In Geernaert v. Mitchell, 31 Cal. App. 4th 601, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483 (1995), the fourth owners of a residential property sued the previous owners for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiffs alleged that the first two owners (or one of them) had fraudulently concealed, and also made misrepresentations about, the existence of defective subsurface soil conditions on the property. The lower court dismissed the suit against the prior owners on the ground that neither one owed a legal duty to the plaintiffs. The appellate court reversed. Noting that the standard for imposing liability under section 531 of the RESTATEMENT is more than mere "foreseeability," the court quoted commented, as follows: "Virtually any misrepresentation is capable of being transmitted or repeated to third persons, and if sufficiently convincing may create an obvious risk that they may act in reliance upon it. . . . This risk is not enough for the liability covered in this Section. The maker of the misrepresentation must have information that would lead a reasonable man to conclude that there is an especial likelihood that it will reach those persons and will influence their conduct." Id. at 607. The Geernaert court held that, for a seller of real property to be liable for pecuniary loss caused by fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation, it is not sufficient that it merely is foreseeable that his concealment or misrepresentation will be passed on to subsequent purchasers. The seller must have special reason to expect that the concealment or misrepresentation will be passed on to, and relied upon by, the subsequent purchaser. "With each intervening resale and with each passing year between the occurrence of the original fraud and the lawsuit," that will be more difficult to prove. Id. at 608. For that reason, the plaintiff must allege "ultimate facts showing that the defendant intended or had reason to expect reliance by the plaintiff or the class of persons of which he is a member." Id. The court concluded that the subsequent purchaser's allegations were legally sufficient and therefore the question whether the owner had special reason to expect that his fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment would be passed on to and relied upon by a subsequent purchaser was one of fact. Id. at 608-09. In short, the complaint alleged that each successive owner misrepresented or failed to disclose the known problems with the property and that each successive owner intended or expected that the misrepresentations or nondisclosures would be transmitted to the next buyer. The court determined that these ultimate facts supported a cause of action under the indirect deception theory. (31 Cal.App.4th at p. 608.)