Background: The transaction involved an initial deposit of $300,000 and a second deposit of $200,000. The dispute centered on these deposits after the contract for purchase and sale was terminated.

Legal Arguments/Issues: Sewell argued that Abadian breached the contract by not disclosing non-conforming property aspects, made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations in the property disclosure statement, and failed to disclose a material latent defect. Abadian claimed he had disclosed the unpermitted addition via a text message and that there were no misrepresentations in the property disclosure statement. He also argued that the unpermitted addition was not a latent defect.

Held: The court found the case suitable for summary trial. It ruled that Abadian did not repudiate the contract as he provided the required information about the non-conforming aspect before the closing date. No fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation was found in the disclosure statement, which was part of the contract. The unpermitted addition did not constitute a latent defect that rendered the property uninhabitable or dangerous.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The court dismissed Sewell’s claim for the return of the $300,000 deposit and ordered her to pay Abadian $200,000 for the second deposit. Additionally, Abadian was entitled to pre-judgment interest and costs of the action, pending further court orders on submissions regarding interest and costs.