DM Residential Fund II, LLC v. First Tennessee Bank National Ass'n

I agree with the majority that DM was entitled to go to the jury with its claim that it couldn’t have discovered the hidden defect prior to buying the property. Maj. at 877. Moreover, as the majority correctly notes, FTB was bound to disclose the hidden defect of which it was aware at the time of the sale “because a foreclosing lender has the same duties of disclosure regarding the property as any other seller.” Id. at 877 (citing Karoutas v. Ho-meFed Bank, 232 Cal.App.3d 767, 771, 283 Cal.Rptr. 809 (1991)). Nor is there any doubt that DM brought the lawsuit well within both the three-year…