Residence also allowed

and caused the mold and mold spores that pervade the Residence drywall, structural wood

framing, door and window frames, flooring, carpets, appliances, fixtures and furniture.

71. No “county approved” work was done to improve the Property while Defendants

owned it, as referenced in their sworn Property Disclosure.

72.. No “licensed contractors” performed any work to improve the Property while

Defendants owned it, as referenced in their sworn Property Disclosure.

73. Defendants did not secure or “pull” any permits for any work done to improve the

Property while Defendants owned it.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract

74. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege the allegations made in paragraphs 1 – 73.

75. The REPC is a valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiffs as the Property’s

Buyer and Defendants as its Seller.

76. Defendants’ Property Disclosure made under oath is also valid and enforceable

against Defendants.

77. The REPC incorporates Defendants’ Property Disclosure, which is turn part of the

REPC and the bargain between the parties concerning the Property.

12
 78. Defendants’ representations in their sworn Property Disclosure and the REPC were

material to the bargain concerning the Property that Defendants made with Plaintiffs.

79. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ material misrepresentation that there

were no defects in the Property’s plumbing and pipes, which defects materially affect the

Property and its value.

80. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on sworn Defendants’ material failure to disclose the

water accumulation within the Residence or its basement that materially affects the Property and

its value.

81. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on sworn Defendants’ material failure to disclose that

the Property’s defective plumbing and piping contributed to the water accumulation in the

Residence and its basement.

82. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ material failure to disclose that mold

pervaded the Residence and/or its interior walls, the presence of which materially affects the

Property or its value.

83. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ material failure to disclose mold as a

hazardous condition to the occupants of the Residence, including without limitation Plaintiffs

and their minor children.

84. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ material failure to the defects and

deficient repairs to the roof of the Residence.

85. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ material representations that i) there

is/was a written warranty on the roof of the Residence; and ii) Defendants would provide it to

Plaintiffs when they closed on the Property.

13
 86. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ material representations that i) “county

approved and licensed contractors” had performed work improving the Property; ii) some

documentation of said alleged work making said alleged improvements would be “Given at

possession,” per Defendants’ sworn Property Disclosure; and iii) all permits from Heber City

and/or Wasatch County to perform any work making any improvements to the Property were

obtained or obtained or “pulled.”

87. Defendants’ sworn representations about the Property’s condition and the defects set

forth in ¶¶ 18 – 29 and 36 were material inducements to Plaintiffs entering into the REPC, their

due diligence and closing on their purchase of the Property.

88. Defendants made their sworn representations and omissions about the Property’s

condition specifically to induce Plaintiffs to buy the Property in the condition that Defendants

represented and misrepresented.

89. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants’ sworn representations in their sworn Property

Disclosure was reasonable under the circumstances, including without limitation the “four

corners’ of the Property Disclosure and the REPC.

90. Defendants knew the truth about the Property’s condition and the material defects

that materially affect its value set forth in ¶¶ 18 – 29 and 36 when they made their sworn

Property Disclosure and the REPC.

91. The material defects that materially affect the Property and its value set forth in

¶¶ 18 – 29 were latent, not patent. A buyer exercising ordinary prudence would not have

discovered them, particularly given Defendants’ sworn representations and omissions in their

sworn Property Disclosure and REPC incorporating it.

14
 92. Defendants made their sworn material representations and omissions concerning the

Property’s condition that materially affected its value to induce Plaintiffs to not further

investigate the features of the Property covered by Defendants’ sworn material representations

and omissions.

93. Plaintiffs in reliance on Defendants’ sworn material representations and omissions

concerning the Property did not discover the latent defects described above that an ordinary

buyer would not have discovered through ordinary diligence.

94. Plaintiffs’ due diligence before closing on their purchase of the Property was

reasonable under the circumstances, including without limitation Defendants’ sworn material

representations and omissions about the Property that materially affected its value.

95. Plaintiffs fully performed their obligations under their agreement with the

Greenwood Firm and in their end of their attorney-client relationship with the Greenwood Firm,

its lawyers who were Plaintiffs’ counsel of record in the Underlying Case and the lawyer(s)

responsible for supervising their work on it, including Attorney Greenwood.

96. Plaintiffs suffered monetary damages as a direct and proximate result of the

breaches of the REPC and Defendants’ sworn Property Disclosure that it incorporated. These

damages include without limitation:

i) repairing or replacing the Residence’s drywall, structural wood framing, door and

window frames, flooring, carpets, appliances, fixtures and furniture;

ii) costs for temporary lodging for Plaintiffs and their minor children, along with

expenses for eating out when that temporary lodging impacts their ability prepare meals, medical

treatment spawned by contact with mold and mold spores and to replace infested and infected

clothing and personal property;

15
 iii) costs to replace appliances, fixtures, furniture, clothing, household articles and other

personal property that he been infested with mold and/or mold spores;

iv) replacing the Residence and/or the Property at rates prevailing in the Heber City

market in the event they cannot be made safe and habitable for Plaintiffs and their minor

children;

v) costs incurred to have medical professional diagnose and treat Plaintiffs and their

minor children for various maladies caused by their protracted exposure to the mold and mold

spores in the Residence; and

vi) Plaintiffs’ costs and attorney fees.

97. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants these general, consequential and

compensatory damages proximately caused by Defendants’ material breaches of the REPC and

their sworn Property Disclosure that it incorporated, including without limitation their costs and

reasonable attorneys’ fees as the prevailing parties to enforce the REPC, as per the REPC itself.

98. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages jointly and severally from Defendant

Kouri Richins.

99. Defendants are each other’s alter ego. There is no division between Defendants and

their assets, including without limitation the Property and Defendants’ representations of being

its Seller and the Seller’s realtor. Defendants otherwise operate as one hybrid alter ego entity

through Defendant K. Richins Realty and its bank accounts. Defendant K. Richins Realty does

not observe corporate formalities or distinction between it and Defendant Kouri Richins.

Defendants’ assets, finances, representative authority to act for the other and daily operations are

commingled and intertwined. It would be unjust and inequitable for Defendants to be further

afforded the traditional distinctions between entity and principal that Defendants do not observe.
16
 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

100. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege the allegations made in paragraphs 1 – 99.

101. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in all contracts,

including the REPC.

102. Defendants were obligated under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

to discharge their duties and perform their representation in good faith and in such a way as to

avoid injuring Plaintiffs or impairing their ability to receive the benefits of the REPC.

103. Defendants had contractual obligations and obligations under the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing implied to the REPC to, without limitation, disclose to Plaintiffs the

material defects to the Property described in ¶¶ 18 – 29.

104. Defendants materially breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied

to the REPC by, without limitation, failing to disclose to Plaintiffs the material defects to the

Property, as described in ¶¶ 18 – 29 and 36.

105. Defendants otherwise materially breached the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing implied to the REPC through their material breaches of the REPC described above.

106. Plaintiffs suffered the damages set forth in ¶ 96 above as a direct and proximate

result of the breaches of the REPC and Defendants’ sworn Property Disclosure that it

incorporated

107. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants these general, compensatory and

consequential damages proximately caused by Defendants’ material breaches of the REPC and

their sworn Property Disclosure that it incorporated.

17
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

108. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege the allegations made in paragraphs 1 – 107.

109. Defendants’ sworn material misrepresentations and omissions described in

¶¶ ¶¶ 18 – 29 and 36 and otherwise above were about important facts affecting the Property, its

value and its habitability.

110. Defendants made the sworn material misrepresentations and omissions described

herein about important facts affecting the Property, its value and its habitability knowing that

those misrepresentations and omissions were false and/or misleading.

111. In the alternative, Defendants made the sworn material misrepresentations and

omissions described herein about important facts affecting the Property, its value and its

habitability recklessly and without regard for its truth.

112. Defendants intended that Plaintiffs would rely on Defendants’ sworn material

misrepresentations and omissions and Plaintiffs reasonably relied on them.

113. Defendants’ material sworn omissions concerning the Property, the work done to

improve it while Defendants owned it and the documentation for/of any such work constitute

Defendants’ failure to disclose important material facts that i) Defendants knew; ii) but failed to

disclose to Plaintiffs; and iii) of which Plaintiffs were not aware.

114. Defendants’ failures to disclose and provide material information was a substantial

factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer monetary damages.

115. Plaintiffs suffered the damages set forth in ¶ 96 as a direct and proximate result of

the breaches of their reasonable reliance on Defendants’ sworn material misrepresentations and

omissions about the Property.

18
 116. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants these general, compensatory and
consequential damages proximately caused by Defendants’ material breaches of the REPC and

their sworn Property Disclosure that it incorporated.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

On their First, Second and Third Causes of Action, individually and/or collectively:

A. Plaintiffs’ general, compensatory and consequential damages set forth above in

general and particularly in ¶ 96 in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event not less than

$1,000,000.00;

B. Pre-judgment interest on the foregoing awards as imposed under Utah law; and

C. Such other relief in law and/or equity that the court or the jury award to Plaintiffs.

TIER III DESIGNATION AND JURY DEMAND

This is a Tier III case under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Plaintiffs seeking

damages of over $350,000. Plaintiffs exercise their right to a jury trial of this civil

case and have paid the required jury fee along with the filing fee for this Complaint.

DATED November 15, 2022.

_/s/ Mike Otto________________

Attorney for Plaintiffs

19