BLAESER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MARTIN COUNTY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Blaeser Development sued First Federal Savings and Loan for fraud and deceit. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant after finding the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that fraud must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence (greater weight of the evidence).
The court held that fraud and deceit must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (greater weight of the evidence), not by the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in granting the directed verdict.
[1] Fraud and deceit must be established by the greater weight of the evidence.
[2] A directed verdict is improper when the trial court applies a higher burden of proof than required by law.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that only a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is required to establish fraud, whether the action is at law or in equity.”
The controlling standard for proving fraud, established by the Florida Supreme Court in Bigot v. Bucci and relied upon by the appellate court to reverse the directed verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlaeser Development Corporation brought an action against First Federal Savings and Loan Association seeking compensatory and punitive damages based o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof For Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
Appellant sought compensatory and punitive damages from appellee in an action based upon fraud and deceit. At the conclusion of a jury trial the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of appellee, finding that appellant had failed to present a prima facie case under a burden of proof requiring clear and convincing evidence to establish fraud and deceit. In doing so, the Court stated that appellant had met its burden if the test were a preponderance of the evidence.
The sole issue on appeal is whether fraud and deceit must be established by clear and convincing evidence or if the standard is one of “the greater weight of the evidence." We find the applicable test to be “greater weight of the evidence” and reverse.
In 1971, Justice Adkins, speaking for the Supreme Court in Bigot v. Bucci, 245 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1971) seemed to settle this issue once and for all when he stated:
“We hold that only a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is required to establish fraud, whether the action is at law or in equity. See 37 C.J.S. Fraud § 114; 37 Am.Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit, §§ 468, 469.”
The opinion went on to overrule “those cases holding that allegations of fraud, in law or equity, must be proved by at least ‘clear and convincing evidence’ . . . .”
Unfortunately, those cases which were overruled by Rigot were not cited by name because Rigot was apparently overlooked when Justice Sundberg, by obiter dictum, in Canal Authority v. Ocala Mfg. Ice and Packing Co., 332 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1976), stated: “It is rudimentary that proof of fraud must be by clear and convincing evidence.” The holding in Rigot and the gratuitous statement in Canal Authority are simply irreconcilable. Embarrassing though it may be, particularly for this author who concurred in Justice Sundberg’s opinion, we find Rigot to be controlling. That was the holding of that case; the statement in Canal Authority added nothing to the conclusion reached.
The burden of proving fraud and deceit is by the greater weight of the evidence. The trial court having held the appellant to a higher burden in granting the directed verdict, this cause must be reversed for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, J., and MOIE J. L. TEND-RICH, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 450 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…on v. Quinn, 435 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sprayberry v. Sheffield Auto & Truck Service, 422 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review dismissed, 427 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1983); Blaeser Development Corp. v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 375 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, Inc., 358 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Harrell v. Branson, 344 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1977); Pender v. Hatcher, 303 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA ,1974); the c…
-
Arnaldo Fernandez Batista & Rock & Fill Corp. v. Walter & Bernstein, P.A., 378 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…d that “only a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is required to establish fraud, whether the action is at law or in equity.” 245 So. 2d at 53. See also Blaeser Development Corp. v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Martin County, 375 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In so holding, the court specifically overruled another exception to the preponder- [*1323] anee rule referred to in Trickey v. Stone, supra, under which clear and convincing evidence was required to establish fraud in a chancer…1 / 2
-
Dianne D. and David L. Sprayberry v. Sheffield Auto & Truck Serv., Inc., 422 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…is a divergence of views on this subject in the opinions of the various district courts of appeal and the Florida Supreme Court. Compare Rigot v. Bucci, 245 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1971); Blaeser Development Corp. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 375 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, Inc., 358 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Harrell v. Branson, 344 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Pender v. Hatcher, 303 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (a preponderance or greater weight of the e…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rigot v. Bucci, 245 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1971)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Ocala Mfg., 332 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1976)