The moving party defendants, a real estate agent and his brokerage, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the responding party defendants, the purchasers in a failed real estate transaction.
The moving parties argued the crossclaim was barred by a full and final release signed by the purchasers in exchange for the return of their deposit.
The purchasers argued the defence of non est factum, claiming they did not understand the document due to language barriers and misrepresentation.
The court granted summary judgment, finding the release extended to the brokerage and that non est factum did not apply because the purchasers were careless in signing the document without reading it or seeking translation, and there was no misrepresentation.