The Ohio Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's ruling that requires home sellers to disclose known flooding issues when selling their property. This decision affects homeowners and potential buyers in Ohio, emphasizing the importance of transparency in real estate transactions.

The case, Drumm v. Lewis (2025 CA 00095), involved William and Anita Drumm, who purchased a home from Michael and Venda Lewis in August 2021. The Drumms claimed they were unaware of significant flooding issues in the backyard, which the Lewises did not disclose during the sale. The ruling highlights the legal responsibilities of sellers regarding property disclosures.

The dispute arose when the Drumms experienced extensive flooding in their backyard shortly after moving into the home. They alleged that the Lewises had failed to disclose this issue on the required property disclosure form, which is mandated by Ohio law. The Drumms filed a lawsuit against the Lewises for breach of contract and fraud, leading to the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Drumms.

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge David Gormley, reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that the Lewises had a duty to disclose the flooding issue, stating, "The flooding issue was a defect or problem that should have been disclosed by the sellers on the property-disclosure form." The judges concluded that the sellers' failure to disclose the flooding constituted both a breach of contract and fraud.

The trial court had previously awarded the Drumms $7,605 in compensatory damages and an additional $7,605 in punitive damages. The Drumms sought more damages, arguing that the amount was insufficient, while the Lewises contended it was too high. However, the appellate court agreed with the trial court's assessment and affirmed the damage award.

The ruling emphasizes the legal obligations of sellers in Ohio to disclose material defects related to the physical condition of a property. According to Ohio law, sellers must provide a completed property-disclosure form that accurately reflects any known issues. The court noted that the sellers had previously experienced flooding in their backyard and had even contacted local authorities about drainage improvements before selling the home.

The court's decision also addressed the implications of the "as is" clause often included in real estate contracts. While such clauses typically limit the seller's liability for undisclosed defects, the court clarified that they do not protect sellers from liability for fraudulent misrepresentations made on property disclosure forms.

The ruling sets a precedent for future real estate transactions in Ohio, reinforcing the importance of transparency and honesty in property sales. Buyers can now expect that sellers will be held accountable for disclosing known issues that could affect the property's value or usability.

Looking ahead, the ruling in Drumm v. Lewis may encourage potential buyers to conduct thorough inspections and demand full disclosure from sellers. It also serves as a reminder for sellers to be diligent in their disclosures to avoid legal repercussions.

As for the Lewises, they have the option to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, but it remains unclear if they will pursue that route. The outcome of this case may influence similar disputes in the future, as it underscores the legal responsibilities of sellers in real estate transactions.