Under Georgia law, misrepresentation of or failure to disclose the zoning on property for sale cannot serve as a basis for a fraud action.1 The main issue in this case is whether John and Beverly Howard, an elderly couple who purchased a piece of property for their mobile home, can avoid the effect of this law. A related issue is whether the Howards presented any evidence that they developed a confidential relationship with Linda Barron, one of the sellers and also the real estate agent for the transaction. The Howards sued Barron and her husband for fraud and breach of a confidential or fiduciary relationship, and the case went to trial before a jury. After the Howards rested their case, the trial court granted the Barrons’ motion for a directed verdict, and the Howards appeal. “A directed verdict is authorized only when there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Carden v. Burckhalter, 214 Ga. App. 487, 488 1 b 448 SE2d 251 1994. On appeal, we conduct a de novo review and will uphold the grant of a directed verdict only if all the evidence demands it. Id.
The evidence presented at trial shows that Linda Barron and her husband owned a 9.785 acre tract of land in Bartow County on which they resided for about six years. Linda Barron was a licensed real estate agent, and she knew that the property was zoned A1-Agricultural and that the zoning required a minimum five-acre tract for each home. At one point, their daughter also resided on the property in a separate mobile home, and Barron was aware that her daughter had sought and received a “kinship” exception from the county zoning administrator to allow placement of a second home on the property. Before the relevant events, the daughter moved away and removed the mobile home.
