Opinion
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1972.
Ray A. Curran, Lakewood, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Richard D. Gilson, Denver, for defendants-appellants.
DWYER, Judge.
In February 1969, plaintiffs, William E. Willoughby and Marjorie M. Willoughby, sold their mountain home to defendants, Rogers M. Haid and Carole A. Haid. In part payment of the purchase price, defendants delivered to plaintiffs their promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the real estate. Defendants defaulted on their note, and, in March 1969, plaintiffs commenced this action to recover on their note. In their answer, defendants asserted counterclaims in which they alleged that they were induced to purchase the property by plaintiffs' false and fraudulent representations that the water supply for the property was adequate. Defendants sought to rescind the contract and, alternatively, to recover damages for deceit. The court tried the case without a jury, found in favor of plaintiffs on all issues, and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the note and against the defendants on their counterclaims.
The defendants' claims of error do not present any basis for reversal, and we therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court. Haid inspected the property prior to the sale. Willoughby showed Haid the water supply for the premises which consisted of a spring and a well. The spring water was used for irrigation and sanitary purposes, and the well supplied water for drinking and household purposes. On this occasion, Willoughby told Haid that the water supply was 'adequate,' and the defendants base their allegations of fraud on this statement. Defendants do not contend that any other representations were made, and they do not contend that any specific representations concerning the quantity or quality of the water were made.
At the trial, Willoughby testified that he had installed the well and pump in 1956 and had later added a cistern to the system. He further testified that he and his wife occupied the property from 1956 until the sale, and, during that time, they had found the water supply to be adequate. The defendants testified that the water system did not supply an adequate amount of water for their needs.
The question of whether plaintiffs' statement that the water supply was adequate was false and fraudulent under the circumstances surrounding the transaction was a question of fact to be determined by the trial court. Rubens v. Pember, 170 Colo. 182, 460 P.2d 803; Catron v. Kinghorn, 90 Colo. 520, 10 P.2d 953. The trial court resolved the factual issues in plaintiffs' favor. The findings of the trial court are not so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to compel a contrary determination, and, accordingly, they will not be disturbed. See Rubens v. Pember, supra; Howard v. International Trust Co., 139 Colo. 314, 338 P.2d 689, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 916, 80 S.Ct. 258, 4 L.Ed.2d 184.
Defendants also alleged in a separate counterclaim that they were entitled to recover damages for an alleged breach of an implied warranty that the water supply was adequate. The trial court found against defendants on this claim. The defendants' claim that the court was in error in so ruling is without merit.
Defendants also contend that the court did not make findings of fact which were sufficiently complete under C.R.C.P. 52(a) to support the judgments. The trial court's findings resolved the material and ultimate issues in sufficient detail so as to comply with C.R.C.P. 52(a). Rubens v. Pember, Supra.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur.